Study shows the consequences of budget cuts to SNAP in Minnesota
The non-partisan Food Research and Action Center says more than 458,000 Minnesotans rely on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits to put food on the table. The non-profit says SNAP also offers nine meals to every one that a local pantry can provide.
The FRAC study also found that among the Minnesota households relying on SNAP benefits:
45% are with children
49% are with a person with a disability
35% have older adults in them
10,989 veterans rely on SNAP
The CEO of Second Harvest Heartland, Allison O'Toole, says she fears the impact of potential SNAP cuts during the budget talks in Washington. "We've seen food insecurity rates skyrocket in the last 4 years. We're at an all-time high right now," said O'Toole. "We are in a hunger crisis already. If these proposals are enacted, it'll be catastrophic."
To do her part, O'Toole is flying to Washington, D.C. this week to meet with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the House Committee on Agriculture to advocate for hunger relief policy.
"I'm making a special trip [on Monday] because it's a critical time," said O'Toole.
While cuts are not official yet, O'Toole hopes people will give money, food donations or service hours to Minnesota food shelves to prepare for what's a possibility.
"This is a solvable issue and if there's one state that can do it, it is ours. We just need everyone to join forces to make sure we can do it," said O'Toole.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 hours ago
- New York Post
Eric Adams vetoes controversial grocery bills, citing affordability crisis for New Yorkers
Mayor Eric Adams vetoed a pair of controversial grocery bills that would have forced delivery companies in NYC to pay drivers more, which critics said would result in higher costs at the supermarket. Adams said Wednesday he issued the vetoes because he feared the increase in prices would burden struggling New Yorkers already facing an affordability crisis. 'Grocery prices are already too high, so now is not the right time to do anything to drive these prices even higher,' the mayor said. 4 Adams used his veto power to swat down a pair of bills he said would make grocery deliveries more expensive. James Messerschmidt Progressive City Council members who supported the legislation said the new laws would increase wages to more than $21 per hour for delivery drivers. But Adams argued the app delivery companies would pass the cost of the increased wages onto 'vulnerable' customers. 4 The mayor said New Yorkers can't afford higher grocery prices. Xinhua/Shutterstock 'Grocery delivery is fundamental for many New Yorkers, including some of our most vulnerable residents,' Adams said. 'We must always work to strike the right balance between delivering fair wages and making our city affordable for everyone and for that reason, I am vetoing both of these bills at this time.' Two-thirds of council members could vote to override Adams' vetoes. Council member Sandy Nurse, who sponsored Intro 1135-A and leads the council's progressive caucus, did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. When her bill was passed in July it received 36 votes, two more than a veto-proof majority. Intro 1133-A, the other bill Adams vetoed Wednesday, was also passed with a veto-proof majority, with 38 council members voting 'aye' in July. Council member Jennifer Gutiérrez, who sponsored 1133-A did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. A spokesperson for city council, Julia Agos, said the mayor was being hypocritical and the council was 'considering next steps.' 'Mayor Adams is once again displaying hypocrisy – this time, by opposing common-sense minimum pay standards and protections for grocery delivery workers that his own administration negotiated with us to match existing ones for food delivery workers,' Agos said. 'This veto demonstrates that the mayor's claims to care about working-class New Yorkers and a sustainable delivery industry for New York City are hollow, because he is undermining the workers who make the sector possible,' she added. 4 Progressive city council members argued struggling food delivery workers are underpaid. Stephen Yang The mayor was swayed in part by an op-ed written by Rev. Al Sharpton and published in AMNY, according to a source in City Hall. Sharpton argued food insecure New Yorkers, who are already facing cuts from the Trump administration to federal food programs, such as SNAP, couldn't stomach higher grocery prices. 4 A majority of council members could still vote to override the mayor's veto. Matthew McDermott The mayor's decision was also affected by a petition signed by 11,000 grocery delivery customers asking for the bills to be vetoed, according to a source. 'We cannot risk making groceries even more expensive for the families who can least afford them. Our administration will always fight for a fairer, more affordable future for all New Yorkers, full stop,' Adams said.
