Nutrition Program for Americans on Food Stamps at Risk in GOP Bill
Aretha Richardson waters seedlings planted during an adult SNAP-Ed class in the community garden at Moravia Park Elementary School in Baltimore on June 4.
BALTIMORE – A group of kindergartners sat attentively in a bright elementary school, ready to learn the keys to living a healthy life. One of the four main pillars, nutrition educator Karen Turner told them, was to drink lots of water.
'What about Pepsi?' Turner asked.
'No!' the kids screamed.
'What about Capri Sun?'
'No!'
For more than 15 years, Turner has been teaching healthy habits to students at schools like Moravia Park Elementary, where 100 percent of the children are eligible for free and reduced meals. The effort is part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education, or SNAP-Ed, a federally funded initiative that aims to help low-income Americans make healthier, cost-effective food choices.
But Turner's classes – and other activities to increase nutrition and prevent obesity across the country – could soon end. House Republicans have proposed eliminating SNAP-Ed.
The potential cut alarms program leaders who say states would be forced to pare back efforts to improve Americans' health at a moment when addressing childhood illness and chronic disease has rapidly become a major theme of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda. Supporters of the program wonder why Congress would defund efforts to teach food stamp recipients how to eat healthy at the same time Trump administration officials are, for the first time, approving state efforts to crack down on using benefits to pay for soda and candy.
Nearly 20 percent of U.S. children are obese, almost four times the rate in the 1970s before the proliferation of ultra-processed food, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation's top health official, has called for sweeping change to the nation's food supply.
'If you want America to be healthier and you're cutting SNAP-Ed, I don't see how that can be done,' said Turner, who is with Maryland's SNAP-Ed program run by the University of Maryland Extension.
The cut was just one line item in the House version of Trump's massive tax and immigration bill, which passed the chamber last month. It's not yet clear what Senate Republicans will do. A spokeswoman for the Senate agriculture panel, which oversees SNAP, said the committee is 'working through the process' of crafting its portion of the bill with the aim to release it in the 'coming days.' She did not say whether the chamber will also seek to eliminate dollars to SNAP-Ed.
On Monday evening, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), a member of the Agriculture Committee, said the Senate has not yet decided. Another member, Sen. Jim Justice (R-West Virginia), said he did not believe the program would be fully eliminated, but funding could be reduced.
Republicans cast SNAP-Ed as duplicative and ineffective, saying they don't believe it has delivered meaningful change in the nutrition or obesity of Americans who receive benefits formerly known as food stamps – an assertion those who have evaluated the program contest.
'The data shows it hasn't moved the dial in making America healthy again,' Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, said in a brief interview.
A 2019 Government Accountability Office report stated that the U.S. Department of Agriculture needed to improve how it gathers information on the effectiveness of SNAP-Ed programs to determine if the program is meeting its goals. Since then, the program has bolstered its reporting mechanisms.
The sweeping legislation – which the Senate is currently reworking in an effort to pass it by July 4 – includes other major changes to SNAP, which provides food assistance to needy families. The House bill expanded work requirements to receive benefits. It also required states to pay between 5 to 25 percent of SNAP benefits in moves that could lead millions of low-income Americans to lose access to food stamps or see decreases in their monthly benefits.
Yet, many SNAP-Ed leaders were caught off guard by the complete elimination of the $536 million annual program, one of the USDA's largest nutrition education initiatives. Congressional scorekeepers estimate repealing the program would save the government nearly $5.5 billion over the next decade.
'Each day, the Department of Agriculture spends roughly $400 million across its 16 nutrition programs. Yet diet-related, chronic disease is skyrocketing, particularly in children,' a USDA spokesperson said in a statement, adding that 'Secretary [Brooke] Rollins will continue to support President Trump's agenda while making certain we respect the generosity of the American taxpayer to Make America Healthy Again.'
Fed and watered
In Baltimore in early June – less than two weeks after the House passed legislation to eliminate SNAP-Ed – a two-hour nutrition class for adults was wrapping up. The smell of Cajun-style catfish overwhelmed the hallways of the elementary school as participants enjoyed the food they made based on ingredients they had received earlier from a food bank.
Cheryl Colvin poured some salt into her hand and sprinkled it on her fish.
Then, the self-professed 'salt-a-holic' took a bite.
