Search the archive.

To be quite honest, I think we’re going to miss their leadership in this process more than we can fathom.

Deja vu

House Republicans were arguing not long ago that a deal on the debt ceiling could make it easier to pass a farm bill. Instead, many conservatives are angry over the debt agreement and demanding cuts to nutrition assistance and other programs that could delay the development of a new farm bill and even threaten its passage. 

. But the conservatives’ outrage over the debt ceiling agreement, , and new demands for deep cuts in domestic spending will further test McCarthy’s command of the GOP conference heading into the farm bill debate. 

Forget electric vehicles, wind turbines or pipelines. Congress’ most consequential climate battles this year are more likely to revolve around dirt and cows.

The five-year farm bill is scheduled to expire by Oct. 1, making it one of the few must-pass legislative items under this divided Congress. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee on Wednesday is holding its first hearing on the legislation, with many more to follow in both chambers.

How Much Does SNAP Reduce Poverty? In 2015, an estimated 40.8 million people were living in poverty as defined by the SPM with correction for underreporting (table D.1).12 Absent SNAP benefits, 49.1 million would be poor. Thus, SNAP removed 8.4 million people from poverty (figure 3), reducing the SPM poverty rate from 15.4 percent to 12.8 percent (a reduction of 17 percent). We show SNAP’s effects on poverty as a percent reduction and in absolute numbers. Percent reductions are useful when comparing the relative effect of SNAP among different groups. Numerical estimates highlight that large numbers of people are removed from poverty by SNAP even for groups where the percentage reduction in poverty is lower, especially if these groups represent a large share of the overall population. In 2015, SNAP caused the largest percentage reduction in poverty for the following groups: Children. SNAP reduced the number of children in poverty 28 percent. Non-Hispanic blacks. Poverty among non-Hispanic blacks fell 21 percent because of SNAP. Working families. SNAP reduced poverty in working families 21 percent. Families are classified as “working” if they include at least one adult younger than age 65 without a disability and a family member worked at some point during the year (not necessarily in a month in which SNAP was received). Residents of the Midwest and Northeast. SNAP reduced poverty in the Midwest and Northeast 19 percent and 18 percent, respectively (figure 4). Residents of nonmetropolitan areas. Poverty fell nearly a quarter (24 percent) in nonmetropolitan areas because of SNAP. SNAP has the smallest relative effect on poverty for older Americans (for whom it reduces poverty 7 percent), people who are not white, black, or Hispanic (14 percent), nonworking families without older adults or adults with disabilities (10 percent), residents of the West (15 percent) and residents of metropolitan areas (16 percent). The following groups had the highest number of people removed from poverty by SNAP in 2015: Adults below age 65. SNAP lifted 4.1 million people between the ages of 18 to 64 out of poverty. 1 0 T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M Non-Hispanic whites. SNAP removed 3.3 million non-Hispanic whites from poverty. Working families. Nearly three-quarters (6.2 million) of the people removed from poverty by SNAP were in working families. Residents of the South. About 40 percent (3.4 million) of the people removed from poverty by SNAP live in the South. Residents of metropolitan areas. More than 80 percent (6.8 million) of people removed from poverty by SNAP live in metropolitan areas. In each of these cases, the population group with the largest number of individuals removed from poverty by SNAP is also the group with the largest overall population. FIGURE 3 Reductions in Poverty from SNAP by Age, Race or Ethnicity, and Work or Disability Status, 2015 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Transfer Income Model, version 3. Note: Figure measures poverty rates using the Supplemental Poverty Measure. 21.3% 9.6% 12.3% 14.3% 17.6% 20.9% 15.5% 7.4% 14.0% 28.4% 17.1% Percent reduction in poverty 6,190 962 1,232 628 2,522 1,964 3,271 498 4,057 3,829 8,384 Familes where all adults are age 65 or older or disabled Non-Hispanic other race Hispanic Non-Hispanic black Non-Hispanic white Age 65 or older Ages 18 to 64 Under age 18 Total Number of people removed from poverty (thousands) Families with at least one nondisabled adult age 18–64 and no working adults Families with at least one nondisabled adult age 18–64 and at least one working adult T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S T A N C E P R O G R A M 1 1 FIGURE 4 Reductions in Poverty from SNAP by Region and Metropolitan Status, 2015 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Transfer Income Model, version 3. Note: Figure measures poverty rates using the Supplemental Poverty Measure. What Explains the