Douglas County food security advocates discuss impacts of possible SNAP losses, food as a human right at workshop – The Lawrence Times

Report on the Mobilizing Food Systems Workshop and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals in Douglas County

Introduction: Aligning Local Food Security with Global Goals

A workshop organized by the Douglas County Food Policy Council, LiveWell Douglas County, Kansas Appleseed, and other community partners addressed local food systems, with a significant focus on threats to food security. The discussion highlighted the critical role of social safety nets in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2: Zero Hunger) and SDG 1 (SDG 1: No Poverty). The event underscored the fragility of systems designed to meet these goals, as impending policy changes and a federal government shutdown threaten to undermine food access for vulnerable populations in Kansas.

Analysis of Threats to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Immediate Risks to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The primary concern raised at the workshop was the potential disruption of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which directly jeopardizes progress toward ending hunger and ensuring access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food.

• Benefit Disruption: A federal government budget impasse threatens to delay or withhold November SNAP benefits, affecting 188,000 Kansans.
• Financial Scale: The program distributes $34.4 million monthly in Kansas, a crucial resource for food-insecure households.
• Community Impact: With 11.5% of Douglas County residents experiencing food insecurity, any interruption to SNAP benefits represents a significant setback for achieving Zero Hunger at the local level.

Systemic Challenges and Policy Implications for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Beyond the immediate shutdown threat, systemic policy challenges to SNAP risk exacerbating inequalities, a direct contradiction to the aims of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Legislative Changes: The program faces changes under a sweeping federal economic bill that could alter its structure and funding.
2. Administrative Burdens: Kansas faces a potential $55 million in administrative costs if SNAP payment error rates are not reduced, diverting resources that could otherwise support social programs.
3. Disproportionate Impact: These challenges disproportionately affect low-income families, children, and other vulnerable groups, widening the gap in access to basic necessities.

The Interconnected Food System and its Economic Impact

Vulnerabilities in the Local Food Supply Chain (SDG 8 & SDG 11)

The workshop demonstrated the deep interconnection of the local food system, from production to consumption and disposal. A disruption to a key component like SNAP has cascading effects, threatening the stability of the local economy and the creation of sustainable communities (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities).

• System-Wide Impact: A failure in one part of the food system, such as consumer purchasing power via SNAP, negatively impacts all other links, including growers, processors, and distributors.
• Economic Consequences: The loss of SNAP funds affects the entire local economy, impacting jobs and the viability of small businesses, which is contrary to the principles of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
• Inadequacy of Charitable Systems: Elizabeth Keever of Harvesters noted that for every one meal provided by the charitable food system, nine are provided by SNAP, illustrating that charitable efforts cannot absorb the impact of a large-scale government program failure.

Economic Repercussions for Local Producers and Markets

The potential loss of SNAP benefits directly harms local agricultural producers and markets that have integrated the program into their business models to support both community health and local economic vitality.

• Farmers Market Impact: The Lawrence Farmers Market, which runs a Double Up Food Bucks program, has seen SNAP redemption grow to $13,500. This program turns $25 in SNAP benefits into $75 worth of produce and protein, simultaneously supporting local farmers and improving nutrition for low-income families.
• Loss of Revenue: Without SNAP customers, local farmers lose a significant source of income, undermining the economic sustainability of local agriculture.

Community and Policy Responses to Uphold Sustainable Development Goals

The Role of Advocacy and Strong Institutions (SDG 16 & SDG 17)

Speakers emphasized that hunger is a policy choice and called for robust advocacy and partnerships to build effective and accountable institutions, in line with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Policy Engagement: Panelists urged attendees to build relationships with legislators to convey the human impact of policy decisions, making it more difficult to vote against community interests.
• A Call for Accountability: Representative Suzanne Wikle stated, “There’s not a shortage of food. There are misplaced priorities about the food,” urging citizens to contact their representatives and demand that SNAP be fully funded.
• Collaborative Action: The workshop itself serves as a model for SDG 17, bringing together diverse stakeholders to advocate for a common goal.

