I do want to comment on this report later but wanted to save the link, as the original article, originally from Drudge, seemed to tell a story of a thoroughly preposterous set of ideas. So read for yourself, and come back tomorrow for commentary!
UPDATE:
Sunday night. I’m watching Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 with the boys and taking notes on the report, “Approaches for Promoting Healthy Food Purchases by SNAP Participants.”
Here are my excerpts, notes, and comments.
Most Americans, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants, do not purchase enough whole grains, dark green and orange vegetables, and legumes, and purchase too many items with excess calories from fats and added sugars.
Many products in grocery stores and other food retail environments carry front of package (FOP) and shelf labels that communicate health claims and nutrition information to consumers.
How can nutrition labeling systems be used to direct, encourage, or incentivize healthier food choices by SNAP participants in retail food settings? As such, the research project had three main objectives: (1) to develop a plan for how FOP and shelf-labeling systems could be applied to identify healthy choices across all food categories (packaged, bulk, frozen, fresh) and could be used as a basis for incentivizing healthy choices for SNAP participants, (2) to develop theory-based approaches that leverage FOP and shelf-labeling systems to promote healthier food purchases by SNAP participants in a manner that is consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), and (3) to identify two approaches that warranted further exploration, describing a step-wise study design for implementing and testing the impact of each approach through a future pilot study.
Various retailers currently have shelf-labelling systems to identify healthy foods, and foods themselves have “FOP” = “front of package” labels. The FDA/USDA could create its own standardized system for general implementation, then based on these ratings, deem specific products as “healthy” – for instance, those which hit 75 out of a 100 point scale.
Coupons and other incentive programs to be offered . . . in order to ensure the program succeeds, the cashiers and other store employees will need training, to direct customers to healthier items.
Store staff would ideally need to know how to respond to a customer who asked why one can of carrots was rated higher than another and which item was coupon eligible.
Proposed approaches:
EBT rebate: extra money loaded onto the food stamp card for buying healthier food.
This incentive would be offered at two levels that reflect different price elasticities for different categories of food. The findings from HIP support the provision of a 30% rebate on fruits and vegetables (Bartlett et al., 2013). In this approach, the 30% rebate would be offered for these food categories. A secondary, lesser rebate amount would be established for all other food categories based on combined price elasticities and the identification of a health objective by USDA (a similar process was used to determine the incentive amounts for HIP). The total dollar amount for both the tier 1 and tier 2 rebates would be capped at $60 per household per month.
2-for-1 promotions: coupons for buy one get one free, e.g., “buy one piece of fruit, get one free,” or the like.
The theory of “mental accounting” suggests that coupon-like financial incentives may be more effective at influencing the total diet because, if funds are earmarked for a certain purpose, recipients tend to spend within that category until funds are entirely depleted. Recipients spend within mental categories associated with designations such as “fruits” or “drinks.”
These coupons would be provided by the retailers, not by the government.
To implement this approach, retailers would provide a limited number of coupons per month (approximately 5–10) for items across all food categories, based on their internally planned promotion cycles and understanding of their consumer base. To support the development of offers that cover all food categories, retailers would be asked to develop at least one offer for each of the major food groups (e.g., protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, grains) per month. Retailers would be encouraged to offer a mix of fresh and frozen items in these selections as well. Once the targeted items for the 2-for-1 offer have been identified, retailers would develop the coupons for inclusion in a monthly circular that would be distributed only to SNAP consumers.
In addition to the mailing, there would also be online tools. And so as to not have an overwhelming number of coupons (since the coupons would be store-specific) the system would track where individual recipients actually shop and send out coupons only for those stores.
“MyCart” grocery divider:
The grocery cart would be divided into specific sections, to encourage shoppers to fill the “healthy” section of their cart with proportions reflecting the “MyPlate” proportions, and a remaining section for non-foodstuffs (e.g., paper towels). There wouldn’t necessarily be a specific financial benefit, though, just a notification: “congratulations, your purchases are healthy.”
As with the other incentives, there would also be “online tools.”
The Live Better Reward Card
I’m not actually sure what the difference between this and the rebate card described previously. The general concept: buy healthy food, get benefits — in this case, reward points rather than a rebate.
The two “winning” approaches:
Discount coupons: manufacturers would provide coupons directly to food stamp recipients specifically for healthy items.
One option would be to use MyPlate as guidance, requiring offers to include at least one item in each of five food groups (fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, lean protein) per month. If the manufacturer’s portfolio did not cover the full range of food groups, the manufacturer would be asked to develop an offer that covers as many of the food groups as are represented. Additional guidelines could include requirements for at least one fresh and one frozen food coupon offer per month to further diversify the coupon package, with waivers for those manufacturers that have only frozen or fresh items in their portfolios. In cases where a manufacturer carries only one food group, the manufacturer would be asked to develop a coupon for fresh, frozen, dried, or canned items offered.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In