Differences in SNAP’s Antipoverty Effects? Many factors contribute to the relative differences in the antipoverty effects of SNAP among different populations. Although providing a definitive answer is beyond the scope of this report, we present several possible explanations below. Groups with higher rates of participation in SNAP may be more likely to be lifted out of poverty by SNAP than groups in which eligible people are less likely to participate. SNAP participation rates are highest for children and lowest for older Americans (Gray and Cunnyngham 2017). This likely contributes to the relatively greater antipoverty effects of SNAP among children. SNAP antipoverty effects and participation rates also follow a similar pattern by region, with the highest SNAP participation rate and antipoverty effect found in the Midwest, followed by the Northeast, South, and West.13 Groups with larger average SNAP benefits may be more likely to be removed from poverty by SNAP if their incomes without SNAP are similarly close to the SPM poverty level. This likely contributes 24.0% 16.0% 15.4% 16.7% 19.4% 18.2% Percent reduction in poverty 1,489 6,821 1,942 3,372 1,543 1,527 Nonmetropolitan area Metropolitan area West South Midwest Northeast Number of people removed from poverty (thousands) 1 2 T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M to the lower antipoverty effect of SNAP among older people (who tend to receive smaller benefits because of their smaller household size) than among children. People who tend to have income just below the SPM poverty level may be more likely to be lifted above poverty by SNAP than people who tend to have incomes well below it. For example, working families, whose earnings bring them close to the SPM poverty level, may be more likely to be removed from poverty by SNAP than nonworking families without older adults or adults with disabilities. Without earnings, disability income, or Social Security or other retirement income, the latter group is likely to have little or no income, making them less likely to be lifted above the SPM poverty level by SNAP. Lower housing costs (as measured by the SPM) may contribute to SNAP’s greater antipoverty effect in nonmetropolitan areas. For example, the SPM poverty level for a single parent with two children who rents an apartment in Minneapolis is $22,176 (table 1); the same family living in a nonmetropolitan area of Minnesota would have an SPM poverty level of $18,541. A SNAP benefit sufficient to raise a family above the poverty level in a nonmetropolitan area in Minnesota might not be sufficient to raise the same family above the level in Minneapolis. SNAP’s Effect on Deep Poverty “Deep poverty” refers to the share of the population with resources below half of the SPM poverty level. For example, a single-parent renter with two children in Minneapolis would be considered in deep poverty if his or her SPM resources were below $11,088 (half of $22,176). Deep poverty is a useful metric because it measures the severity of poverty. A reduction in deep poverty can reflect an improvement in family circumstances even when the overall number of people in poverty remains unchanged. SNAP substantially reduces the deep poverty rate. Without SNAP, an estimated 16.8 million people would be in deep poverty. SNAP reduces this number to 12.1 million, a reduction of 28 percent (table D.2). The following groups experienced the largest percentage reductions in deep poverty because of SNAP in 2015: Children. SNAP reduced the number of children in deep poverty by nearly half (49 percent) (figure 5). T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S T A N C E P R O G R A M 1 3 Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks. Deep poverty among people of Hispanic ethnicity fell 37 percent because of SNAP; deep poverty among non-Hispanic blacks fell 36 percent. Working families. SNAP reduced deep poverty in working families more than one-third (34 percent). Residents of the South. SNAP reduced deep poverty in the South 30 percent (figure 6). Residents of nonmetropolitan areas. Deep poverty fell nearly one-third (32 percent) in nonmetropolitan areas because of SNAP. SNAP has the smallest relative effect on deep poverty for older Americans, among whom it reduced deep poverty 13 percent, people who are not white, black, or Hispanic (19 percent), nonworking families without older adults or adults with disabilities (22 percent), persons outside of the South (26 percent in the Northeast and West and 27 percent in the Midwest), and residents of metropolitan areas (27 percent). The following groups had the highest number of people removed from deep poverty by SNAP: Adults below age 65. SNAP lifted 2.4 million people ages 18 to 64 out of deep poverty. Non-Hispanic whites. SNAP removed 1.7 million non-Hispanic whites from deep poverty. Working families. About 2.6 million (or over half) of the people removed from deep poverty by SNAP were in working families containing at least one adult younger than age 65 without a disability. Residents of the South. About 2.2 million (almost half) of the people removed from deep poverty by SNAP live in the South. Residents of metropolitan areas. Around 3.9 million (or over 80 percent) of people removed from deep poverty by SNAP live in metropolitan areas. As with our estimates for “standard” poverty, each group with the largest number of individuals removed from deep poverty by SNAP is also the group with the largest overall population. 