ARLINGTON, VA. — Americans strongly support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and most oppose potential benefit cuts to the more than 50-year-old federal hunger-assistance program, a national poll commissioned by FMI-The Food Industry Association shows.

Of 1,000 registered voters surveyed in late April on behalf of FMI, 64% said they hold a favorable opinion of SNAP. Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported they oppose cutting or reducing SNAP, while 33% support cutting or reducing the program.

Among voters against cutting SNAP or its benefits, 49% said they’re “strongly opposed” to doing so versus 14% who are “somewhat opposed,” according to the poll, conducted for FMI by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates.

“SNAP is very well-received across the political spectrum,” Jennifer Hatcher, chief public policy officer and senior vice president of government and member relations at FMI, said in a May 7 media videoconference. “Support for SNAP is strong across all partisan groups, with favorability better than two-to-one positive across all spectrums.”

Only about a third (33%) of voters polled said they’re in favor of cutting or reducing SNAP.

“Voters understand that SNAP is a hunger program, but there are a lot of details and facts about SNAP that voters do not understand or know about, and that’s where we come in,” Hatcher said. “For instance, the average voter believes that a SNAP recipient receives more than three times of the actual amount of benefit, which is $6 per day, and there is clear opposition to significantly cutting or reducing SNAP benefits.”

Among the top reasons for not cutting back on SNAP, 28% of voters surveyed cited “everyone deserves the right to eat.” That was followed by “helps low-income families (cited by 25%), “people rely on SNAP” (21%) and “cost of living going up” (12%).

Smaller percentages of respondents named reasons to cut SNAP. Those included abuse or fraud (cited by 19% of voters in favor of cutting SNAP), “people who don’t need SNAP are getting it” (17%), benefits being used to buy unhealthy foods (14%) and “promotes laziness” (13%).

“Fifty-nine percent of voters are opposed to significantly reducing SNAP benefits,” Hatcher said. “Voters understand what’s at stake here. They make it clear just how unpopular it is in their minds for lawmakers to significantly scale back SNAP benefits, regardless of how that’s done.”

Spending for key hunger program under scrutiny

Much of that sentiment comes from the sheer number of Americans in need who rely on SNAP. Currently, about 42 million people — or about one of every eight Americans — receive benefits under the program, according to USDA data. FMI said 75% of SNAP benefits are received by those at or below the poverty line, with 36% going to beneficiaries at or below half the poverty line. Also, 84% of all SNAP benefits are received by households with a child, an older adult or a person with a disability.

FMI reported that SNAP accounts for about 5% of US grocery retail sales and, according to the Virginia Poverty Law Center, every $1 given to the program generates $1.50 in the economy.

Citing the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), FMI said SNAP’s $6 daily benefit has led to a 30% reduction in food insecurity. What’s more, annual medical costs for SNAP recipients are 25% less than non-SNAP beneficiaries, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. The program, though, has high turnover, as CBPP said 52% of participants left the program within 12 months between 2008 and 2012.

In Congress, SNAP is in line for reduced funding. The House Agriculture Committee has been directed to cut programs in its jurisdiction by at least $230 billion through 2034 to offset an extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the cuts are likely to come “largely or entirely” from SNAP, according to FMI.

“Because of the jurisdiction of the agriculture committee, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, (Glen) GT Thompson from Pennsylvania, has vowed not to cut benefits,” Hatcher said. “He instead is looking at administrative cost savings, administrative savings and cost sharing, as well as fraud mitigation and work requirements. The budget resolution adopted by the Senate instructs the Senate Agriculture Committee to cut at least $1 billion. That’s a big difference than the $230 billion over that same period in the House process, although the final product will have to result in alignment of the two approaches between the House and the Senate.”

Improving SNAP administration

SNAP is managed at the federal level by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), but states ultimately handle the administration of SNAP payments. FMI said SNAP can be made more cost-efficient without potential benefit cuts via meaningful improvements to the program’s administration.

For example, the SNAP error rate — in which participants receive an incorrect amount on their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards — stood at 11.68% as of 2023, accounting for some $10.5 billion that year in misallocated payments, due to what Hatcher described as “preventable mistakes.” In addition, FMI noted that criminal entities use card skimmers to steal card numbers and benefits from SNAP recipients. The association reported that, according to the US Secret Service, EBT card skimming costs institutions and consumers more than $1 billion a year.

“Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments, although the overpayments are much, much more common,” Hatcher said. “Therefore, it’s reasonable for the federal government — as stewards of taxpayer funding — to work to reduce the SNAP error rate. Reducing the error rate and other fraud in the program isn’t just a financial imperative. It’s a matter of public trust, accountability and effective governance. The goal is clear to empower state agencies with the tools, the training and the systems they need to bring that error rate down and to ensure that every dollar goes to where it’s truly needed.”

This month, the USDA announced efforts designed to help prevent SNAP fraud and abuse. On May 2, the agency said its special investigations unit worked with federal law enforcement on operations in Los Angeles to crack down on criminals using card skimmers to steal SNAP benefits. Then on May 6, FNS announced that it will require states to ensure that all records associated with SNAP benefits and allotments are shared with the federal government.

Hatcher also addressed efforts by states to restrict SNAP participants from using their benefits to buy certain foods and beverages deemed as unhealthy, such as candy and soda, by requesting waivers from the USDA allowing them to exclude such items from the program. So far, she said, about 25 states have considered such requests, and at least four states — Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska — have requested SNAP waivers.

However, the SNAP waivers likely would further complicate the program’s administration and end up hiking costs, Hatcher said.

“States choosing to set their own restrictions would need to develop an electronically downloadable list of these restrictions or additions, if approved by USDA,” she said. “As you can imagine, this would create inconsistencies and confusions, particularly in communities where SNAP participants shop across state lines for better prices or convenience. A product permitted in one state might be restricted in another, leading to customer confusion, increased staff burden and checkout disruptions for all shoppers. We believe complex differing SNAP restrictions sorted by states would cause delays, errors and disputes further slowing the checkout speeds, frustrating customers and increasing operational costs.”

Currently, the food and beverage market has more than 650,000 items — with approximately 20,000 new products introduced annually — and the average supermarket stocks more than 32,000 items, Hatcher pointed out.

“Retailers would need to require, from all 50 state agencies and territorial authorities or the USDA, a constantly updated, electronically downloadable list of ineligible items on a monthly basis in order to update their point-of-sale systems and prevent these errors to avoid losing their SNAP authorization because of inadvertent ineligible purchases,” she said.

Addressing scrutiny of SNAP users’ shopping baskets, Steve Markenson, vice president of research and insights at FMI, noted that over the last year there was only a 3% spending difference across food categories between SNAP and non-SNAP households. Also, he said, SNAP households over-index on fresh food purchases, including a larger basket percentage for fresh meat and a range of fresh fruit and vegetable items.

“The USDA needs resources to collect and analyze current customer data to inform its decision-making and management of this essential hunger program,” Markenson said in the conference. “It’s important to remember that a SNAP shopper is just like other shoppers trying to feed their families, which is evident in their purchase behavior over the last year.”