Obesity is a major public health problem, and is a rising cause of death among western-industrialized countries. Dietary lifestyle plays a significant role in this issue so understanding how households respond to Food Stamps can indicate whether the SNAP’s current role in obesity in the US is a cause for reform. I will first show that households receiving Food Stamps react to targeted benefits infra-marginally, which doesn’t imply a more than proportional positive surge in food consumption. After assessing the nature of quantities purchased, I will assess the quality of foods purchased by SNAP recipients against non-recipient households. Despite sampling being isolated to only one large grocery retailer, emphasize that the two groups in question share very similar food spending decisions, indicating obesity as a nationwide issue across all the population. Finally, I will present the results of the Healthy Start Vouchers policy, which could act as a projection for the effectiveness of a SNAP reform, in promoting Healthy eating.
Part I: What effect do Food Stamps have on households?
To gain insight into whether the SNAP program has a detrimental impact on BMI we need to see how households react to receiving Food Stamps against receiving cash. This determines whether households are distorted or inframarginal and hence whether recipients will disproportionately spend more of their purchasing powers on food products. The canonical theory suggests that Food Stamps should have the same effect as cash benefits meaning consumers are inframarginal.
Previous studies having reported different outcomes, Hoynes and Schazenbach found that consumers respond to Food Stamps infra-marginally. This means that the rise in food expenditures because of Food Stamps resembles the response had cash benefits been given. So, we can say that ‘most’ household recipients haven’t excessively spent more of their spending power on Food. Does this mean that SNAP’s role in extreme eating (a strong determinant for obesity) is weak? In terms of quantities of food eaten recipients are not as reckless as speculated, but that doesn’t explain why Food Stamp recipients are more likely to obese than non-recipients of same socioeconomic qualities. What can be done to show thread towards the quality of food eaten SNAP recipients? Part II: How does food consumption differ between SNAP recipients and non-recipients? In view of all that has been mentioned so far, one may suggest understanding whether food purchasing decisions differs between recipients and non-recipients in terms of quality, or not. A study done by the USDA traced food purchases in SNAP households and non-recipients and highlighted that both types of households exhibited surprising parallel behavior. Having assorted purchases into descending rank (in terms of proportion to total bill), it was found that, both groups exhibited the same top 10 ranked categories of food, sharing the top 7 foods bought in the same rank order. The only variation could be cause for question was the fact that frozen prepared foods and sweetened beverages were ranked higher in SNAP households compared to non-SNAP households, but such expositions are unsatisfactory due to the fact that these foods (that could be deemed unhealthy) were still ranked in top 10 purchases of both samples- prepared desserts and salty snacks were among top 10 purchases. Another point that could show endogeneity in Food Stamp Eligibility is the fact that SNAP households showed higher ranking for baby foods. This could act as an indicator for possibly more heads per household in the SNAP sample, which may produce bias in the results in terms of its effect on obesity. However it is hard to suggest bias from marginal differences in spending patterns of the two samples, given the generalizability of the results could be put into question. It is problematic to generalize beyond the data, provided that the results were collected from only one single large grocery retailer. Nonetheless, even one brand outlet of data could be seen as untranslatable to the SNAP population, the NSDA were able to follow 1 billion transactions in a year, purchases by 26.5 million households. It still doesn’t explain why …show more content…
Healthy Start Scheme is a sample specific scheme implemented in the UK in 2005, designed to assist low income families predominantly with children under 4, in purchasing healthier foods vital to the development of infants, including the parents’ nutritional
Part I: What effect do Food Stamps have on households?
To gain insight into whether the SNAP program has a detrimental impact on BMI we need to see how households react to receiving Food Stamps against receiving cash. This determines whether households are distorted or inframarginal and hence whether recipients will disproportionately spend more of their purchasing powers on food products. The canonical theory suggests that Food Stamps should have the same effect as cash benefits meaning consumers are inframarginal.
Previous studies having reported different outcomes, Hoynes and Schazenbach found that consumers respond to Food Stamps infra-marginally. This means that the rise in food expenditures because of Food Stamps resembles the response had cash benefits been given. So, we can say that ‘most’ household recipients haven’t excessively spent more of their spending power on Food. Does this mean that SNAP’s role in extreme eating (a strong determinant for obesity) is weak? In terms of quantities of food eaten recipients are not as reckless as speculated, but that doesn’t explain why Food Stamp recipients are more likely to obese than non-recipients of same socioeconomic qualities. What can be done to show thread towards the quality of food eaten SNAP recipients? Part II: How does food consumption differ between SNAP recipients and non-recipients? In view of all that has been mentioned so far, one may suggest understanding whether food purchasing decisions differs between recipients and non-recipients in terms of quality, or not. A study done by the USDA traced food purchases in SNAP households and non-recipients and highlighted that both types of households exhibited surprising parallel behavior. Having assorted purchases into descending rank (in terms of proportion to total bill), it was found that, both groups exhibited the same top 10 ranked categories of food, sharing the top 7 foods bought in the same rank order. The only variation could be cause for question was the fact that frozen prepared foods and sweetened beverages were ranked higher in SNAP households compared to non-SNAP households, but such expositions are unsatisfactory due to the fact that these foods (that could be deemed unhealthy) were still ranked in top 10 purchases of both samples- prepared desserts and salty snacks were among top 10 purchases. Another point that could show endogeneity in Food Stamp Eligibility is the fact that SNAP households showed higher ranking for baby foods. This could act as an indicator for possibly more heads per household in the SNAP sample, which may produce bias in the results in terms of its effect on obesity. However it is hard to suggest bias from marginal differences in spending patterns of the two samples, given the generalizability of the results could be put into question. It is problematic to generalize beyond the data, provided that the results were collected from only one single large grocery retailer. Nonetheless, even one brand outlet of data could be seen as untranslatable to the SNAP population, the NSDA were able to follow 1 billion transactions in a year, purchases by 26.5 million households. It still doesn’t explain why …show more content…
Healthy Start Scheme is a sample specific scheme implemented in the UK in 2005, designed to assist low income families predominantly with children under 4, in purchasing healthier foods vital to the development of infants, including the parents’ nutritional