The Economists’ Voice: Special Issue on Nutrition and Poverty Introduction

Americans spend billions of dollars a year fueling enormous commercial agricultural operations to plant more crops than we need, while tens of millions of Americans – and a huge number of American children – live tenuously close to hunger. Millions more are kept from the brink by our Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that provides a paltry $4.13 per person each day.1 Having a two-headed policy that addresses production and consumption is necessary. Just having a bounteous supply does not ensure each American will be fed. And just giving poor Americans money to buy food does not ensure they can or will do so. However, when the end result is that we produce far more food than we need, because of subsidies, whilemillions of our citizens both have inadequate food on the table and suffer from nutrition-related diseases in epidemic proportions, there is clearly a problem in need of an urgent solution. Post-depression-era farm subsidies made sense because they relieved farmers’ poverty, allowing them to keep producing food so that the nation could feed itself. The 21st century is not the 1930s. While many might nostalgically think of the family farmer in overalls and a straw hat, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to a small number of very large American corporations and conglomerates that wield disproportionate political power. Modern subsidies do not tackle modern dietary problems and, in fact, exacerbate the health problems associated with Americans’ distorted diets. These dietary distortions have had devastating consequences, especially in low-income areas: exploding obesity rates, increasing rates of Type 2 diabetes, and declining learning outcomes. Dietary inequality is a factor that reduces quality of life amongst those most affected by income inequality. Poor nutrition is a cause of the epidemic level of diabetes2 and other poor health outcomes. The food paradox is that we collectively spend huge amounts on farm subsidies, yet many citizens do not have access to high-quality, nutritious food. We collectively spend huge amounts on healthcare, yet our health outcomes, particularly for those living in poverty, are a national emergency. A chain of poor policy choices is exacerbating inequality. One of our main anti-poverty efforts is SNAP (modern-day food stamps). Despite providing only $125.50 per person permonth,3 the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP kept 10.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2012.4 However, a two-person household receiving SNAP benefits and a $7.25 per hour minimum wage job is still below the poverty line, and more so if that income is the sole source for a family of four or more.5 We clearly need a stronger food stamp program and more rational subsidies for food production. Stagnant minimumwages with rising costs of living magnifies the health and human development problems associated with poor access to nutrition. Budget constraints and thework requirement to obtain benefits6 have reduced the number of SNAP claimants and the average monthly benefit per claimant.7 All the while, one-third of adults are obese and 10% of adults have diabetes.8 Where do we go from here? This special issue of the Economists’ Voice focuses on the interplay between nutrition and poverty, how they are related, and what we can do about it. We aim to provide the most relevant information and analysis for economists, legislative bodies, and policy makers to consider as our society tries to address the complex issues of food security, quality, and affordability, especially amongst our most vulnerable. This edition provides papers that advocate for economic and nutrition policies that can provide the greatest help to low-income Americans, including improving SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants and Children, raising the minimumwage, offering price incentives for healthier foods, providing nutrition education, and reforming our tax and subsidy system to incentivize better food choices. Policy makers must recognize the interplay between the enormous long-term health costs generated by a shortsighted pandering to agribusiness lobbying.