'I just added that little pinch of salt,' she said, 'and I shouldn't have.'
Colvin – who receives roughly $300 in food stamps each month – said she grew up cooking with a lot of grease. Through Turner's classes, the two-time cancer survivor is learning to prepare foods in a healthier way, she said, such as by roasting chicken rather than frying it (and using less salt).
She, along with the other participants, also made 'container gardens' out of empty strawberry containers. They planted a lettuce mix as Turner told the class they could use their food stamp benefits to buy seeds. 'Can you see how that can actually help you save money?' Turner asked the class.
For roughly 25 years, Maryland has operated a SNAP-Ed program through the University of Maryland Extension. But the groundwork for the nationwide initiative was laid decades ago, and starting in 1992, the federal government began partially funding nutrition education plans from states that chose to participate.
Nearly two decades later, SNAP-Ed became a nationwide grant program with the passage of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. States get federal grants to fund an array of educational activities, such as marketing campaigns, farm-to-school programs and community gardens. The focus is also on creating new policies aimed at improving the overall health in a community, like an effort in Maryland to work with school districts to strengthen wellness policies. The program is targeted to those who are eligible for SNAP, as well as those who qualify for other federal food assistance.
In a markup of the House bill last month, several Democrats criticized the move to eliminate dollars to SNAP-Ed.
'SNAP benefits are being cut in this hearing – right now through this bill,' said Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii). 'Now we're also talking about taking away the education that helps families stretch them further.'
Thompson, the Republican committee chair, said that he'd always believed the concept of SNAP education was a 'really good thing.'
He argued that 'numerous studies' had not shown evidence that SNAP-Ed has influenced long-term behaviors, adding that the federal government has other nutrition programs. A spokesman pointed to the GAO report as well as two studies from 2012 and 2013, which had varied results.
Those who have evaluated the program contend they believe it is effective. They point to data they say show there is evidence the program is accomplishing its goals and contend it fills gaps that other federal programs can't fill.
'Republicans didn't talk with us about bipartisan solutions for how we might improve the program,' Rep. Angie Craig (Minnesota), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement to The Washington Post. 'They took a page out of Elon Musk's DOGE playbook and deleted SNAP-Ed entirely.'
In recent years, SNAP-Ed launched a new electronic national reporting system to better compare data across states, according to the Association of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators. Pamela Bruno, the lead evaluator of Maine's SNAP-Ed program, said the association recently analyzed data from the new reporting system that showed improvement in fruit and vegetable intake, as well as shopping behaviors and physical activity.
'As someone who's evaluated it for over a decade, I see the impacts,' Bruno said, 'and I believe there is a rigorous and really effective process for both planning and evaluating this program nationally.'
Jerry Mande, who oversaw SNAP-Ed at the Agriculture Department for six years under the Obama administration, says he wants the initiative to have a greater focus on developing pilot programs to test out new policies in SNAP and mass-media campaigns – efforts he believes could have the broadest reach.
But, Mande said, he opposes the effort to defund the program. He noted the Trump administration's recently released budget dealing with discretionary spending mentions funding for SNAP-Ed. The White House has not detailed how it will handle funding levels for programs, like SNAP-ED, set outside the annual appropriations cycle. Some prior Trump budgets had proposed terminating funding.
After the nutrition lesson with Turner at the Baltimore elementary school, Tina Smith walked her kindergartners back to the classroom. They had just learned about four ways to be happy and healthy. Enjoy healthy snacks. Eat healthy meals. Use playtime as exercise. Drink lots of water.
For 14 years, Smith has worked at Moravia Park Elementary School.
