The Food Stamp Program began with the goal of assuring that no

American would be without enough to eat. Serving more than 26

million Americans in 2006, the program continues to be an important

part of the Federal safety net. The increased food purchasing power

offered by the Food Stamp Program has been found to promote food

security and improve the overall economic well-being of low-income

households (LeBlanc et al., 2006). However, its effect on the quality

of the diets of food stamp recipients is less clear.

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

Overview 

Can Food Stamps Do More To

Improve Food Choices?

Joanne F. Guthrie, Biing-Hwan Lin, Michele Ver Ploeg, Elizabeth Frazao

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research

Service

Economic Information Bulletin Number 29-1 September 2007
Consumption data show that the diets of food stamp participants do not follow the pattern recommended by the 2005

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and USDA’s MyPyramid.

Intakes are higher than recommended in saturated fat and

sodium and lower than recommended in servings of milk,

fruits, and vegetables (Fox and Cole, 2004). Among the

most notable problems are underconsumption of fruits and

vegetables. This problem is not unique to food stamp participants; most Americans fail to meet recommendations for

these foods. For example, vegetable consumption of food

stamp participants is lower than that of higher income nonparticipants but is not statistically different from those of

nonparticipants with incomes low enough to qualify for

food stamps (income-eligible nonparticipants) (fig. 1). Fruit

consumption of female food stamp participants is lower

than that of both income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants (fig. 2). These simple, cross-sectional comparisons cannot be used to assess the effect of Food Stamp

Program participation on fruit and vegetable intakes; groups

may differ on several other factors that may contribute to

the differences found. However, it is clear that not consuming enough fruits and vegetables is a major dietary problem

for Americans, especially for those who receive food

stamps.

Similarly, food stamp participants are not alone in suffering

from the growing prevalence of obesity. In fact, recent

national data on the weight status of Americans indicate

that differences in the weight status of food stamp participants and nonparticipants have diminished. Unfortunately,

this reduction is because nonparticipants have become more

likely to be overweight and obese not because food stamp

participants have become less likely to be overweight and

obese. Among non-Hispanic White women, the group for

which the change in trends is most dramatic, food stamp

participation was strongly associated with overweight 20

2 Economic Research Service/USDA

Participants Income-eligible 

nonparticipants

Higher income 

nonparticipants

Participants Income-eligible 

nonparticipants

Higher income 

nonparticipants

Male Female

3

3.2

3.41

2.4

2.6

2.81

Number of servings

Figure 1

Average daily vegetable consumption of Food Stamp Program participants and 

nonparticipants ages 9 and older

1

Statistically different from consumption patterns of food stamp participants.

Source: 1988-94 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) data, as reported in Fox and Cole, 2004.

Female 

participants

Female 

income-eligible 

nonparticipants

Female 

higher income 

nonparticipants

1.1

1.41

1.61

Number of servings

Figure 2

Average daily fruit consumption of female Food 

Stamp Program participants and nonparticipants

1

Statistically different from consumption patterns of food stamp 

participants.

Source: 1988-94 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES III) data, as reported in Fox and Cole, 2004.
years ago, but more recent national data show that, since

then, the prevalence of overweight has grown most among

nonparticipating women (fig. 3). Trends are less dramatic

for African-American and Hispanic women, but overall, the

data show a similar pattern.

Trends for men are almost the exact opposite of those for

women. Data from previous years showed that male food

stamp recipients were less likely to be overweight than eligible male nonparticipants and higher income men. However, the most recent data show that differences in overweight

status have almost entirely disappeared. Thus, over the past

decades, the weight status of male food stamp participants

has become more like that of other American men (Ver Ploeg

et al., 2006).

These findings indicate that food stamp participants are not

much different from other Americans in needing to eat more

fruits and vegetables and to improve their weight status.

Although the findings may not support contentions that the

program is a major reason for the problems, neither do they

undercut arguments that the Food Stamp Program should

do more to improve food choices of participants. Poor diets,

obesity, and associated health problems exert heavy costs 

to society in increased medical expenditures and lost productivity. If program changes were successful in promoting

healthful food choices among the 26 million low-income

Americans participating in the Food Stamp Program, these

changes could yield considerable benefits in reduced medical costs and increased productivity.