Local Initiatives and Community Resilience

Local programs and community-level actions are essential for building resilience and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals from the ground up.

1. Child Nutrition Programs: Advocacy for the Summer EBT program, which provides grocery benefits to children when school is out, is crucial for supporting SDG 2 and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).
2. Community Hubs: Schools, such as those in the Eudora Unified School System, function as vital community food hubs through programs like free breakfast, demonstrating a localized approach to food security.
3. Neighborhood Solidarity: The event concluded with a call for residents to support their neighbors, reinforcing the idea that community cohesion is fundamental to ensuring no one is left behind.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The entire article revolves around food insecurity, the role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and community efforts to ensure access to food. It directly addresses the challenge of ending hunger and ensuring all people have access to sufficient and nutritious food. The workshop’s purpose was to navigate food systems and advocate for families experiencing food insecurity.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article discusses SNAP as a critical social protection system for low-income individuals. The potential delay or withholding of SNAP benefits due to a government shutdown directly impacts the financial stability and well-being of the poor and vulnerable, connecting the issue of food security to the broader goal of poverty eradication.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The focus is on a specific community, Douglas County, and its local food system. The article highlights the interconnectedness of various parts of this system, from local farmers and vendors at the Lawrence Farmers Market to consumers. It discusses how disruptions to SNAP affect the entire local economy, demonstrating the importance of resilient and sustainable local systems.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article emphasizes the role of policy, government actions (like the federal shutdown and budget deals), and advocacy. It calls for citizens to engage with policymakers and for legislators to make responsive decisions. This highlights the need for effective and inclusive institutions to address societal problems like hunger, as speakers state that “hunger is a policy choice.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • The article’s central theme is the threat to food access for 188,000 Kansans who rely on SNAP. It also mentions programs like Summer EBT, which provides grocery benefits to school-age children, and the role of food pantries, all of which are mechanisms to ensure access to sufficient food for vulnerable populations.
2. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
   • SNAP is explicitly identified as a social protection system. The article details its scale in Kansas (“$34.4 million is distributed to 188,000 Kansans each month”) and discusses the severe impact that its disruption would have, underscoring its importance in providing a social safety net for the poor.
3. Target 11.A: Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.
   • The article describes the economic links within the local food system. It explains how SNAP benefits not only help shoppers but also support local farmers and vendors at the Lawrence Farmers Market. The potential loss of SNAP benefits would “impact our farmers and local food growers,” demonstrating the crucial economic connection between consumers (urban) and producers (peri-urban/rural).
4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article strongly advocates for citizen participation in policymaking. Speakers encourage attendees to connect with legislators, tell personal stories, and advocate for continued funding for SNAP. The quote, “It’s a lot easier to just close your eyes and vote when you haven’t heard from your community,” directly speaks to the need for responsive decision-making based on community input.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 2.1: Prevalence of food insecurity.
   • The article explicitly states a key statistic: “11.5% of county residents are food insecure.” This is a direct measurement corresponding to SDG Indicator 2.1.2 (Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population).
2. Indicator for Target 1.3: Coverage of social protection programs.
   • The article provides data on the number of people covered by SNAP in Kansas: “188,000 Kansans each month.” This figure serves as a measure for SDG Indicator 1.3.1 (Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems). The monetary value of “$34.4 million” distributed monthly also indicates the scale of the program.
3. Indicator for Target 11.A: Economic impact of local food programs.
   • The article provides financial data showing the economic links within the local food system. It mentions that SNAP recipients spend “as much as $2,550 at the market in a week” and that the Double Up Food Bucks program has grown to a redemption amount of “$13,500 in 2025.” These figures can be used as local-level indicators to measure the economic vitality of the connection between local producers and consumers.
4. Indicator for Target 16.7: Level of citizen engagement in policy advocacy.
   • While not providing a quantitative number, the article implies this indicator through its description of the workshop’s purpose and the calls to action. The organization of the “Mobilizing Food Systems workshop,” the advice to “introduce themselves to their legislators,” and the specific call to action to “call Congressman Tracey Mann” are all qualitative examples of citizen participation in the decision-making process.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: lawrencekstimes.com