N※N

Show Food and Wine Publications

Food Stamp Cuts Could Deala Blowto Small Grocers

Proposed Food Stamp Cuts Spark Backlash From Unlikely Allies: America's Grocers

WASHINGTON — In a surprising twist to the ongoing debate over federal spending, America's grocery industry is emerging as a vocal opponent to proposed cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. As congressional Republicans push for significant reductions in the program to curb what they describe as ballooning government expenditures, grocers from small independent stores to major chains like Walmart and Kroger are warning that such measures could devastate their bottom lines and ripple through the broader economy.

The proposals, outlined in a draft budget resolution circulating among House Republicans, aim to slash SNAP funding by as much as 20 percent over the next five years. Proponents argue that the program, which ballooned during the pandemic to support over 42 million Americans, has become unsustainable amid rising inflation and national debt. "We need to return to fiscal responsibility," said Representative Mark Harlan, a Republican from Texas and a key architect of the plan. "SNAP was never meant to be a permanent crutch; it's time to encourage self-sufficiency."

But for grocers, the stakes are deeply personal—and financial. SNAP benefits account for a substantial portion of sales in many stores, particularly in low-income and rural areas. According to industry estimates, the program funnels more than $100 billion annually into the food retail sector, making it one of the largest drivers of grocery revenue. "Cutting SNAP isn't just about feeding the hungry; it's about keeping our doors open," said Elena Ramirez, owner of a family-run market in Detroit. Her store, like many others, relies on SNAP transactions for up to 40 percent of its daily business. Without that influx, she fears layoffs, reduced hours, and potentially closure.

This alliance between grocers and anti-poverty advocates marks a departure from traditional political fault lines. Historically, the food industry has aligned with conservative interests on issues like deregulation and tax cuts. Yet, the potential SNAP reductions have prompted a lobbying blitz from groups like the Food Industry Association (FMI) and the National Grocers Association (NGA). In recent weeks, these organizations have flooded Capitol Hill with data showing how SNAP cuts could lead to widespread economic fallout. A report commissioned by the NGA projects that a 20 percent cut could result in the loss of over 200,000 jobs in the retail sector alone, not to mention secondary effects on suppliers, farmers, and transportation networks.

The roots of this conflict trace back to the program's evolution. Established in 1964 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, SNAP has grown into the nation's largest anti-hunger initiative. It operates through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards, allowing recipients to purchase groceries at authorized retailers. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary expansions increased benefits and eligibility, helping to stave off a hunger crisis. Even as the economy recovered, enrollment remained high, with one in eight Americans relying on the program as of 2024.

Critics of the proposed cuts, including Democrats and some moderate Republicans, argue that reducing SNAP now would exacerbate inequality at a time when food insecurity is on the rise. Data from the Department of Agriculture shows that food prices have increased by 15 percent since 2022, putting additional strain on low-income households. "These cuts aren't savings; they're a transfer of burden from the federal government to food banks and charities that are already overwhelmed," said Senator Maria Gonzalez, a Democrat from California. She points to studies indicating that every dollar in SNAP benefits generates $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity, primarily through grocery spending.

Grocers' concerns extend beyond immediate revenue losses. Many fear that reduced benefits could shift consumer behavior, pushing shoppers toward discount outlets or online platforms that don't accept SNAP, further eroding market share for traditional stores. In rural America, where options are limited, the impact could be catastrophic. Take, for example, the case of Millford County, Oklahoma, where a single supermarket serves a population of 15,000, many of whom depend on SNAP. "If benefits drop, people will buy less, and we'll have to cut inventory, which means fewer orders from local farmers," explained store manager Tom Wilkins. "It's a domino effect that hits everyone."

The grocery industry's pushback has not gone unnoticed in political circles. Some Republicans, particularly those representing districts with high SNAP usage, are privately expressing reservations. Representative Laura Chen, a Republican from a swing district in Ohio, has broken ranks to co-sponsor a bill that would protect current funding levels. "My constituents include both SNAP recipients and small business owners," she said. "We can't afford to ignore the real-world consequences."

Advocates for cuts, however, dismiss these warnings as fearmongering. They propose work requirements and stricter eligibility criteria to trim the program without eliminating it entirely. "We're not heartless; we're practical," argued Harlan. "By tying benefits to employment, we can reduce dependency and save taxpayer dollars." This approach echoes reforms attempted during the Trump administration, which faced legal challenges and were largely reversed under President Biden.

Yet, evidence from past experiments paints a mixed picture. In 2018, a pilot program in several states imposing work mandates led to a drop in enrollment but also an increase in food insecurity among affected populations. Economists like Dr. Rebecca Lang from the Urban Institute note that such policies often fail to account for barriers like childcare shortages, transportation issues, and health problems that prevent work. "SNAP isn't just welfare; it's an investment in human capital," Lang said. "Cutting it shortchanges our future workforce."

The debate is further complicated by the broader fiscal context. With the national debt surpassing $35 trillion, pressure to rein in entitlements is mounting. SNAP, while a fraction of overall spending, has become a symbolic target in budget battles. The upcoming farm bill, which traditionally reauthorizes SNAP alongside agricultural subsidies, is expected to be a flashpoint. Negotiations are already underway, with grocers joining farmers in advocating for robust funding.

In urban centers, the human toll is stark. In New York City, where over 1.5 million residents use SNAP, community leaders report lines at food pantries stretching blocks even before any cuts. "People are choosing between rent and groceries," said activist Jamal Thompson. "Reducing benefits now would be devastating."

Grocers are not monolithic in their views. Some larger chains, with diversified revenue streams, might weather the storm better than independents. Walmart, for instance, has publicly supported SNAP while quietly lobbying for policies that favor big-box retailers. But even they acknowledge the risks. A spokesperson for the company stated, "SNAP is vital to our customers and our business. We urge lawmakers to consider the full impact."

As the budget resolution moves toward a vote, the unlikely coalition of grocers, advocates, and bipartisan lawmakers is gaining traction. Public opinion polls show broad support for maintaining or expanding SNAP, with 65 percent of Americans opposing cuts, according to a recent Pew survey. This sentiment could sway the outcome, especially in an election year.

Ultimately, the fight over food stamp cuts reveals deeper tensions in American society: between austerity and compassion, between economic theory and lived reality. For grocers, it's a reminder that policy decisions in Washington reverberate on Main Street shelves. As Ramirez in Detroit put it, "We're not just selling food; we're sustaining communities. Cut SNAP, and you cut us all."

The path forward remains uncertain. If cuts proceed, legal challenges are likely, echoing past battles. If blocked, it could signal a shift toward more inclusive fiscal policy. Either way, the grocery industry's entry into the fray underscores a fundamental truth: in the politics of hunger, everyone has a stake.

(Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full The New York Times Article at:
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/03/us/politics/food-stamp-cuts-grocers.html ]