This folder compiles evidence to help answer the question

of whether the Food Stamp Program can do more to

improve the food choices of benefit recipients. It examines

the evidence that affordability and price of healthful foods

affect food choices and the role of education in improving

food choices. Innovative approaches to improving food

choices drawn from behavioral economics are considered.

Finally, measuring the effects of any policy change on food

choices and health outcomes continues to be a challenge;

ERS activities to meet the challenge through improved data,

measures, and analytical methods are discussed.

Are Healthy Diets Affordable for All Food

Stamp Participants?

Some nutrition advocates argue that food stamp benefits are

not sufficient to purchase all the foods recommended for a

healthful diet, including a variety of fruits and vegetables.

Maximum food stamp benefits are set and updated annually

based on the Thrifty Food Plan, a market basket of foods

that can guide recipients in purchasing a diet that meets

Federal dietary guidelines, including the recommended

servings of fruits and vegetables, at minimal cost. Households with income are expected to spend some of their own

cash resources on food (30 percent of income adjusted for

allowable deductions). Therefore, households receive benefit amounts that augment cash resources to bring them up to

the Thrifty Food Plan level. In 2004, for example, the maximum benefit level for a family of four was $471, with an

average benefit level of $326. So, on average, participating

four-person households were expected to contribute $145 of

their own income to food spending. Participants are not

required to buy the mix of foods in this market basket; they

are free to buy almost all foods sold in grocery stores, with

a few exceptions, such as hot, prepared foods.

Program benefits are based on average national food prices,

but prices vary in different areas of the United States. If

food prices differ greatly from area to area, food stamp benefits will have a lower purchasing power in higher priced

areas compared with lower priced areas, possibly making it

more difficult for some participants to afford a healthful

diet. Using data on food prices paid by a national sample of

consumers, Leibtag1 found considerable differences in food

prices for a broad mix of foods. In 1998-2003, average

prices in the East and West ranged from 8 percent to 11

percent above the national average, whereas average prices

in the South and Midwest ranged from 7 percent to 5 percent below the national average. Leibtag also found that

Economic Research Service/USDA 3

1Bolded names indicate author(s) of relevant bulletins in this folder.

See box at end of this overview for full citations.

Predicted BMI

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Figure 3

Among non-Hispanic White women, the BMI of food 

stamp recipients has remained steady but has

increased for nonrecipients

1976-80 1988-94 1999-2002

Food stamp participants

Eligible nonparticipants (PIR <= 1.30)

Moderate income (1.3 < PIR <= 3.0)

Higher income (PIR > 3.0)

Predicted BMI (Body Mass Index) calculated using regression 

coefficients assuming age 40. PIR is the ratio of income to the Federal 

poverty threshold.

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA, using data from National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.
prices paid for foods can be influenced by consumer behavior and that low-income consumers typically economized

with such strategies as buying private-label (store brand)

products, items on sale, and less expensive fruits and vegetables. Nevertheless, regional differences in prices could

be a challenge to the affordability of a healthful diet for

some food stamp households.

Using data from a national sample of households, Nord

and Hopwood found that the amount of money that lowand medium-income households believe necessary to “just

meet their food needs” (“enough food”) can vary considerably across different geographic areas of the country.

Although the cost of “enough food” is affected by many

factors, such as social norms and nutrition knowledge of

what constitutes an adequate diet, the association of perceived cost of “enough food” with the area within which a

household lives suggests that local food prices also play a

role. About 17 percent of food stamp participants live in

areas where the “cost of enough food” is 10 percent above

the national average or higher.

Increasing Food Purchasing Power May Not

Change Spending on Fruits and Vegetables

Some program critics believe that the problem of affordability is general enough that the best way to improve food

choices would be to increase food purchasing power by

raising food stamp benefits. Increasing benefits would

essentially provide households with greater income, hopefully resulting in more purchases of fruits and vegetables.

