The Policy Intervention and Income Level as an Influencers on Stamp Act

The United States offers numerous important governmental support programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly known as Food Stamp Program[1]), National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The purpose of these programs are to increase food security, and more importantly the quality and quantity of food available to individuals. Considering its nutritional perspective, the WIC includes a specific goods lists, such as milk, eggs and, vegetables. Similarly, the NSLP stipulates that each meal for children must to include vitamins A, and C, iron, calcium, protein and less than 10% saturated fat. Hence, both the NSLP and WIC address not only the quantity of food available but also the quality. SNAP does not have any such restrictions.

The body of literature regarding investigations of SNAP is broad. Some studies indicate positive results, namely that SNAP participation reduces food insecurity (FI) (Kabbani and Kmeid, 2005). Ratcliffe et al (2011) investigate the effectiveness of SNAP in reducing FI by using a dummy endogenous variable model with that instrumental variables (IV estimator) to manage the most significant issue highlighted in the literature, which is the selection bias problem. The results show that by using a strong IV model on nationally representative (Self Invested Personal Pension) SIPP, evidence was obtained that SNAP reduced the food- related hardship of a household.

Furthermore, Mykerezi, and Mills (2010) evaluated the impact of SNAP on FI using the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID) 1999 data. The authors investigated SNAP participants endogenously to estimate treatment impacts as a binary choice by using state-level errors in over payments or underpayments of SNAP benefits and a one year FI scale. The results of study provide strong positive evidence that FI may decrease at least 19% by participating in SNAP.

The decrease of FI is deemed to increase participants' health. However, some issues, such as obesity and diabetes have arisen with program, as it supplies additional food, but the goods chosen depend on participants' preferences. In another words, SNAP does not restrict people's food choices, unlike the WIC or NSLP as mentioned previously. Minnesota requested permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with SNAP benefits (Guthrie et al, 2007). This proposal was intended to promote diet quality by limiting the purchase of empty calories but it was rejected. California, on the other hand has passed a 'Healthy Purchase' pilot program. For every $1 of SNAP spent on fresh produce, participants refunded a specific portion as a bonus under this program (Guthrie et al, 2007). Nevertheless, no specific restrictions or limitations exist regarding the purchasing of junk food such as candy, soft drinks, or fatty foods.

Huang et al (1981) conducted one of the early studies regarding SNAP participants' food choices. The authors used Consumer Expenditure Dairy Survey (CEDS) to examine the impact of SNAP on low-income families' food patterns. Their results indicate that behavior related to the amount of food purchased by households may be influenced by SNAP. These researchers focused only on the low-income group, but the sample for current study includes, different income groups. While the food classifications in the study (Huang et al, 1981) refer to food consumed at home, I included both food consumed at home and food eaten away from home in this study. Also different income groups and food choices are included this study. It may provide more comprehensive perspective of the evaluation of food choices. Basiotis et al. (1983) evaluated the nutrition consumption patterns of low-income SNAP receivers. They use the Engel curve and data from 1977-1978 Nationwide Food Consumption survey. The authors apply a simultaneous equation system for the estimation of food costs and diet component availability levels of food at home. The results of the study show that diet component availability level was relatively constant across households with different income levels. Because different income levels are address in the current study, I believe it may provide more comprehensive knowledge about SNAP participants' food choices than Huang et al (1981) and Basiotis et al (1983) did.

Furthermore, Wilde and Ranney (2000) evaluated the mean of food spending among SNAP users and found that participants spend increased amounts within the first three days of receiving benefits. These spending patterns represent shopping frequency and food intake decisions over time in light of SNAP benefits. The researchers used a non linear Engel curve on CEDS data set. The results indicate that the frequency of households' grocery shopping may be influenced by involvement in the program.

Guthrie et al, (2007) mention the significance of SNAP participants choosing food with high nutritional quality rather than focusing on quantity. Their results suggest that the efficiency of the program may be affected by economic factors such as, the budget share of SNAP and food expenditure patterns of participants. Correspondingly, Wiig and Smith (2009) investigated the relationship between low-income women's shopping behavior and participation in SNAP to examine food choices. They applied a demographic and diet/ health perception questionnaire before measuring participants' weight, height, and body mass index (BMI). The results show that food choices and grocery shopping behavior depend on participants' economic, environmental conditions and preferences. Although the study is similar to the current study because it considers the SNAP users' food choices, Smith and Wiig restricted their study only to low-income women.

Larson and Story (2009) indicate the importance of the influence of environmental conditions on households' food choices, likewise, Wiig and Smith (2009) mentioned before. Their findings show that a diet-related environment and supplemental nutrition program, such as SNAP or policy interventions are supported at a population level due to individual changes. The authors thought possibly ease and sustain if the environment within which choices are made supports healthful food options.

Kreider et al (2012) analyzed the impact of SNAP on children's health outcomes by applying a binary outcome model and calculating average treatment impact (ATE) for SNAP recipients on each of the health related outcomes, namely anemia, obesity, and poor general health. Beatty and Tuttle, (2015) investigated the effects of large benefit changes in SNAP on the food expenditure of participants during the economic crisis. The authors used Consumer Expenditure Quarterly Interview Survey (CEX) data from 2007 to 2010, a period during which SNAP benefits increased significantly several times. Additionally, they use difference-in-difference method, a placebo policy dummy, to check the robustness of the results on expenditure on food eaten away from home collected CPS. The results show that households change their purchase behavior because of an increase in in-kind transfer. In another words, SNAP participants significantly increase spending on food at home due to benefit increases, and SNAP participation may affect the receivers health.

In summary, the studies mentioned provide some insights into how food choices may be influenced by environmental effects, policy intervention and individuals' income level, which is increased through involvement in SNAP. Subsequently, people's general health may be affected. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how SNAP participation influences households' food choices.