cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/5335
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
“You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases,” the email said. “You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver.”
The email referred to SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was “aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email.”
She added that it was “understandable why grocery stores might be scared off” because “a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable.”
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a “perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients… charging them more when they use food stamps.”
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
— (@)
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration’s refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration’s position on social media: “Can’t follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don’t help poor people afford food.”
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
So the food desert problem was way worse than it seemed. Not only did places have few grocery stores for miles, but the stores that did exist were centered around people who couldn’t afford it without SNAP. When that goes away, the stores go away.
I don’t want to recenter this on electoralism but it’s funny that state-run groceries were an issue on Mamdani’s campaign before SNAP funding was frozen. Now that funding is frozen, here is a good test case for that idea. Kind of like how Bernie was talking about healthcare and then he ran during 2020 when COVID was popping off. It’s so frustrating because even though they’re reformists, they latch on to the right current. But after 2020 people just kind of gave up on healthcare and let it decline further. Now communities are losing their only hospital. Mamdani seems to have the lead and may likely win, but I’m assuming his grocery project will go the same way.