1 4 T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M FIGURE 5 Reductions in Deep Poverty from SNAP by Age, Race or Ethnicity, and Work or Disability Status, 2015 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Transfer Income Model, version 3. Note: Figure measures deep poverty rates using the Supplemental Poverty Measure. FIGURE 6 Reductions in Deep Poverty from SNAP by Region and Metropolitan Status, 2015 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Transfer Income Model, version 3. Note: Figure measures deep poverty rates using the Supplemental Poverty Measure. 34.1% 21.8% 24.2% 18.6% 36.5% 36.4% 21.6% 12.6% 22.1% 49.0% 27.7% Percent reduction in deep poverty 2,560 1,391 703 319 1,501 1,148 1,686 240 2,364 2,049 4,653 Families where all adults are age 65 or older or disabled Non-Hispanic other race Hispanic Non-Hispanic black Non-Hispanic white Age 65 or older Ages 18 to 64 Under age 18 Total Number of people removed from deep poverty (thousands) 31.6% 27.1% 26.3% 29.5% 26.9% 26.0% Percent reduction in deep poverty 708 3,893 1,056 2,159 749 688 Nonmetropolitan area Metropolitan area West South Midwest Northeast Number of people removed from deep poverty (thousands) Families with at least one nondisabled adult age 18–64 and no working adults Families with at least one nondisabled adult age 18–64 and at least one working adult T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S T A N C E P R O G R A M 1 5 Effects of SNAP on the Poverty Gap SNAP improves the resources of poor families even when the benefits are not sufficiently high to remove them from poverty or deep poverty. One measure of this effect can be seen through the change in the poverty gap, defined as the aggregate amount of additional income that would be required for all poor families to be removed from poverty. FIGURE 7 Poverty Gap with and without SNAP, 2015 $ millions Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Transfer Income Model, version 3. Note: Figure measures the poverty gap using the Supplemental Poverty Measure. We estimate that the poverty gap was $133.9 billion in 2015 (figure 7).14 Absent SNAP, the poverty gap would have been $169 billion. Thus, SNAP reduced the poverty gap by $34.9 billion (21 percent) in 2015. Not all SNAP benefits go toward reducing the poverty gap. Some SNAP benefits are received by families whose SPM resources are above the SPM poverty level even without SNAP. For families lifted above the poverty level by SNAP, the SNAP benefits required to raise resources up to the SPM poverty level are counted as reducing the poverty gap, but benefits beyond that amount are not counted. We estimate that about 55 percent of SNAP benefits went to filling the poverty gap in 2015.15 $134,000 $39,000 $21,000 $73,000 $169,000 $62,000 $24,000 $83,000 Total Families with children Elderly headed families Nonelderly families without children Poverty gap without SNAP Poverty gap with SNAP 1 6 T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M Most of the reduction in the poverty gap ($22.7 billion) was experienced by families with children. This is not surprising, because families with children receive the largest share of SNAP benefits. According to FNS data, households with children received 66 percent of SNAP benefits paid out in the average month of 2015 (Gray, Fisher, and Lauffer 2016). Families with children also experienced the largest percentage reduction in the poverty gap, 37 percent, compared with 11 percent for families without children headed by someone over age 65 and 12 percent for families without children headed by someone ages 18 to 64. Another measure of SNAP’s effect is the reduction in the average poverty gap for families that remain poor despite receiving SNAP. The average poverty gap reflects the average amount by which the resources of poor families fall below the SPM poverty level. Among poor families that receive SNAP, the average poverty gap without SNAP is $9,424 (figure 8). In other words, these families would require an average of $9,424 to bring them up to the poverty level. SNAP reduces the average poverty gap among poor recipient families to $6,385, a reduction of nearly one-third. Families with children experience the largest average reduction, $4,940 (or 39 percent). FIGURE 8 Average Poverty Gap with and without SNAP among Families That Are Poor Despite Receiving SNAP, 2015 Dollars Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Transfer Income Model, version 3. Note: Figure measures the average poverty gap using the Supplemental Poverty Measure. The average poverty gap is calculated for families that receive SNAP and are below poverty despite receipt of SNAP benefits.