The Hill
15 hours ago
- The Hill
California Republican drowned out by boos at town hall
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (Calif.) on Monday became the latest Republican to see a town hall devolve into shouts and jeers as he was peppered with hostile comments over the ' big, beautiful bill,' the Trump administration's immigration moves and other elements of the GOP agenda. At an event in Chico, Calif., LaMalfa's opening remarks were greeted with expletive-laden shrieks and boos. After staff distributed red and green placards to the crowd who packed the local Elks Lodge to register their opinions, the lawmaker repeatedly saw a sea of red. 'No fascism in America,' one man screamed at LaMalfa at the beginning. 'You need to be impeached.' 'I have many concerns, but one of the biggest ones for our area is the cuts to the Medicaid, SNAP, housing vouchers,' one woman said later during the town hall. 'There's this facade that we're not working hard enough and that's why we're trying to get free benefits. Everyone's working as hard as they can even to help their neighbors survive.' LaMalfa was greeted by another angry but smaller-scale crowd later Tuesday at a different town hall in Red Bluff, Calif. He again attempted to defend Trump's agenda, including cuts to Medicaid in the 'big, beautiful bill.' 'It doesn't cut a single dollar from people that do qualify,' he said, arguing that Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) administration had an obligation to ensure the state's Medi-Cal program was not spent on people who had immigrated illegally to the U.S. 'I think taxpayers work too hard to have their money go to illegal immigration.' As LaMalfa spoke, local news station KRCR captured a man standing at the back of the auditorium, making a mock-talking motion with his hands. He also wore a white shirt depicting Trump in a cage with the words 'Make America Great Again' surrounding it, mocking the president's campaign slogan. A few constituents did come out to support LaMalfa. 'I want to thank you for continuing to defend our rights,' said one woman, who identified herself as a Hispanic immigrant, in Chico. 'To those yelling, I suggest you get a passport and travel. You will see the grass is no greener on the other side. America is still the greatest country in the world.' The lawmaker, who represents a large swath of Northern California, is one of the five Golden State Republicans who could be pushed out of his seat by a Democratic mid-cycle redistricting effort meant to counter potential GOP gains in Texas during the midterms next year. At his Chico town hall, the California Republican said he opposed redistricting efforts in Texas, but argued that his home state's planned retaliation was worse for trying to bypass the state's independent redistricting commission established by voters. 'Texas shouldn't be doing that … this is going to start a grass fire across the country, every single state trying to change it based on a political outcome,' he said. 'California's difference from Texas is that they're going to be trampling the voice of those propositions.'
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Red states lead push for MAHA soda bans
Republican-led states are leading the charge to ban soda and candy from their food assistance programs, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement flips traditional partisanship on its head. Colorado is the only blue state to seek and have a soda ban waiver approved, and the only waiver state to propose expanding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in conjunction with limiting its scope. Both parties at times have expressed interest in eliminating soda from SNAP, but the Trump administration is the first to encourage states to do so. Recent attempts at soda regulation have mostly been concentrated in blue cities. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) infamously tried to ban the sale of supersized sugary drinks in 2013, prompting Republicans to decry his 'nanny state' tactics. With the healthy-eating push now under the MAHA branding, GOP states are jumping aboard. Kennedy doesn't run SNAP — that falls under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). But as the face of MAHA, Kennedy has been alongside Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to promote soda and candy bans. In just the first six months of the new administration, 12 state waivers have been approved by the USDA that restrict SNAP recipients from purchasing some combination of soft drinks, sugary beverages, energy drinks and candy 'We all believe in free choice, we live in a democracy. … If you want to buy sugary soda, you ought to be able to do that. The U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,' Kennedy said during a recent press conference. The states that have claimed waivers are Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. SNAP dollars can be used to buy any food or beverage from a grocery store except alcohol, nutritional supplements or hot food. The idea of policing the shopping carts of low-income Americans has never sat well with anti-hunger advocates, who argue it's paternalistic and stigmatizing for low-income Americans. Additionally, while federal data show sugary drinks are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet, nutrition experts said there is limited evidence that shows SNAP soda bans lead to better health outcomes. There's even less evidence that banning candy and dessert foods from SNAP can positively impact a person's diet. 