Prior research has shown that there are more supermarket displays of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) during times when Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are distributed (‘issuance periods’). This may contribute to inequitable purchasing and consumption. This study examines whether SSB marketing in weekly supermarket circulars, which retailers use to advertise products, is more prevalent during issuance periods compared to non-issuance periods.

We conducted longitudinal, difference-in-differences analyses of data extracted from weekly supermarket circulars of randomly selected SNAP-authorised retailers in six states. Analyses tested whether SSB advertisements (‘ads’) were more prevalent during SNAP issuance periods compared to non-issuance periods within states with distinct issuance periods (3, 5, 10 or 15 d), compared to one state with continuous benefit issuance (28 d; the ‘control’ state).

Weekly online supermarket circulars collected from August to September 2019 were analysed in 2021.

The study sample included 5152 circulars from 563 SNAP-authorised retailers in the states California, Connecticut, Nebraska, New Jersey and Texas (distinct issuance period states) as well as Florida (‘control’ state).

The estimated mean percentage of beverage ads classified as SSB ads during issuance days was 51·5 % compared to 48·4 % during non-issuance days (P < 0·001). In difference-in-differences analyses comparing to the ‘control’ state with continuous issuance, SSB ad counts were 2·9 % higher (95 % CI 1·9 %, 3·9 %) during SNAP issuance relative to non-issuance.

SSB ads are slightly more prevalent in weekly supermarket circulars during SNAP issuance periods. Future research should explore the linkages between circular ads and SSB purchasing and consumption.

This article examined whether participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) produced changes to adult and child health and health care utilisation during a period of economic recession.

Instrumental variables analysis relying on variation in state SNAP policies to isolate exogenous variation in household SNAP participation.

Nationally representative data on child and adult health from the 2008 to 2013 National Health Interview Survey.

Participants were 92 237 adults and 45 469 children who were either eligible for SNAP based on household income and state eligibility rules or were low income but not eligible for SNAP benefits.

For adults, SNAP participation increased the probability of reporting very good or excellent health, and for both adults and children, reduced needing but having to go without dental care or eyeglasses. The size of these benefits was especially pronounced for children. However, SNAP participation increased the probability of needing but not being able to afford prescription medicine, and increased psychological distress for adults and behavioural problems for children under age 10.

SNAP’s benefits for adult health and improved access to dental and vision care for adults and children suggest benefits from the program’s expansions during the current COVID-induced crisis. Predicted negative effects of SNAP participation suggest the need for attention to program and benefit structure to avoid harm and the need for continued research to explore the causal effects of program participation.

The present study examines the connection between the timing and size of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and the occurrence of emergency room (ER) visits for hypoglycaemia, a condition that is highly sensitive to short-term changes in nutritional intake.

We used administrative data from Missouri SNAP and Medicaid to identify the timing of issuance and the benefit size of SNAP and the timing of ER claims for hypoglycaemia. We estimated the probability of submitting an ER claim for hypoglycaemia as a function of the calendar week, SNAP benefit week and the size of the SNAP benefit in models that controlled for individual demographic characteristics.

Missouri SNAP caseload from January 2010 to December 2013 linked to adult Medicaid claims data for the same time period.

ER claims submitted to Medicaid (n 6 508 061).

The results indicated no evidence of a SNAP benefit cycle or monthly cycle to ER claims for hypoglycaemia. However, the analysis did find that ER claims for hypoglycaemia are related to the size of the SNAP benefit.

These results suggest that more generous SNAP benefits help households avoid nutritional fluctuations in the quality and quantity of food that might result in low blood sugar, thus necessitating fewer ER visits for hypoglycaemia.

To examine the opinions of stakeholders on strategies to improve dietary quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants.

Participants answered a thirty-eight-item web-based survey assessing opinions and perceptions of SNAP and programme policy changes.

USA.

Survey of 522 individuals with stakeholder interest in SNAP, conducted in October through December 2011.

