The Food Stamp Program has a goal of improving the

diets of low-income households by providing them with

additional food purchasing power. Benefit levels are set

to enable participants to purchase a diet that meets current Federal dietary guidance. However, participants are

free to make their own food choices from among virtually all foods sold in participating grocery stores. USDA

data indicate that food stamp participants’ diets do not

match recommendations. Fruit and vegetable intakes are

low, whereas overweight and obesity rates are high.

USDA encourages food stamp participants to make nutritious food choices through its support of the Food Stamp

Nutrition Education (FSNE) component of the Food

Stamp Program. According to guiding principles issued

by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which

administers the Food Stamp Program, FSNE provides

science-based, behaviorally focused nutrition education.

The intended result of this education is for food stamp

participants to make healthy food choices, as defined by

the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the

USDA MyPyramid, within a limited budget. Although an

optional part of the Food Stamp Program, FSNE now

operates in all States, with annual Federal expenditures

around $250 million. Here we examine Food Stamp

Nutrition Education—how it has grown over time, funding, operational differences at the State level, and the

challenges it faces in improving food choices and demonstrating its effectiveness. We consider the evidence of

nutrition information as an effective strategy for dietary

improvement, both for the general public and for lowincome households in particular, and discuss the research

and evaluation needs suggested by our findings.

Food Stamp Nutrition Education

FSNE provides nutrition education to food stamp participants and eligible nonparticipants via a partnership

between USDA and States. Unlike food stamp food benefits, which are completely covered by USDA, USDA

reimburses States 50 percent of allowable FSNE costs.

Although voluntary, State participation in FSNE has

grown from 7 States in 1992 to 50 States, 2 Territories,

and the District of Columbia in 2007, with total Federal

funding also growing from $661,076 in 1992 to $247

million in 2006. The level of State participation varies,

with 2006 budgets ranging from less than $1 in federally

approved funds per food stamp participant to more than

$50 per participant. Considering both Federal and matching State funds, on average, available funds translated to

less than $20 per participant as of fiscal 2006.

Can Food Stamps Do More to Improve Food Choices? An Economic Perspective

Nutrition Information

Can It Improve the Diets of 

Low-Income Households?

Joanne F. Guthrie, Jayachandran N. Variyam 

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research

Service

Economic Information Bulletin Number 29-6 September 2007

USDA/NAL
To operate FSNE, State Food Stamp Program offices subcontract with one or more FSNE-implementing agencies.

More than half of these are with the Cooperative Extension

Service of the State’s land-grant university; other implementing agencies include State or territorial health departments and other public organizations. FNS provides guidance on the appropriate scope of FSNE and reviews State

plans for consistency with guidance. Nutrition education

messages must be consistent with the Federal Dietary

Guidelines for Americans and USDA’s MyPyramid. States

are encouraged to target educational activities to women

and children in participating or eligible Food Stamp Program households. 

The Food Stamp Nutrition Education Systems Review found

that States adhere to the targeting guidelines and serve

primarily school-aged children and women (Bell et al.,

2006). Almost all (98 percent) States offered direct education, such as group classes, and most (87 percent) offered

“indirect education,” such as distributing brochures and

other print materials. About a third of States employed

social marketing approaches, which typically deliver messages on nutrition education and changing behavior through

multiple media channels, such as radio, television, newspapers, and posters, and frequently reinforce media messages

with in-person activities. 

Within these broadly similar categories of educational

activities, States use a range of educational methods and

materials. This variation in educational approach allows

States to tailor their programs to the needs and interests of

target audiences but makes it difficult to assess and compare the effectiveness of State activities. 

Evidence for the Value of Educational

Approaches to Dietary Improvement

In assessing FSNE effectiveness, it is useful to consider 

the extent to which evidence shows that providing nutrition

information, as a general strategy, improves the diets of

consumers in general and of low-income households in 

particular.

Research studies have provided evidence that consumers

modify their food choices in response to scientific information linking diet and health (Variyam and Golan, 2002). For

example, consumption of whole milk has declined over the

past 60 years, while consumption of reduced-fat milk has

risen more than threefold. Economic studies have shown

that at least a part of this substitution—about 8 percent in

one study—is explained by the information about the health

effects of fats and cholesterol. Other studies suggest that

increases in fat and cholesterol information led to increased

consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and decreased

consumption of meats, eggs, and fats and oils.

What is less clear is whether such food substitutions lead to

an improvement in overall nutritional quality of diets.

