Rebecca L Franckle1, Alyssa Moran1, Tao Hou1, Dan Blue2, Julie Greene3, Anne N Thorndike4, Michele Polacsek5, Eric B Rimm6. 1. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Hannaford Marketing, Hannaford Supermarkets, Scarborough, Maine. 3. Hannaford Healthy Living, Hannaford Supermarkets, Scarborough, Maine. 4. General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. School of Community and Population Health, University of New England, Portland, Maine. 6. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: erimm@hsph.harvard.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although one in seven Americans receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, little is known about how these benefits for food are spent because individual-level sales data are not publicly available. The purpose of this study is to compare transactions made with and without SNAP benefits at a large regional supermarket chain. METHODS: Sales data were obtained from a large supermarket chain in the Northeastern U.S. for a period of 2 years (April 2012-April 2014). Multivariate multiple regression models were used to quantify relative differences in dollars spent on 31 predefined SNAP-eligible food categories. Analyses were completed in 2016. RESULTS: Transactions with SNAP benefit use included higher spending on less healthful food categories, including sugar-sweetened beverages ($1.08), red meat ($1.55), and convenience foods ($1.34), and lower spending on more healthful food categories, such as fruits (-$1.51), vegetables (-$1.35), and poultry (-$1.25) compared to transactions without SNAP benefit use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide objective data to compare purchases made with and without SNAP benefits. Next steps should be to test proposed SNAP modifications to determine whether they would have the intended effect of promoting healthier purchasing patterns among SNAP beneficiaries.
INTRODUCTION: Although one in seven Americans receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, little is known about how these benefits for food are spent because individual-level sales data are not publicly available. The purpose of this study is to compare transactions made with and without SNAP benefits at a large regional supermarket chain. METHODS: Sales data were obtained from a large supermarket chain in the Northeastern U.S. for a period of 2 years (April 2012-April 2014). Multivariate multiple regression models were used to quantify relative differences in dollars spent on 31 predefined SNAP-eligible food categories. Analyses were completed in 2016. RESULTS: Transactions with SNAP benefit use included higher spending on less healthful food categories, including sugar-sweetened beverages ($1.08), red meat ($1.55), and convenience foods ($1.34), and lower spending on more healthful food categories, such as fruits (-$1.51), vegetables (-$1.35), and poultry (-$1.25) compared to transactions without SNAP benefit use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide objective data to compare purchases made with and without SNAP benefits. Next steps should be to test proposed SNAP modifications to determine whether they would have the intended effect of promoting healthier purchasing patterns among SNAP beneficiaries.
Authors: Cindy W Leung; Susan J Blumenthal; Elena E Hoffnagle; Helen H Jensen; Susan B Foerster; Marion Nestle; Lilian W Y Cheung; Dariush Mozaffarian; Walter C Willett Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lisa Harnack; J Michael Oakes; Brian Elbel; Timothy Beatty; Sarah Rydell; Simone French Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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: Michele Polacsek; Alyssa Moran; Anne N Thorndike; Rebecca Boulos; Rebecca L Franckle; Julie C Greene; Dan J Blue; Jason P Block; Eric B Rimm Journal: J Nutr Educ Behav Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Alyssa J Moran; Aviva Musicus; Mary T Gorski Findling; Ian F Brissette; Ann A Lowenfels; S V Subramanian; Christina A Roberto Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Rebecca L Franckle; Anne N Thorndike; Alyssa J Moran; Tao Hou; Dan Blue; Julie C Greene; Sara N Bleich; Jason P Block; Michele Polacsek; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Anna H Grummon; Joshua Petimar; Fang Zhang; Anjali Rao; Steven L Gortmaker; Eric B Rimm; Sara N Bleich; Alyssa J Moran; Rebecca L Franckle; Michele Polacsek; Denise Simon; Julie C Greene; Sue Till; Jason P Block Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-06-05 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Chelsea R Singleton; Megan Winkler; Bailey Houghtaling; Oluwafikayo S Adeyemi; Alexandra M Roehll; J J Pionke; Elizabeth Anderson Steeves Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Penny M Kris-Etherton; Kristina S Petersen; Gladys Velarde; Neal D Barnard; Michael Miller; Emilio Ros; James H O'Keefe; Kim Williams; Linda Van Horn; Muzi Na; Christina Shay; Paul Douglass; David L Katz; Andrew M Freeman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 5.501