The Antipoverty Effects of SNAP In this report, we provide detailed estimates of the antipoverty effects of SNAP using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). The antipoverty effects of SNAP and other government programs are often understated because respondents underreport program benefits in the survey data used for the estimates. We use data that have been corrected for underreporting using a comprehensive microsimulation model to more fully capture SNAP’s antipoverty effect. We begin by providing background on SNAP and the SPM. We describe prior research into the antipoverty effects of SNAP and discuss the methods used to correct for underreporting in this analysis. We then examine the effects of SNAP on the number of people in poverty, the number of people in deep poverty, and the size of the poverty gap. Finally, we estimate the additional potential of SNAP to reduce poverty if all people eligible for SNAP were to participate in the program. Further details about our methods and results are provided in the appendices. Program Background SNAP assists more than one in eight Americans and provided benefits to an average of 45.8 million people each month in 2015. Total federal costs for the program were $74.0 billion in 2015, of which $69.7 billion were for benefits; the remainder was for program administration (Gray, Fisher, and Lauffer 2016). To receive SNAP benefits, a household must pass eligibility tests. Eligibility rules are set by the federal government, though states have flexibility in some areas. SNAP benefits are based on a household’s income and size and are delivered to the household on an electronic benefit transfer card, which can be used in participating retail stores to purchase food. Eligibility rules are discussed further in appendix A. Who Receives SNAP? Most SNAP households contain a child, a person age 60 or older, or a person with a disability. In the average month of fiscal year (FY) 2015, 9.5 million households with children received SNAP, accounting for 43 percent of recipient households. About 4.4 million SNAP households (20 percent) included a 2 T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M person age 60 or above, and 4.5 million SNAP households (20 percent) contained a person below age 60 who had a disability. About 4.3 million households (19 percent) contained adults ages 18 to 49 without disabilities and without children. About 82 percent of SNAP recipient households were poor in 2015 according to the income definitions and poverty levels used to determine eligibility (Gray, Fisher, and Lauffer 2016). Twenty-two percent of SNAP households had no gross income, 32 percent had earnings, 20 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and 24 percent received Social Security income. The average SNAP household in 2015 had two members, had $786 in monthly gross income, and received $254 in monthly SNAP benefits. Households with children tended to be somewhat larger, averaging 3.2 members. These households had an average of $1,027 in monthly gross income and received an average of $393 a month in SNAP benefits. SNAP households containing a person age 60 or older tended to be smaller, averaging 1.3 members per household. On average, households with a member age 60 or older had $912 in monthly gross income and received $128 a month in SNAP benefits in 2015 (Gray, Fisher, and Lauffer 2016). How Are Program Participation and Costs Changing over Time? SNAP enrollment increased considerably during the Great Recession and its aftermath, rising from 26.3 million participating people in the average month of FY 2007 to 47.6 million in FY 2013 (figure 1). 1 The increase in participation was driven by the difficult economic situations faced by many families during and in the aftermath of the Great Recession and by policy changes and increased program outreach.2 SNAP enrollment began declining in FY 2014, falling to 42.1 million average monthly participants in FY 2017. T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S T A N C E P R O G R A M 3 FIGURE 1 Monthly Participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Fiscal Years 2007–17 Source: “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,” Food and Nutrition Service, last published January 5, 2018. Total SNAP benefits paid increased from $30.4 billion in FY 2007 to $76.1 billion in FY 2013 before declining to $63.7 billion by FY 2017 (figure 2). The increase in benefits between FY 2009 and FY 2013 was attributable not only to an increase in the caseload but also to a temporary increase in the SNAP benefit enacted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Benefits paid declined after 2013 because the increased benefit amount from that law expired and the program’s overall caseload decreased. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number of participating people (millions) 4 T H E A N T I P O V E R T Y E F F EC T S O F T H E S U P P L E M E N T A L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M FIGURE 2 Annual Benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Fiscal Years 2007–17 Source: “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,” Food and Nutrition Service, last published January 5, 2018.

SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) helps millions of Americans put food on the table each month. While two-thirds of participants are children, elderly, and people with disabilities, who are not expected to work, SNAP also helps workers, both to supplement low wages and support them when they are between jobs.

SNAP helps workers, both to supplement low wages and support them when they are between jobs.

More than 70 million Americans collect Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or both, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA). The vast majority are people age 65 and older collecting Social Security retirement benefits alone.

Social Security: Proposal for $2,400 Extra in Checks Expanded and Reintroduced in Congress

As tensions around the debt ceiling continue to rise, we find ourselves in all too familiar territory where policymakers demonize the poor while claiming to prioritize tackling the issue.

Recently, in a letter to the president and subsequent speech to the New York Stock Exchange, House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy outlined a plan to address the debt by “limiting spending, saving tax payer money, and growing the economy.” His plan, which passed the house on Wednesday, includes the imposition of new work requirements for participants to access critical programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps).

Research shows that SNAP is one of our most effective tools in reducing hunger and food insecurity. Much of SNAP’s success is due to its structure: it is designed so that everyone who is eligible can get benefits; it expands automatically to meet needs during tough times; and it focuses its benefits to the households with the least resources available to purchase groceries, assisting families with low incomes to obtain adequate nutrition, regardless of where they live. As of December 2022, SNAP was helping more than 42 million low-income people in the U.S. to afford a nutritionally adequate diet by providing them with benefits on a debit card that can be used only to purchase food at about 254,000 retailers across the country. On average, SNAP recipients receive about $6 per person per day in food benefits, now that the temporary additional benefits during the COVID-19 public health emergency have ended. SNAP’s reach shows the extensive need for nutrition assistance and SNAP’s critical role in addressing it. Despite SNAP’s success in reaching people with low incomes, large numbers of households across all backgrounds still struggle to afford food each month. Given this ongoing need, as I will discuss below, I urge you to protect SNAP from efforts to cut it and make it less responsive to people’s needs and to take opportunities to strengthen the program, particularly for racial and ethnic groups that continue to face far higher levels of food hardship than white households, often due to a long history of racism and discrimination that has resulted in less opportunity in education, housing, and employment. (See Figure 1.)

SNAP reaches about 80 percent of eligible households. It delivers the largest benefits to those least able to afford an adequate diet. About 92 percent of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes at or below the poverty line, and 54 percent go to households at or below half of the poverty line (about $12,430 for a family of three in 2023). Families with the greatest need receive the largest benefits; these households, particularly households with children, also have higher rates of participation in the program. Nearly 90 percent of SNAP participants are in households that contain a child under age 18, an older adult 60 years or older, or an individual with a disability. SNAP is also an important support for workers who are paid low wages. Millions of people in the U.S. work in jobs with low wages, unpredictable schedules, and no benefits such as paid sick leave — all of which contribute to high turnover and spells of unemployment. SNAP provides monthly benefits that help fill gaps for workers with low and inconsistent pay and can help workers afford food during periods when they are looking for work.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is one of the most effective ways to combat childhood hunger in America.

