Vivienne Hazzard is an assistant professor in the College of Human Medicine Charles Stewart Mott Department of Public Health. She is a registered dietitian and public health researcher passionate about improving young people’s relationships with food. The overarching goal of her research is to prevent and reduce disparities in disordered eating. A key line of her research focuses on the role food insecurity plays in the development of disordered eating, and her ongoing work increasingly focuses on approaches to mitigating food insecurity.
With 47 million people in the U.S. facing food insecurity in 2023—more than the combined population of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Texas, the urgency of this issue cannot be overstated. In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it is unacceptable that many people struggle to access enough safe, nutritious food.
Imagine having to worry on a regular basis about how you will feed your family. This is a daunting and stressful experience that can negatively impact mental and physical health. Now, consider being a child in a food-insecure home where, on some days, your parent emphasizes the importance of "eating everything on your plate." On other days, they may instead say there is not enough food, leaving you to go to bed hungry. These mixed messages may lead to an unhealthy relationship with food for children.
Food assistance programs like the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as "food stamps," play critical roles in improving access to food for households with limited resources. Pandemic-era expansions and administrative flexibilities in such programs were instrumental in mitigating the spike in food insecurity in 2020 and 2021.
SNAP, serving over 40 million people in the U.S., is a lifeline for many households. In fact, SNAP participation has been found to reduce the risk of premature mortality. SNAP has clear benefits, yet its benefit distribution schedule may have some unintended consequences.
SNAP benefits are provided once monthly, and for over two decades, it has been recognized that many households participating in SNAP exhaust their benefits shortly after they receive them, resulting in limited food availability toward the end of the month. This has been referred to as the monthly SNAP benefit cycle. It has also been referred to as a "feast-or-famine" cycle, where "feasting" happens during periods of relative food abundance (e.g., after receiving SNAP benefits) and "famine" happens during periods of food scarcity (e.g., after benefits have been exhausted). It has been proposed that the "feast" portions of the cycle may help explain why food insecurity is linked with higher weight status in our country.
My prior research offers support for the "feast" portion of the "feast-or-famine" cycle, showing that moments of greater food availability than usual predict binge eating among individuals experiencing food insecurity, but only among those participating in food assistance programs like SNAP.
My research also looks at other unintended consequences that the SNAP benefit cycle might have on people's relationships with food and eating. For example, a current project I am working on looks at differences in parental stress and controlling food parenting practices—specifically, food restriction and pressuring children to eat—in the days surrounding the receipt of SNAP benefits. Parental stress and controlling food parenting practices are important factors to consider, as they have each been linked with the development of maladaptive eating behaviors over time in children. They could plausibly change throughout the month depending on food availability in the household. However, this possibility has not yet been explored.
Last month at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, I presented findings from this project showing that levels of parental stress increased in the final few days of the SNAP benefit cycle (i.e., in the days leading up to receipt of SNAP benefits). Parents also engaged in more food restriction practices and less pressure-to-eat practices. These trends reversed course in the days after receiving SNAP benefits.
After presenting these findings and discussing how the current SNAP benefit distribution schedule may contribute to disruptions in children's mealtime environments, the audience joined in fervent discussion about how we could best improve upon the existing SNAP benefit distribution structure. An array of possible alternatives has previously been proposed. One audience member was optimistic that dividing benefits into biweekly distributions would help smooth consumption patterns over the month, while another was adamant that increasing the overall number of benefits is the only way to ensure stable levels of food availability throughout the month. Their contributions, along with others, were crucial in sparking a lively debate about the potential benefits and drawbacks of each approach. The expertise and insights of this audience are essential for shaping the future of SNAP and food security in our country.
While the solution may not be immediately clear, we all agreed on one thing: something needs to change, and we have the power to make it happen.
This story originally appeared on the Charles Stewart Mott Department of Public Health website.