'Claiming that implementing these restrictions will absolutely lead to a curb in diet-related diseases, you cannot confidently say that. There is no evidence to support that statement,' said Joelle Johnson, the deputy director for Healthy Food Access at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a group that advocates for stronger nutrition regulation. The SNAP waivers are for pilot programs only, so they won't immediately lead to long-term policy changes. They are a chance for states to conduct the research that's been missing — if they want to find out. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina School of Global Public Health, said he thinks waivers are toothless ways for states to show their MAHA bona fides. 'None of these states are doing more than pleasing MAHA, doing what's easy. They can do this internally. They don't have to go to the politicians [and pass laws],' Popkin said, 'Waivers do nothing except allow a state to say you can't buy junk food.' Experts said historically, Republicans who have wanted to ban soda from SNAP also viewed it as a way to trim spending on the program. Some advocates continue to view the latest push with skepticism. One of the groups pushing hard for state SNAP waivers is the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank based in Florida that's been working for more than a decade to reshape the nation's public assistance programs and significantly cut spending. Johnson said she is worried about a slippery slope. If fewer items are eligible for SNAP, she's concerned GOP leaders will use that as an excuse to cut back on people's monthly benefits. Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the George Washington University's Global Food Institute, said there could be benefits in trying to focus SNAP purchases on healthy food. But it's hard to look at a soda-and-candy ban in isolation, she said. The USDA slashed about $1 billion in funding that let schools and food banks buy food directly from local farms and ranchers. The White House is proposing deep cuts to fruit and vegetable benefits under WIC, the nutritional assistance program for women, infants, and children. The GOP's new tax cut law is projected to cut $186 billion from SNAP in the next decade and disqualify millions from eligibility. 'It's hard to separate the soda ban from the larger political efforts to shrink SNAP overall. So are these bans about promoting health or are they about shrinking SNAP? And I think the distinction really matters,' Fielding-Singh said. She added that any moves to restrict what people can buy with SNAP should be paired with efforts to give people the 'means and access and resources to eat more healthfully.' But so far, none of the red-state waivers do that. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), in a statement on his waiver, called it 'a big step towards improving the health of Coloradans, and reducing obesity rates, diabetes, and tooth decay' that 'will help to ensure that more Coloradans participating in SNAP have access to healthy foods.' The Trump administration has not yet given Colorado the green light on a separate waiver to cover hot foods from grocery stores such as rotisserie chicken or soup. Two other Democratic governors — Kansas's Laura Kelly and Arizona's Katie Hobbs — each vetoed bills that called for their states to submit waivers to ban candy and soda. 'I support the idea that Kansans should eat healthier. However, changes to the SNAP food assistance program should be made at the federal level, not on a patchwork, state-by-state basis,' Kelly wrote in her veto message. She also noted the language in the bill would have mandated businesses stop accepting food assistance benefits for 'healthy' items such as protein bars and trail mix while continuing to allow Twix, Kit Kat, and Twizzlers. Kennedy this week said he expects more blue states to be filing waivers. 'I was at the governors' conference in Colorado last week, and I met with a whole string of Democratic governors and they all committed to filing SNAP waivers,' he said. Kennedy also said those governors also committed to put forward other 'MAHA legislation' but acknowledged they may not want to be associated with the term because it's become 'kind of a partisan brand.' As she signed Colorado's waiver, Rollins said healthy eating should be bipartisan. 'This is not red or blue, Republican or Democrat,' Rollins said. 'We are discussing and working with every state, so really excited to continue to work with Gov. Polis.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