Measures of diet quality, such as USDA’s Healthy Eating

Index (HEI), have been largely static in recent years (Basiotis et al., 2002). And obesity has continued to rise among all

sociodemographic groups (Ver Ploeg et al., 2006). Still, the

fact remains that, at any given time, there are wide disparities in diet quality and obesity among consumers. What

ERS research and other studies suggest is that differences

in nutrition knowledge may contribute to these disparities.

An ERS study by Variyam and colleagues (1998), using

national data from USDA’s 1989-90 Continuing Survey of

Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), showed that, after

controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, meal planners’ ability to answer an additional question correctly on a

nutrition knowledge scale translated to a 7-percent improvement in average diet quality as measured by the HEI.

Variyam (2001) also found that children have a greater likelihood of being at risk for overweight if their parents underestimate their own overweight status.

Lower nutritional literacy and poorer quality diets tend to

coexist among low-income individuals. Using the 1994-96

CSFII, Gleason and colleagues (2000) found that highincome adults were 10-20 percent more likely than lowincome adults to be able to answer specific nutrition questions correctly. This result may be because of the relationship of income and general education. Educational attainment exerts powerful influence on the acquisition and use

of nutrition information. Holding income and other factors

the same, a meal planner who completed high school is 

able to answer one more question correctly on a 27-point

nutritional literacy test compared with meal planners who

did not complete high school (Variyam et al., 1998). As

noted earlier, this translates into a 7-percent improvement 

in the HEI. 

Among low-income adults in the Gleason et al. study, food

stamp participants and nonparticipants did not differ significantly in their nutritional literacy. However, these data were

collected in 1994-96, before expansion of FSNE efforts.

Other research suggests that targeted nutrition education,

such as FSNE, may have benefits—particularly if it is

designed to teach behavioral skills. Hersey and colleagues

(2001) used data from the 1996 National Food Stamp Program Survey to examine the shopping practices and food

2 Economic Research Service/USDA

Diet quality is the outcome 

of numerous small, everyday

choices.
purchases of food stamp participants. They found an association between using the kinds of shopping practices taught

by FSNE—reading nutrition labels, shopping with a list,

etc.—and purchasing a more nutrient-rich mix of foods. 

Challenges for Effective Education

These studies indicate that consumers with more nutrition

information, including low-income consumers, make more

nutritious food choices. However, the studies do not prove

that providing nutrition education to Food Stamp Program

participants will cause them to change their diets. Not all

individuals are equally interested in nutrition information—

for some, other factors such as taste, convenience, or price

may be more important to their food choices. 

Nutrition information programs have to compete with other

sources of information, which may stymie their effectiveness. While nutrition education strives to elevate consumers’ health preferences, consumers get information

from other sources that may conflict, confuse, or elevate the

salience of other preferences, such as convenience and

taste. Although expenditures for FSNE have risen greatly in

the past decade, they are far exceeded by amounts spent on

advertising for food, beverages, and candy and for restaurant

advertising (fig. 1). Conflicting information, preferences,

and priorities are a special problem for diet quality because

diet quality is the outcome of numerous small, everyday

choices. Positive changes in some choices may be offset 

by other choices—for example, the healthful breakfast 

followed by the coffee break treat. These offsetting behaviors may explain the pattern of consumer substitutions

among foods with little overall improvement in diet quality.

Improving dietary quality is a challenge that requires not

only information on the appropriate choice to make, but

also guidance and motivation to manage conflicting 

preferences.

It is important to develop evaluation methods capable of

answering the question of whether FSNE, as it exists now,

is effective or whether it could be made more effective. A

major barrier to answering that question has been the lack

of standardized outcome data. The Flexible Consumer

Behavior Survey (FCBS), which ERS is sponsoring as an

addition to the National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey (NHANES), should provide some help in addressing the basic question of the benefits of nutrition information to food stamp participants. The FCBS includes questions on consumers’ diet-related knowledge, attitudes, and

behaviors, as well as food stamp participation status,

income, and food expenditures. These data, coupled with

the dietary quality, measured body weight, and health status

data obtained from NHANES, will provide more information on the association between nutrition information and

food choices, diet quality, and health in this population.

Although these cross-sectional survey data show associations rather than cause and effect, obtaining such data on an

ongoing basis will help policy and program officials assess

whether progress is being made in educating consumers and

improving diets.

This information, although valuable, will not meet all the

needs of State FSNE program managers and decisionmakers.

