Susan J Blumenthal1, Elena E Hoffnagle2, Cindy W Leung3, Hayley Lofink4, Helen H Jensen5, Susan B Foerster6, Lilian Wy Cheung7, Marion Nestle8, Walter C Willett7. 1. 1New America Foundation,1899 L Street,NW - Suite 400,Washington,DC 20036,USA. 2. 2National League of Cities,Washington,DC,USA. 3. 3Center for Health and Community,School of Medicine,University of California,San Francisco,3333 California Street - Suite 465,San Francisco,CA 94118,USA. 4. 4School-Based Health Alliance,Washington,DC,USA. 5. 5Department of Economics,Iowa State University,Ames,IA,USA. 6. 6Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress,Washington,DC,USA. 7. 7Department of Nutrition,Harvard School of Public Health,Boston,MA,USA. 8. 8Department of Nutrition,Food Studies and Public Health,New York University,New York,NY,USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the opinions of stakeholders on strategies to improve dietary quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. DESIGN: Participants answered a thirty-eight-item web-based survey assessing opinions and perceptions of SNAP and programme policy changes. SETTING USA SUBJECTS: Survey of 522 individuals with stakeholder interest in SNAP, conducted in October through December 2011. RESULTS: The top three barriers to improving dietary quality identified were: (i) unhealthy foods marketed in low-income communities; (ii) the high cost of healthy foods; and (iii) lifestyle challenges faced by low-income individuals. Many respondents (70 %) also disagreed that current SNAP benefit levels were adequate to maintain a healthy diet. Stakeholders believed that vouchers, coupons or monetary incentives for purchasing healthful foods might have the greatest potential for improving the diets of SNAP participants. Many respondents (78 %) agreed that sodas should not be eligible for purchases with SNAP benefits. More than half (55 %) believed retailers could easily implement such restrictions. A majority of respondents (58 %) agreed that stores should stock a minimum quantity of healthful foods in order to be certified as a SNAP retailer, and most respondents (83 %) believed that the US Department of Agriculture should collect data on the foods purchased with SNAP benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that there is broad stakeholder support for policies that align SNAP purchase eligibility with national public health goals of reducing food insecurity, improving nutrition and preventing obesity.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the opinions of stakeholders on strategies to improve dietary quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. DESIGN: Participants answered a thirty-eight-item web-based survey assessing opinions and perceptions of SNAP and programme policy changes. SETTING USA SUBJECTS: Survey of 522 individuals with stakeholder interest in SNAP, conducted in October through December 2011. RESULTS: The top three barriers to improving dietary quality identified were: (i) unhealthy foods marketed in low-income communities; (ii) the high cost of healthy foods; and (iii) lifestyle challenges faced by low-income individuals. Many respondents (70 %) also disagreed that current SNAP benefit levels were adequate to maintain a healthy diet. Stakeholders believed that vouchers, coupons or monetary incentives for purchasing healthful foods might have the greatest potential for improving the diets of SNAP participants. Many respondents (78 %) agreed that sodas should not be eligible for purchases with SNAP benefits. More than half (55 %) believed retailers could easily implement such restrictions. A majority of respondents (58 %) agreed that stores should stock a minimum quantity of healthful foods in order to be certified as a SNAP retailer, and most respondents (83 %) believed that the US Department of Agriculture should collect data on the foods purchased with SNAP benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that there is broad stakeholder support for policies that align SNAP purchase eligibility with national public health goals of reducing food insecurity, improving nutrition and preventing obesity.
Authors: Cara B Ebbeling; Henry A Feldman; Virginia R Chomitz; Tracy A Antonelli; Steven L Gortmaker; Stavroula K Osganian; David S Ludwig Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Qibin Qi; Audrey Y Chu; Jae H Kang; Majken K Jensen; Gary C Curhan; Louis R Pasquale; Paul M Ridker; David J Hunter; Walter C Willett; Eric B Rimm; Daniel I Chasman; Frank B Hu; Lu Qi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cindy W Leung; Eric L Ding; Paul J Catalano; Eduardo Villamor; Eric B Rimm; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Cindy W Leung; Elena E Hoffnagle; Ana C Lindsay; Hayley E Lofink; Vanessa A Hoffman; Sophie Turrell; Walter C Willett; Susan J Blumenthal Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Vasanti S Malik; Barry M Popkin; George A Bray; Jean-Pierre Després; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Michael W Long; Cindy W Leung; Lilian W Y Cheung; Susan J Blumenthal; Walter C Willett Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Cindy W Leung; Suzanne Ryan-Ibarra; Amanda Linares; Marta Induni; Sharon Sugerman; Michael W Long; Eric B Rimm; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rebecca L Franckle; Alyssa Moran; Tao Hou; Dan Blue; Julie Greene; Anne N Thorndike; Michele Polacsek; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Tonja R Nansel; Leah M Lipsky; Miriam H Eisenberg; Aiyi Liu; Sanjeev N Mehta; Lori M B Laffel Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 4.910