"Harvest Box": Food Boxes Are a Terrible, Paternalistic Form of Food Assistance Reform

The Trump administration recently released its FY2019 Budget Proposal. One of the budget reforms that caught my eye was with regards to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as food stamps. Right now, the 42 million Americans who receive SNAP benefits have a special debit card, known as an EBT card, with which they can buy unprepared food at authorized stores. I wrote a lengthy piece on how we need to reform SNAP. Although I wrote it about four years ago, the reforms I suggested are essentially still relevant since they have not been implemented. Trump's Budget Proposal does not simply have a $200 billion cut in SNAP benefits over the next decade (To put that budget cut into context, the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] spent $70.9 billion on SNAP in 2016, and $68.1 billion in 2017). In addition to the budget cut, Trump added a SNAP reform to the Budget Proposal. He wants to replace some of the food stamps with what has been referred to as a Harvest Box. What is a Harvest Box?

SNAP is currently under a voucher system. Instead of getting all of their benefits to spend on groceries, Trump proposes that recipients receive a Harvest Box. A Harvest Box is a food box with "shelf-stable" products (e.g., milk, cereals, pasta, canned meat, canned fruits and vegetables) that are "100 percent American produced and grown." For recipients who currently receive $90 or more in SNAP benefits, the recipients would pay for the Harvest Box with their benefits and get the remainder on the EBT card. This Harvest Box change is expected to affect 81 percent of SNAP recipients. The Trump Administration's reason for this is twofold. One is to cut back on fraud rates, even in spite of the fact that SNAP-related fraud is at a low 1.5 percent. The second is for those receiving benefits to have a healthier diet. Prior research shows that those on SNAP have a slightly less healthy diet than those not on food stamps. Additionally, the USDA estimates that Harvest Box would save $130 billion over ten years because the USDA can buy the food items at wholesale prices. What could possibly go wrong? Given the criticism out there, a lot. It is bad enough where both the Right and Left are less than pleased with Trump's Harvest Box idea.

One issue with the Harvest Box is severely limiting food choice for a demographic that already has limited food options. It is not simply displacing the private sector and running a parallel, state-run distribution center that is reminiscent of low-income socialist countries. It is not only the government being intrusive or hubristic enough to tell people that they know what diet is best for millions, when these millions of people have different consumer preferences, dietary needs, and variety in ethnic cuisine that allows for a more expansive palette. It is not only that food pantries have shifted from providing food boxes to allowing for individuals to peruse the pantry's shelves for what they need. It will increase food prices because that is what happens when you constrict supply to American-only products from select suppliers. As I brought up when discussing the "buy local" movement, not only is it unfeasible to determine if a product is "100 percent American" since value chains are so complex, but limiting free trade is bad both from an economic growth standpoint and a consumer welfare standpoint.

The food choice also makes me question the health claims. Let's forget for a moment that the USDA has yet to study the health effects of the Harvest Box. The Harvest Box is not going to be sending fresh foods like Blue Apron does. It will be sending shelf-stable items, ready-to-eat cereals, and canned items. More non-perishable items and less fresh produce is less likely to improve nutrition. The food decisions SNAP recipients currently make might not be the best. For example, SNAP could bar sugary drinks. At the same time, they are relatively good choices given the context: low-cost items that fit within the monthly budget, easy to cook, and are reasonably filling.

There is a matter of increasing stigma for SNAP recipients. One of the nice features of switching from actual food stamps to an EBT card is that a SNAP recipient can go into the grocery store and purchase food as any other consumer would. Having SNAP recipients required to visit a food distribution center or have a Harvest Box delivered on their front doorstep will increase the likelihood of stigma. This stigma could also deter recipients from wanting benefits in the future.

Another criticism I have is that there is little reason to trust the government to deliver these Harvest Boxes. This would be the same Administration that contracted with an incompetent company to deliver pre-made meals to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, only to have the vast majority of those meals not delivered. This is the USDA that told us back in the 1990s [with the Food Pyramid] that we should eat a lot of carbohydrates and avoid all fats. It turns out that the government was wrong, and that such advice arguably increased the obesity rate in this country (see video below). Plus, Harvest Boxes are less reliable than SNAP benefits since food delivery can be more easily disrupted than an EBT card.

Then there is the matter of creating a new distribution network for delivering the Harvest Boxes. The USDA estimates that it would only cost $2.5 billion a year. I am skeptical of this figure in part because the USDA doesn't provide detail on how it will purchase, package, and ship these Boxes to millions of Americans. USDA spokesperson Tim Murtaugh even admitted that the projected savings do not include shipping door-to-door for all recipients because such decisions will be left at the state level. That's a pretty big expense to omit! Looking at the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (a USDA program implemented at the state level that helps the elderly), administrative and distribution costs amount for 25 to 33 percent of overall costs. Those costs are much higher percentage wise than with SNAP at 6.8 percent, which gives reason to believe that the USDA is underestimating distribution costs. Plus, the current SNAP program piggybacks off the already-existing distribution centers in the private sector, whereas the USDA very well would have to create its own. The USDA has never done anything like this on such a scale. Aside from creating a whole new distribution network, here are some other logistical questions:

• Who will be delivering these boxes? USPS? UPS? FedEx? Some new government entity? And how will the government absorb the increased costs when Trump is looking to cut the SNAP budget?
• Would boxes be delivered door-to-door? Do recipients need to be home? Would recipients pick them up at a distribution center?
• What happens to recipients who move around frequently or are temporarily homeless?
• What if food is stolen or delayed?
• What happens in the event of a snowstorm, hurricane, or other natural disaster?
• How will USDA deal with delivery in remote, rural areas?
• How will this distribution account for dietary needs and food allergies? How about children who are picky eaters?

I have plenty of criticism about SNAP, don't get me wrong. At the same time, more central planning and using fewer market forces is not efficient. Fortunately, there is not much likelihood that this will pass Congress. If Trump wants to reap the harvest on this one, he will need to think of another way to approach food assistance reform.


3-3-2018 Addendum: If you need more verification that the Harvest Box is a bad idea, here is a survey of prominent economists stating that a Harvest Box would lower SNAP recipients' well-being and lower their food security.