The NHANES’ costly methods of data collection do not

permit a sample size large enough to generate State-level

estimates. ERS is working, in close collaboration with FNS

and with input from nutrition educators and State FSNE

directors, to develop a relatively simple, inexpensive, standardized measure of behaviors associated with dietary quality (Guthrie et al., 2006). This measure could be administered across the United States among adult populations who

are eligible for or who are receiving food assistance. As

such, it would be a feasible means of collecting sufficient

data to generate State-level, other subnational, and national

estimates. If we are successful in developing this measure,

Economic Research Service/USDA 3

Food Stamp Nutrition Education (combined Federal and State)

Restaurant advertising

Food, beverages, and candy advertising

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

Figure 1

Spending on food advertising and Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE), 2005

Although spending on FSNE has grown, it is still dwarfed by food and restaurant advertising

Million dollars

Sources: Advertising spending data: Advertising Age, Special Report: 100 Leading National Advertisers, June 26, 2006, accessed at: 

http://adage.com/images/random/lna2006.pdf. Data on FSNE spending: Federal expenditures obtained from Food and Nutrition Service, USDA; total 

obtained by assuming a 50-percent State funding match.
it could be used to assess progress in improving diets of

food stamp participants. It also could be useful in assessing

differences in dietary-quality-related behaviors of food

assistance program participants at the regional or State level

that can guide development and evaluation of more effective nutrition education activities conducted with food assistance program funds. 

On a broader front, we need a better understanding of the

sustained effectiveness of nutrition information programs.

This kind of research requires long-term data on interventions and outcomes. The outlook is encouraging as more

such data become available for research. For example,

recent ERS research has used several years’ worth of data

to examine the effect of information provided through nutrition labeling on dietary outcomes, finding positive effects

for dietary fiber, protein, and iron intakes (Variyam, 2004).

Finally, research to identify more effective strategies for

creating long-term, consistent changes in food choices can

enhance the benefits of informational programs. New theories of behavior generated by behavioral economics and

consumer psychology suggest promising new approaches

that are being more fully explored by ERS researchers.

Information Sources

Basiotis, P.P., A. Carlson, S.A. Gerrior, W.Y. Juan, and M. Lino,

The Healthy Eating Index: 1999-2000, CNPP-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,

December 2002, available at: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/

publications/HEI/HEI99-00report.pdf.

Bell, L., F. Tao, J. Anthony, C. Logan, R. Ledsky, M. Ferreira,

and A. Brown. Food Stamp Nutrition Education Systems Review,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, September 2006, available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/

NutritionEducation/NutEd.htm.

Gleason, P., A. Rangarajan, and C. Olson. Dietary Intake and

Dietary Attitudes Among Food Stamp Participants and Other

Low-Income Individuals, FSP-00-DI, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, September 2000, available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/

NutritionEducation/Files/FSPDiet.pdf.

Guthrie, J.F., E. Stommes, and J. Voichick. “Evaluating Food

Stamp Nutrition Education: Issues and Opportunities,” Journal of

Nutrition Education and Behavior 38(1):6-11, January/February

2006.

Hersey, J., J. Anliker, C.Miller, R.M. Mullis, S. Daugherty, S.

Das, C.R. Bray, P. Dennee, M. Sigman-Grant, and H.O. Thomas.

“Food Shopping Practices Are Associated with Dietary Quality in

Low-Income Households,” Journal of Nutrition Education

33(Supplement 1):S16-S26, September 2001, available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodStamps/JNEpapers/

Hersey.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food

Stamp Nutrition Education Guiding Principles, Website accessed

May 22, 2007, available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/FSNE/GuidingPrinciples.pdf.

Variyam, J.N. “Evaluating the Effect of Nutrition Labels: A

Quasi-Experimental Approach,” Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management fall conference,

October 28-30, 2004, Atlanta, GA.

Variyam, J.N. “Overweight Children: Is Parental Nutrition

Knowledge a Factor?” FoodReview 24(2):18-22, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May-August 2001,

available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/May2001/

FRV24I2c.pdf.

Variyam, J.N., J. Blaylock, D. Smallwood, and P. Basiotis.

USDA’s Healthy Eating Index and Nutrition Information, Technical Bulletin No. 1866, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, May 1998, Available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/tb1866/.

Variyam, J.N., and E. Golan. “New Health Information is Reshaping Food Choices,” FoodReview 25(1):13-18, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Spring 2002, available

at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/May2002/

frvol25i1c.pdf.

Ver Ploeg, M., L. Mancino, and Biing-Hwan Lin. “Food Stamps

and Obesity: Ironic Twist or Complex Puzzle?” Amber Waves

4(1):32-37, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, February 2006, available

at:http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/February06/Features/

Feature4.htm.

4 Economic Research Service/USDA

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,

reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410

or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.