The top three barriers to improving dietary quality identified were: (i) unhealthy foods marketed in low-income communities; (ii) the high cost of healthy foods; and (iii) lifestyle challenges faced by low-income individuals. Many respondents (70 %) also disagreed that current SNAP benefit levels were adequate to maintain a healthy diet. Stakeholders believed that vouchers, coupons or monetary incentives for purchasing healthful foods might have the greatest potential for improving the diets of SNAP participants. Many respondents (78 %) agreed that sodas should not be eligible for purchases with SNAP benefits. More than half (55 %) believed retailers could easily implement such restrictions. A majority of respondents (58 %) agreed that stores should stock a minimum quantity of healthful foods in order to be certified as a SNAP retailer, and most respondents (83 %) believed that the US Department of Agriculture should collect data on the foods purchased with SNAP benefits.

Results suggest that there is broad stakeholder support for policies that align SNAP purchase eligibility with national public health goals of reducing food insecurity, improving nutrition and preventing obesity.

The aim of the study was to determine the association between dietary outcomes and the neighbourhood food environment (street network distance from home to stores) and consumer food environment (Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey-Stores (NEMS-S) audit).

The neighbourhood food environment was captured by creating 0·5-mile and 1-mile network distance (street distance) around each participant's home and the nearest food venue (convenience store, grocery store, supermarket, farmers' market and produce stand). The consumer food environment was captured by conducting NEMS-S in all grocery stores/supermarkets within 0·5 and 1 mile of participants’ homes.

Fayette County, KY, USA.

Supplemental Nutrition Assessment Program (SNAP) participants, n 147.

SNAP participants who lived within 0·5 mile of at least one farmers’ market/produce stand had higher odds of consuming one serving or more of vegetables (OR = 6·92; 95 % CI 4·09, 11·69), five servings or more of grains (OR = 1·76; 95 % CI 1·01, 3·05) and one serving or more of milk (OR = 3·79; 95 % CI 2·14, 6·71) on a daily basis. SNAP participants who lived within 0·5 mile of stores receiving a high score on the NEMS-S audit reported higher odds of consuming at least one serving of vegetables daily (OR = 3·07; 95 % CI 1·78, 5·31).

Taken together, both the neighbourhood food environment and the consumer food environment are associated with a healthy dietary intake among SNAP participants.

To determine public attitudes towards federal spending on nutrition assistance programmes and support for policies to improve the nutritional impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Participants answered survey questions by telephone assessing support for SNAP spending and proposed programme policy changes.

USA.

Survey of 3024 adults selected by random digit dialling conducted in April 2012, including 418 SNAP participants.

A majority (77 %; 95 % CI 75, 79 %) of all respondents supported maintaining or increasing SNAP benefits, with higher support among Democrats (88 %; 95 % CI 86, 90 %) than Republicans (61 %; 95 % CI 58, 65 %). The public supported policies to improve the nutritional impact of SNAP. Eighty-two per cent (95 % CI 80, 84 %) of respondents supported providing additional benefits to programme participants that can only be used on healthful foods. Sixty-nine per cent (95 % CI 67, 71 %) of respondents supported removing SNAP benefits for sugary drinks. A majority of SNAP participants (54 %; 95 % CI 48, 60 %) supported removing SNAP benefits for sugary drinks. Of the 46 % (95 % CI 40, 52 %) of SNAP participants who initially opposed removing sugary drinks, 45 % (95 % CI 36, 54 %) supported removing SNAP benefits for sugary drinks if the policy also included additional benefits to purchase healthful foods.

The US public broadly supports increasing or maintaining spending on SNAP. The majority of respondents, including SNAP participants, supported policies to improve the nutritional impact of SNAP by restricting the purchase of sugary drinks and incentivizing purchase of healthful foods with SNAP benefits.

To estimate the effect of the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on the food security (consistent access to adequate food) of recipients, net of the effect of the self-selection of more food-needy households into the programme.

The food security of current SNAP recipients and recent leavers is compared in cross-sectional survey data, adjusting for economic and demographic differences using multivariate logistic regression methods. A similar analysis in 2-year longitudinal panels provides additional control for selection on unobserved variables based on food security status in the previous year.

Household survey data collected for the US Department of Agriculture by the US Census Bureau.

Households interviewed in the Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements from 2001 to 2009.

The odds of very low food security among households that continued on SNAP through the end of a survey year were 28 % lower than among those that left SNAP prior to the 30-d period during which food security was assessed. In 2-year panels with controls for the severity of food insecurity in the previous year, the difference in odds was 45 %.

The results are consistent with, or somewhat higher than, the estimates from the strongest previous research designs and suggest that the ameliorative effect of SNAP on very low food security is in the range of 20–50 %.