Frazao and colleagues assess the likely effects of an unrestricted increase in food purchasing power, such as an

increase in food stamp benefits, by examining food expenditures of households at various income levels. They find

that, as annual household income increases, spending on

fruits and vegetables changes little until income reaches

about $70,000. Besides nutrition, households have competing wants and needs; with small increases in income, other

wants and needs take priority over purchases of fruits and

vegetables. Only a large increase in household income

seems to have much effect on fruit and vegetable purchases.

Changing the Relative Price of Healthy

Foods—A Potential Policy Strategy

The findings of Frazao and colleagues indicate that a general increase in food stamp benefits would not have much

effect on fruit and vegetable expenditures. A proposed alternative strategy is to encourage fruit and vegetable purchases

more directly via bonuses or coupons when fruits and vegetables are purchased with food stamps. This approach would

lower the price of these foods for food stamp participants,

potentially making fruits and vegetables more appealing.

Lin and Guthrie examined the likely effects of such an

approach, using ERS-generated information on the response

of low-income consumers to changes in food prices and two

case studies of consumer response to food prices. Although

consumer response to prices may be weak for some foods,

the response to prices for fruits and vegetables is stronger,

and price manipulation via bonuses or coupons for food

stamp participants who purchase fruits and vegetables may

increase purchases of these foods.

Whether the effect would be powerful enough to result in

food stamp participants consuming a diet that met Federal

recommendations for fruits and vegetables is another question. The response to price depends on the size of the

manipulation. Lin and Guthrie estimated that a 20-percent

price reduction would raise fruit and vegetable consumption

to 2.2 cups per day—an improvement but still below recommendations for typical adults. Nutrition education and

promotion activities may enhance the effectiveness of price

manipulation strategies. Stronger price manipulations, such

as providing food stamp households with vouchers for fruit

and vegetable purchases, essentially reducing the price to

zero, could also be tested.

Guthrie and colleagues examine two proposed strategies

for improving food choices of food stamp participants that

are currently the subject of much debate (this article previously appeared in the ERS magazine Amber Waves). The

first strategy would restrict purchase of “unhealthful” foods

with food stamp benefits; the second would expand benefits

by offering bonuses or vouchers for purchase of healthful,

underconsumed foods, such as fruits and vegetables. The

analysis suggests that bonuses or vouchers may be a more

successful strategy; coupling this approach with market

innovation, retail promotion, and nutrition education may

increase its effectiveness.

Changing Knowledge and Attitudes May Help

In addition to being influenced by income and price, food

purchasing choices can be influenced by nutrition knowledge and attitudes. USDA uses nutrition education as its

primary strategy to improve the food choices of food stamp

4 Economic Research Service/USDA

As annual household income

increases, spending on fruits and

vegetables changes little until

income reaches about $70,000.
participants, with annual Federal expenditures for Food

Stamp Nutrition Education reaching almost $250 million in

2006. Guthrie and Variyam examine the challenges faced

by Food Stamp Nutrition Education.

Nutrition information can prompt consumers to change

their food choices—a well-known example is the shift from

whole milk to reduced- and low-fat milk. Consumer

response to information, however, can be inconsistent

because consumers have other preferences, such as taste,

convenience, etc., that compete with nutrition preferences.

Also, good nutrition is a longrun benefit, whereas other

preferences may be satisfied more immediately, making it

hard, even for individuals who value nutrition, to consistently resist immediate gratification. Resisting a sweet treat

today because of good health tomorrow—or 20 years from

now—can be difficult.

Finally, developing and implementing effective public education programs, such as Food Stamp Nutrition Education,

is not easy. The Food Stamp Program serves millions of

people of all ages and backgrounds. Federal and State funding levels for fiscal 2006 translated into less than $20 per

food stamp participant in available funds for education programs. Cost-effective strategies for reaching and teaching

such diverse audiences are a challenge, as are cost-effective

strategies for evaluating educational outcomes. Improving

data on nutrition education program outcomes could provide

information on the programs’ effectiveness and potentially

guide development of improved educational approaches.