The classes, she said, were an 'eye-opener.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kyodo News
7 days ago
- Kyodo News
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts - Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find nongovernment funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were canceled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
Yomiuri Shimbun
07-08-2025
- Yomiuri Shimbun
How RFK Jr.'S Mrna Crackdown Affects Vaccine Making and Future Pandemics
The Trump administration's decision to terminate hundreds of millions of dollars to develop mRNA vaccines and treatments imperils the country's ability to fight future pandemics and is built on false or misleading claims about the technology, public health experts said. Vaccine development is typically a years-long process, but mRNA technology paired with massive injections of federal funding during the coronavirus pandemic drastically slashed the timeline. The first covid shots, based on mRNA, were in people's arms less than a year after the United States recorded its first coronavirus case – a signature achievement of the first Trump administration. The flexible technology provided a road map for how to quickly respond to pathogens that are constantly evolving, including H5N1 avian bird flu, a candidate to spark the next pandemic. But research into H5N1 mRNA vaccines were among nearly two dozen mRNA projects supported by the government's biodefense agency that were terminated or altered, according to a Department of Health and Human Services statement released Tuesday. The moves affect $500 million in projects, according to HHS, including covid and flu therapeutics and vaccines. 'This represents a significant setback for our preparedness efforts in responding to infectious-disease outbreaks,' said Dawn O'Connell, the former assistant secretary of preparedness and response at HHS during the Biden administration. If viruses change, mRNA can be quickly rebooted and manufactured. But HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized mRNA vaccines, arguing that they are ineffective at fighting upper respiratory infections and keeping up with the mutations of a virus. Kennedy has a history of disparaging the mRNA coronavirus vaccines, in 2021 falsely calling them the 'deadliest vaccine ever made.' He has also said there was a 'poison' in it – claims refuted by medical experts. He has also been under pressure from anti-vaccine activists who say he has not done enough to remove mRNA vaccines from the market. The full scope of mRNA projects terminated was not immediately clear. Multiple companies mentioned by HHS did not immediately respond to questions. A spokesman for Moderna, which previously lost funding to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine, said the company was not aware of new contract cancellations. The AstraZeneca program that HHS is restructuring is an RNA-based pandemic influenza vaccine that is in early stages of development. The company is exploring options for next steps, a spokeswoman said. An inhaled mRNA treatment for flu and covid being developed at Emory University was terminated. Some late-stage projects are proceeding, such as early human testing of an mRNA-based H5N1 candidate being developed by Arcturus Therapeutics 'to preserve prior taxpayer investment,' according to HHS. Gritstone Bio, which HHS said had a project proposal rejected, already ceased operating earlier this year after declaring bankruptcy. A terminated contract to Tiba Biotech was for a H1N1 flu treatment that was not based on mRNA, but a different RNA technology. The company received a stop work order late Tuesday afternoon. 'This comes as a surprise given the Department's stated goal of winding down mRNA vaccine development,' Jasdave Chahal, Tiba's chief scientific officer, said in an email. 'Our project does not involve the development of an mRNA product and is a therapeutic rather than a vaccine.' 'It's going to deter innovations,' said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California College of the Law at San Francisco, whose research focuses on vaccine law and policy. 'Why invest in new technologies if the government can not only refuse to fund them, but if it's going to cancel already promised contracts?' HHS said in its statement that 'other uses of mRNA technology,' such as cancer treatments, are not affected by the announcement. But researchers worried that the Trump administration's criticism of the mRNA technology would have a chilling effect on one of the most promising fields in medicine. In 2023, Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for fundamental work on mRNA that enabled the development of coronavirus vaccines. 'It's absolutely perplexing why this is happening,' said Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University who has studied mRNA for more than three decades. 'You have to sort of scratch your head to wonder why the secretary is directing these sort of actions against probably one of the most powerful platforms in medicine that has come along in the last 20 years.' Six scientific and medical experts said Kennedy and HHS offered misleading assessments of mRNA technology as they announced the termination of research. Here are the issues they flagged with some of the statements: 'The data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu,' Kennedy said in a statement. It's true that mRNA vaccines can be ineffective at preventing coronavirus infections, although data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows they still offer some protection. But several scientific experts noted the primary purpose of vaccination is to prevent hospitalizations and death, which the mRNA vaccines have effectively done, according to CDC data. The FDA has not approved an mRNA flu vaccine, so experts said it was premature to make sweeping claims about its potential efficacy. 'One mutation and the vaccine becomes ineffective,' Kennedy said in a video. The coronavirus keeps evolving in a way that makes it easier to infect people who have some immunity from vaccination or prior infection. But medical experts said the mRNA vaccines have been resilient in maintaining protection against severe outcomes. Manufacturers have also been able to update formulas annually to better target new variants. 'That is actually one of the most powerful aspects of mRNA vaccines: that you can, in real time, develop new mRNAs against the virus as the virus changes,' Coller said. 'I'm not sure why that would be considered a bad thing.' 'We've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis,' Kennedy said at a news conference. Coronavirus vaccines designed using mRNA carry a very small risk of myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart, from the coronavirus vaccine, particularly in young men. However, medical experts said the data shows there is not an 'epidemic' of the condition; in fact, the rates of myocarditis and other heart illness are much higher from the virus instead of the vaccine. Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious-disease epidemiologist, said this rhetoric was part of the pandemic revisionist 'revenge tour.' 'Calling it an epidemic is absolutely misleading,' she said. 'Technologies that were funded during the emergency phase but failed to meet current scientific standards will be phased out in favor of evidence-based, ethically grounded solutions – like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms' – HHS statement Scientific experts said a variety of vaccine types are often required to fight emerging infectious diseases. In some cases, whole-virus vaccines have been known to have serious side effects. Peter Hotez, a physician and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, said he was surprised to hear HHS tout whole-virus vaccines because China had used a whole-virus vaccine for coronavirus that was 'pretty mediocre,' Hotez said. Kennedy is 'pushing a technology that is actually probably the most problematic of all vaccines we could pick,' Hotez said.
