We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are rapidly depleted after distribution. This phenomenon, known as the benefit cycle, is associated with poor nutrition and health outcomes. However, to date, no study has evaluated trends in food expenditures before and after households receive benefits using prospective data, and whether these trends vary by household characteristics.
Design:
Generalised estimating equations were used to model weekly household food expenditures during baseline (pre-benefit) and intervention months by vendor (restaurants and food retailers). Food retailer expenditures were further evaluated by food category (fruits and vegetables and foods high in added sugar). All expenditures were evaluated by household composition, demographics and economic means.
Low-income households (n 249) enrolled May 2013–August 2015.
Results:
Weekly food retailer expenditures did not vary during baseline (pre-benefit), but demonstrated a cyclical pattern after households received benefits across all household characteristics and for both food categories, particularly for fruits and vegetables. Households with greater economic resources spent more throughout the month compared with those with fewer resources. Households with lower food security status experienced more severe fluctuations in spending compared with more food secure households.
Conclusions:
Cyclical food purchasing was observed broadly across different household characteristics and food categories, with notable differences by household economic means and food security status. Proposed SNAP policy changes designed to smooth food expenditures across the benefit month, such as increased frequency of benefit distribution, should include a focus on households with fewest resources.
This study quantifies how spending changes induced by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) affects production and employment in rural and urban areas. A general equilibrium simulation model with an estimated demand system is first used to project how SNAP affects spending on different goods and services. These impacts are then linked to the expansion and contraction of different economic sectors that differ in importance across rural and urban Oregon. In urban areas, a number of service sectors linked to higher-income households shrink slightly in response to SNAP, while food-related sectors expand; the net effect on jobs is slightly negative. Production changes in rural areas are generally smaller, while having a slightly positive net effect on jobs. Overall, SNAP makes a positive difference for low- or no-income households without strong effects elsewhere in the economy.
The current study aimed to (i) describe racial/ethnic disparities in household food and beverage purchases among participants and non-participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and (ii) examine longitudinal associations between SNAP participation and purchases by race/ethnicity.
Design
To describe disparities, we estimated sociodemographic-adjusted mean purchases of seven unhealthy food and beverage groups (e.g. junk food, sugar-sweetened beverages) and four nutrients (e.g. sugar, Na) among white, black and Hispanic SNAP-participating and non-participating households. To examine longitudinal associations, we used multivariable linear regression with household fixed effects.
Setting
USA, 2010–2014.
Subjects
Food and beverage purchases among low-income (≤250 % federal poverty line) US households (n 30 403) participating in the Nielsen Homescan Panel.
Results
Among non-participants, there were significant black–white disparities (i.e. differences favouring white households) in households’ adjusted mean purchases of processed meat, sweeteners, sugar-sweetened beverages, energy and Na. These disparities persisted among SNAP participants. In contrast, the only significant Hispanic–white disparity among non-participants was for Na purchases; this disparity was reduced in magnitude and no longer significant among SNAP-participating households. Additionally, Hispanic households purchased less energy from junk foods than white households, regardless of SNAP status. In longitudinal models accounting for household fixed effects, SNAP participation was associated with increased energy purchased among black households. No other significant longitudinal associations between SNAP and purchase outcomes were observed.
Conclusions
SNAP may not be meeting its potential to improve food and beverage purchases or reduce disparities. Research is needed to identify strategies for ensuring nutritious purchases across all racial/ethnic groups.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.