Behavioral Economics Research 

Suggests New Approaches

New ideas for improving food choices of food stamp participants may come from the field of behavioral economics.

Traditional economic thinking assumes that consumers,

once they become knowledgeable about diet and health,

will act rationally in choosing foods that will lead to longterm well-being. Behavioral economics, in contrast, emphasizes the reasons individuals regularly and predictably act in

ways that seem to contradict typical notions of rationality. It

suggests new explanations of why individuals may choose

behaviors contrary to their long-term interest and has generated new ideas about how policies and environments might

be modified to help individuals act in their long-term best

interests (Just et al., 2007). Mancino and Andrews examine findings from behavioral economics that suggest strategies that might be useful in improving the food choices and

diet quality of food stamp participants.

Improved Evaluation Data and Methods Are

Needed To Assess Effects of Policy Changes

This folder compiles information that policymakers, program officials, and health advocates can use in considering

potential approaches to improving the food choices of food

stamp participants. However, without adequate evaluation,

policymakers will never know whether any changes that are

adopted turn out to be effective, ineffective, or even counterproductive. Unfortunately, measuring the effect of the

Food Stamp Program on food choices and health outcomes

is a difficult endeavor. An ERS review of research on Food

Stamp Program outcomes found broad consensus that the

program increases food spending and household income,

but its effects on the nutritional quality of participants’ diets

is uncertain (LeBlanc et al., 2006).

That there would be uncertainty and debate on this topic

may seem surprising, given that national food consumption

survey data on food stamp participants and nonparticipants

have been collected for decades. The basic problem is that a

simple comparison of diets of participants and nonparticipants does not address the bias introduced by “self-selection” of program participants. The Food Stamp Program is

an entitlement program, but eligible households choose

whether or not to participate—and only 60 percent do,

based on the most recent available estimates. Those who

choose to participate may be different from those who

choose not to participate, and these differences could also

be related to their food choices. While demographic and

other characteristics can be used by researchers to help control for differences between participants and nonparticipants, it’s impossible to be sure that such factors fully capture all differences relevant to food choice. If researchers do

not account for “self-selection bias,” simple comparisons 

Economic Research Service/USDA 5

Resisting a sweet treat today

because of good health

tomorrow—or 20 years from

now—can be difficult.

Behavioral economics.....has

generated new ideas about how

policies and environments might

be modified to help individuals

act in their long-term best

interests.
of diets of food stamp participants and nonparticipants will

not provide an accurate answer to the question of how the

program affects food choice. Although a variety of sophisticated statistical procedures to counteract selection bias have

been developed, none of these techniques can guarantee

that selection bias has been eliminated.

Frazao and colleagues review the priority needs for improved evaluation of nutrition outcomes of the Food Stamp

Program and summarize activities that the Economic

Research Service (ERS) is currently undertaking in support

of improved evaluation. The ERS Consumer Data Initiative

is designed to provide decisionmakers with more timely,

accurate, and comprehensive data. It should result in expanded data on consumer food purchases and prices paid,

consumers’ nutrition knowledge and relevant behaviors

(such as use of nutrition labeling), and, through linkage

with program participation, enhanced ability to examine

participation-related outcomes. Although expanded data 

per se will not solve the problem of selection bias, they 

will provide improved understanding of the relationship of

important economic and policy factors to program participation and outcomes and could expand analytical options

for addressing selection bias in analyses.

ERS is also working to improve measurement of nutrition

outcomes. Early evaluations of the Food Stamp Program

typically compared average consumption of foods and

nutrients by participants and nonparticipants, implicitly

assuming that “more is always better.” Modern nutritional

thinking stresses moderation and balance, with new Dietary

Reference Intakes (DRIs) better designed to identify both

adequate and excessive nutrient intakes. ERS has supported

research to improve these outcome measures and to develop

methodologies to apply them to food assistance program

evaluation. Finally, ERS, in collaboration with USDA’s

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), is working to develop 

a cost-effective method for assessing outcomes of Food

Stamp Nutrition Education.