For decades SNAP has successfully decreased food insecurity and lifted millions of Americans out of poverty by safely and effectively helping families put food on the table. But there’s a hidden benefit that SNAP provides beyond helping to feed families. It also feeds our economy.

Results Food Insecure: The naïve probit model results, which do not control for the endogeneity of SNAP receipt, show that SNAP receipt is associated with higher food insecurity. The estimated coefficient on SNAP participation suggests that participating in SNAP is associated with an 8.6 percentage point increase in the probability of being food insecure (Table 2, model 1). This result is consistent with the self-selection of more needy and food-insecure households into SNAP. Results from the bivariate probit model, which controls for the endogeneity of SNAP receipt, suggest a different relationship. The receipt of SNAP benefits is found to reduce the likelihood of food insecurity by 16.2 percentage points (Table 2, model 2).18 Nearly one-quarter of our low-income sample is food insecure, so these results suggest that SNAP has a substantial effect on households’ food insecurity and is achieving exactly what the program was designed to do—reduce food-related hardship. To further put this number in context, we use the marginal effect along with the SNAP recipients’ level of food insecurity to estimate the percent (versus percentage point) decline in food insecurity implied by our model. Our summary statistics show that 35.6 percent of SNAP recipients are food insecure. The bivariate probit model estimates suggest that SNAP recipients’ food insecurity would be 16.2 percentage points higher (51.8 percent), if SNAP benefits were not available. The decrease in the likelihood of food insecurity from 0.518 without the SNAP program to 0.356 with the program suggests that SNAP receipt reduces food insecurity by 31.2 percent. The magnitude of this decline is consistent with Nord and Golla (2009), who find that the likelihood of being very food insecure falls by roughly onethird when households begin receiving SNAP benefits.

A comparison of the SNAP receipt coefficients from the probit and bivariate probit models suggests that controlling for selection into SNAP is important for disentangling the effect of SNAP receipt on food insecurity. The model that does not control for the endogeneity of 18 The marginal effects are calculated as the average difference in the predicted probability of being food insecure for those with and without SNAP receipt. The calculations are based on the estimated parameters from the bivariate probit food insecurity equation (equation 1), which have been corrected for the endogeneity of SNAP receipt. Estimation of the univariate probablities is appropriate because our goal is to understand how SNAP receipt affects food insecurity, not the joint probabilities. We estimate the marginal effects using the Stata marginal effects command, mfx, with the option predict(pmarg1). 15 SNAP receipt shows that SNAP participation is associated with increased food insecurity, while the model that does control for the endogeneity shows that SNAP participation reduces food insecurity. Further, the correlation coefficient from the bivariate probit model indicates a positive and statistically significant correlation between unobservables that affect SNAP receipt and food insecurity (ρ=0.509 with a standard error of 0.054). Households that are more likely to be food insecure are also more likely to participate in SNAP. As discussed above, the validity of our IV model depends on the quality of the instruments. Because our model is overidentified, we are able to test the exogeneity of the instruments. Using Hansen’s J-test, we conclude that the instruments are indeed exogenous (we do not reject the null hypothesis that all of the instruments are exogenous, p=0.89). Using the Kleibergen-Papp statistic, we test whether the instrumental variables identify the model and reject the null hypothesis that the model is underidentified (p=0.0002). Each of the four instruments has the anticipated sign and statistically significantly (p<0.1) affects SNAP receipt (Table 3), and a joint test for significance of the four instruments indicates that they are jointly statistically significant at the one percent level (χ2 (4)=15.8, p=0.003). The coefficients and standard errors of the instruments from the reduced-form SNAP participation equation are presented in Table 3 (column 1).

The Farm Bill is popularly associated with the provision of agricultural subsidies, conservation programs, and new farm policies. So why should we care about it when we’re talking about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)? Because for the past several decades, the legislation authorizing SNAP has been included in the Farm Bill. In fact, the nutrition title is the largest of the 12 titles covered in the Farm Bill. Of the programs covered by nutrition, SNAP accounts for 95% of all spending. Overall, nutrition spending makes up 80% of the total budget for the Farm Bill. Nutrition in the United States is thus very much determined by the provisions, policies and funding allocations in the U.S. Farm Bill.

