Analysis of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Program Mandate and its Contribution to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal initiative providing low-income individuals with aid for food purchases, directly addressing the targets of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by enhancing food security.
• As a critical social safety net, SNAP also functions as a key tool in achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty), mitigating financial hardship for vulnerable households.
• Recent legislative changes, including expanded work requirements, have been enacted. Projections from state health departments and the Urban Institute suggest these changes could reduce benefits for thousands of residents, potentially undermining progress toward these fundamental SDGs.

Economic Linkages to the Agricultural Sector and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

Assessment of SNAP’s Financial Impact on Farmers and Ranchers

An analysis was conducted to verify the claim that “Nearly 25 cents of every $1 spent via SNAP goes to farmers and ranchers.” This examination connects the social support program to its role in supporting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by sustaining livelihoods within the agricultural sector.

1. Data Verification: According to a 2023 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, farm establishments received 24.3 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food-at-home.
2. Relevance to SNAP: SNAP benefits are statutorily restricted to food items for at-home consumption, making this “food-at-home” metric directly applicable to program spending.
3. Consumer Behavior Parity: Independent research demonstrates that the food purchasing habits of SNAP and non-SNAP households are broadly similar, validating the application of the general statistic to SNAP-specific spending.
4. Conclusion: The evidence confirms the accuracy of the claim. This finding illustrates how social safety net expenditures provide a direct economic stimulus to the primary production sector, supporting the economic viability of farms and ranches.

Promoting Health and Sustainable Production Systems

Aligning with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

The distribution of the food dollar reveals opportunities to advance additional sustainable development objectives, particularly in health and responsible production.

• Food Supply Chain Nuances: The farmer’s share of the retail price varies significantly by product. It is higher for less processed foods (e.g., over 60 cents for eggs) and lower for highly processed items (e.g., one cent for a wheat bagel).
• Incentivizing Healthy Choices (SDG 3): Initiatives such as “Double Dollars” programs, which match SNAP funds spent on fruits and vegetables at farmers’ markets, directly promote SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by making nutritious food more accessible and affordable.
• Supporting Local and Responsible Production (SDG 12): By channeling funds to farmers’ markets, these programs foster shorter supply chains and support local producers. This model aligns with the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by strengthening local economies and promoting sustainable food systems.

Overall Assessment and Ruling

SNAP’s Integrated Role in Achieving Sustainable Development

• The claim that nearly 25 cents of every SNAP dollar supports farmers and ranchers is substantiated by official data and expert analysis.
• This report concludes that SNAP is a multifaceted policy instrument. It not only serves as a vital tool for combating poverty and hunger (SDG 1, SDG 2) but also functions as a significant contributor to local economic growth (SDG 8).
• Furthermore, when coupled with targeted incentives, the program can be effectively leveraged to advance public health outcomes (SDG 3) and promote more sustainable food systems (SDG 12).

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

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

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • The article focuses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which it explicitly defines as a federal program providing “low-income people with cash assistance.” This directly connects to SDG 1, which aims to end poverty in all its forms, particularly through social protection systems for the poor and vulnerable.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • The primary function of SNAP is to provide aid “to buy certain foods,” addressing food security for low-income populations. The article also delves into the economic benefits for “farmers and ranchers,” linking food access for the poor with the livelihoods of food producers, which are central themes of SDG 2.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • The article’s main claim is about the economic impact of SNAP on the agricultural sector, stating that “nearly 25 cents of every $1 spent via SNAP goes to farmers and ranchers.” This highlights how a social program supports the income and economic viability of farmers, contributing to economic growth within that sector.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • The article mentions programs like “Dane County’s Double Dollars program,” which incentivizes SNAP recipients to purchase fruits and vegetables at farmers’ markets. This promotes local food systems and healthier consumption patterns, aligning with the goals of sustainable consumption.

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

1. 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.

   • The article is centered on SNAP, which is a prime example of a “nationally appropriate social protection system” in the United States. The discussion about expanding work requirements and potential benefit cuts for “thousands of Wisconsin residents” directly relates to the “coverage of the poor and the vulnerable” under this system.

2. 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.

   • SNAP is designed to ensure “access by all people, in particular the poor… to… food.” The article highlights concerns that changes to the program could “reduce SNAP benefits,” thereby threatening the year-round food access this target aims to secure.

3. Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.

   • The article’s core analysis of how “24.3 cents for every dollar spent on food at home” goes to “farmers and ranchers” is a direct examination of the income of food producers. The mention of SNAP dollars spent at “farmers’ markets” further connects the program to the financial well-being of local and likely small-scale producers.

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 1.3 & 2.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems.

   • The article implies this indicator by discussing the “number of Americans who need to meet work requirements to qualify for the aid” and the potential for changes to “reduce SNAP benefits for thousands of Wisconsin residents.” These figures measure the coverage and adequacy of the SNAP social protection system.

2. Indicator for Target 2.3: The farmer’s share of the food dollar.

   • The article explicitly provides this indicator, stating, “farm establishments made 24.3 cents for every dollar spent on food at home in 2023.” It further breaks this down by food type, noting farmers receive “50 cents on the dollar for apples and more than 60 cents on the dollar for eggs,” which are direct measures of farmer income from consumer spending.

3. Indicator for promoting sustainable practices: Existence and use of incentive programs.

   • The article describes “Double Up programs” and specifically “Dane County’s Double Dollars program,” which “matches SNAP dollars up to $20 at area farmers markets.” The existence and scale of such programs serve as an indicator of efforts to promote local food systems and healthy consumption.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: jsonline.com