Conclusions

The increase in food purchasing power provided by the

Food Stamp Program has helped low-income Americans

solve the basic problem of getting enough to eat. Can

changes in Food Stamp Program policies do more to help

participants solve the nutrition problems of today, which are

associated with choice of food, as well as amount? Specifically, can policy changes encourage food stamp participants

to purchase and consume recommended amounts of fruits

and vegetables? Changing participants’ behavior will not be

an easy task. The most recent data indicate that, despite 15

years of vigorous promotion through the public/private “5-

A-Day” initiative (recently renamed the “More Matters”

initiative), Americans, as a whole, have not improved their

consumption of fruits and vegetables (Casagrande et al.,

2007). Clearly, low income is not the only barrier to consumption that must be addressed.

Nevertheless, the Food Stamp Program, with its influence

on the food consumption of almost 1 in 12 Americans,

offers an important opportunity for promoting healthful

food choices. The success of proposed policy changes rests

on their effectiveness in creating the intended changes in

consumer behavior. The ERS research summarized in this

folder can guide policymakers, program officials, and

health and poverty advocates in assessing the likely effects

of proposed policies. Ongoing ERS research and evaluation

activities can also provide decisionmakers with feedback on

the outcomes of policy changes.

Information Sources

Casagrande, S.S., Y. Wang, C. Anderson, and T.L. Gary. “Have

Americans Increased Their Fruit and Vegetable Intake? The

Trends between 1988 and 2002,” American Journal of Preventive

Medicine 32(4):257-63, April 2007.

Fox, Mary Kay, and Nancy Cole. Nutrition and Health Characteristics of Low-Income Populations: Volume I, Food Stamp Program Participants and Nonparticipants, E-FAN-04-014-1, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, December 2004, available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/efan04014-1/. 

Just, David R., Lisa Mancino, and Brian Wansink. Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants? Economic Research Report No. 43,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,

June 2007, available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/err43/.

LeBlanc, Michael, Biing-Hwan Lin, and David Smallwood.

“Food Assistance: How Strong Is the Safety Net?” Amber Waves

4(4):10-15, September 2006, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, available at: www.ers.usda.gov/

amberwaves/september06/features/foodassistance.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and

Promotion. The Thrifty Food Plan, 2006, CNPP-19, available at:

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/MiscPubs/

TFP2006Report.pdf.

Ver Ploeg, Michele, Lisa Mancino, and Biing-Hwan Lin. “Food

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

Waves 4(1):32-37, February 2006, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, available at:

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

Feature4.htm.

6 Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA 7

Briefs in This Series

• Overview: Can Food Stamps Do More To Improve Food Choices? 

Joanne F. Guthrie, Biing-Hwan Lin, Michele Ver Ploeg, and Elizabeth Frazao

• Stretching the Food Dollar: Regional Price Differences Affect Affordability of Food

Ephraim S. Leibtag

• High Cost of Food in Some Areas May Affect Food Stamp Households’ Ability 

To Make Healthy Food Choices

Mark Nord and Heather Hopwood

• Food Spending Patterns of Low-Income Households: Will Increasing Purchasing

Power Result in Healthier Food Choices?

Elizabeth Frazao, Margaret Andrews, David Smallwood, and Mark Prell

• How Do Low-Income Households Respond to Food Prices?

Biing-Hwan Lin and Joanne F. Guthrie

• Nutrition Information: Can It Improve the Diets of Low-Income Households?

Joanne F. Guthrie and Jayachandran N. Variyam

• Making Healthy Food Choices Easier: Ideas From Behavioral Economics

Lisa Mancino and Margaret Andrews

• How Can We Tell If We Are Making a Difference? ERS Efforts To Improve 

Evaluation of Nutrition Outcomes

Elizabeth Frazao, Joanne F. Guthrie, and David Smallwood

• Improving Food Choices—Can Food Stamps Do More?

Joanne F. Guthrie, Elizabeth Frazao, Margaret Andrews, and David Smallwood 

(Reprinted from Amber Waves)

Can Food Stamps Do More To Improve Food Choices? 

An Economic Perspective
8 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.