The first decade of the 21st century saw increases in funding for SNAP, as well as the implementation of pilot projects and new innovations to begin retooling SNAP to promote healthier nutrition. Because SNAP is so central in reducing poverty and food insecurity in the United States, it has historically received backing from both political parties.

Yet after the bill passed the House on June 1, McCarthy signaled the conversation was not over. "Let's go get the rest of the work requirements," he said in an interview.

At a nutrition-focused hearing of the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday, Democratic members fumed about the debt plan and warned against any further changes to SNAP.

Economist Paul Collier once wrote that “war is development in reverse.” That conflict inevitably produces poverty and hunger is a theory that has been tested—and proven true—in every major clash across human history. It is believed, for example, that more people died of starvation and starvation-related disease than from combat during the Second World War.

But it is also true that hunger and food insecurity can lead to instability. There is a vicious feedback loop between conflict and hunger currently at play in dozens of countries around the world. War drives hunger and hunger drives war.

ANDANA SHIVA, an Indian environmental activist, once  growing one’s own food as “the most revolutionary act.” That idea is clearly echoed in  by Australian climate scholar Julian Cribb, in which he suggests that climate change threatens the very foundations of agriculture and calls for a scientific food revolution. Ignoring the profound global challenges that endanger farming systems, he argues, may lead to extensive warfare and famine in the near future.

“The most destructive object on the planet,” Cribb writes, “is the human jawbone.” Our agricultural ingenuity has enabled us to masterfully exploit our natural resources, Cribb maintains, but looming food insecurity, thanks to desertification, topsoil loss, dead zones in the ocean, and other climatic hazards, will ultimately lead to wars.

Modern wars are often driven by scarcities of food, land and water.

Dafour, Rwanda, Eritrea, the Balkans were all destabilized, at root, by squabbles over these resources. Going further back, the French and Russian civil wars both grew out of bread crises. We know that hunger breeds war.

Rising tensions over scarcities of food, land and water combined with increasingly unstable climates threaten to unleash new wars and the mass flight of hundreds of millions of people by the mid-century.

‘’ identifies the nine regions globally most at risk of conflict over dwindling food resources, water especially.

Humans have fought over food and the means of producing it for 20,000 years, as rock art in Australia shows. Food, water and land scarcity are primary drivers in two thirds of modern conflicts today. Indeed, many people seem to have forgotten that the primary German war aim in World War II was to take farmland from the Soviets and put German farmers on it. It is very likely that controlling the Ukraine’s bountiful and reliable food bowl is among Putin’s main aims also. In the short run this is imposing hunger and even starvation on hundreds of millions of people far beyond Europe. 

Spreading hunger in turn snowballs into government failures, civil wars and refugee tsunamis around the world – as it did in 2008 when a shortfall in Ukrainian grain exports led to revolutions in three Arab countries. Already, a third of a billion people – equal to the entire population of Europe – leave their homes each year, either as refugees or economic migrants, to seek better lives in countries which seem more stable and food secure. War will add to the flood.

China has bought almost half the world’s food reserves in the last 12 months. This will cause worldwide inflation, we well as famine in some countries. This report provides us with clear information on what we should prepare for in the 21st century. 

Prices will rise globally, including in the U.S. and Europe; a significant portion of lower-income states will be doomed to famine. The fact that the U.S. and Europe are gravely concerned about inflation for the first time is an indication that this process has already started. 

Economist Paul Collier once  that “war is development in reverse.” That conflict inevitably produces poverty and hunger is a theory that has been tested—and proven true—in every major clash across human history. , for example, that more people died of starvation and starvation-related disease than from combat during the Second World War.

But it is also true that hunger and food insecurity can lead to instability. There is a vicious feedback loop between conflict and hunger currently at play in dozens of countries around the world. War drives hunger and hunger drives war.