Japan Today
06-08-2025
- Japan Today
Trump once hailed mRNA vaccines as a 'medical miracle.' Now RFK Jr. is halting advancement
FILE - President Donald Trump speaks about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, May 15, 2020, in Washington. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, left, and Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listen. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) By AMANDA SEITZ President Donald Trump hailed as a 'medical miracle' the mRNA vaccines developed to combat the deadly COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Now, his health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is effectively halting the vaccine technology's advancement. Kennedy announced Tuesday that the federal government is canceling $500 million worth of mRNA research development contracts, putting an end to U.S.-backed hopes for the vaccine technology to prevent future pandemics, treat cancer or prevent flu infections. It's a sharp pivot from how Trump and top officials described the technology during his first term. Here's a look at what Trump and some of his closest advisers have said about mRNA vaccines that were credited with slowing the pandemic five years ago. 'A COVID-19 vaccine is the thing that will get Americans back to normal everyday life,' said Redfield, in a Sept. 16, 2020, statement. Americans were still donning face masks as one of the few ways of protecting themselves from a virus that had killed nearly 200,000 in just over six months. Redfield promised that the new vaccines — developed for the first time using mRNA technology — would offer a return to normalcy. 'Don't let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccines ... because the vaccines were me, and I pushed people harder than they've ever been pushed before .. The vaccines are — there are those that say it's one of the greatest things. It's a medical miracle.' Trump said on Nov. 26, 2020, during a news conference in the White House. Weeks earlier, Trump had lost the election in a bitter race against Democrat Joe Biden. As the Republican grappled with leaving Washington and continued to plan for the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, he reminded reporters that he oversaw the development of the new shots. 'They say it's somewhat of a miracle and I think that's true,' Trump said on Dec. 8, 2020, during a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The event celebrated 'Operation Warp Speed," the government-funded project that accelerated vaccine development with pharmaceutical companies. Trump was promoting the shots as the government prepared to offer them to frontline health workers. 'It's clear that many Americans are learning these vaccines are safe and extraordinarily effective,' Azar said on Dec. 16, 2020, at a news conference. The government was shipping out mRNA vaccines to states, preparing to distributed it to the masses. Azar noted that a vast majority of Americans — between 70% to 80%, according to polls — intended to get the new COVID-19 vaccine that would be available to the public in the coming months. 'It takes somewhere between five and 10 years to put a vaccine on the street. Look what we did. Now, that's because of the great work of the scientists who had done the research on mRNA vaccines and others because of industry working on this, they just didn't wake up one day and start working on it,' Perna said during a podcast interview that aired on May 9, 2023. Reflecting in an interview about his time overseeing 'Operation Warp Speed,' Perna credited the mRNA technology with the government's ability to get shots in arms mere months after the pandemic started claiming lives in the U.S. in 2020. 'Take credit because we saved tens of millions of lives. Take credit. Don't let them take that away from you,' Trump said on Dec. 19, 2021 during a live interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Daily COVID-19 deaths had ticked down to 1,500 compared to 3,000 from a year earlier after Americans began receiving their first doses of the mRNA vaccines. Trump revealed to O'Reilly and the audience that he had just gotten a COVID-19 booster. The crowd booed. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
