RESUMO
Introduction: COVID-19 relief payments and programs may have contributed to the shift in food expenditures from food away from home to food at home during the pandemic. This shift has public health implications given the differences in the nutritional quality between food at home and food away from home. The objective of this study is to examine the association between COVID-19 relief and household food at home and food away from home expenditure shares. Economic Impact Payments, Pandemic-Electronic Benefits Transfer, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and charitable food receipt are considered. Methods: Food expenditure and COVID-19 relief data for 265,443 households were obtained from Phase 3.1 (April 28 to July 5, 2021) of the Household Pulse Survey. Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimators were employed in 2023 to analyze the association between COVID-19 relief and household food at home and food away from home expenditure shares. Results: Pandemic-Electronic Benefits Transfer receipt was associated with households allocating 3% less of food expenditures to food at home and 9% more to food away from home. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and charitable food receipt were associated with spending 8% and 3% more of food expenditures on food at home and 22% and 9% less on food away from home, respectively. Recent Economic Impact Payment receipt was associated with reduced food at home and increased food away from home expenditure shares among households with low-income and/or a Black respondent. Conclusions: Study results indicate that COVID-19 relief contributed to changing food expenditure patterns during the pandemic. Of note, Pandemic-Electronic Benefits Transfer and Economic Impact Payment receipt were associated with spending a greater share of food dollars on food away from home. Nutritional implications of COVID-19 relief warrant further investigation and should be carefully considered in the design of future nutrition assistance emergency relief.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Between 2000 and 2017, a total of 23 states proposed legislation to further restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases. In the absence of a pilot program, the potential effect of such restrictions is unclear. The objective of this study is to provide insight on the proposed restrictions' effectiveness by characterizing SNAP households' expenditures on current and proposed restricted foods, and comparing them with their cash expenditures. Restrictions on sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods, and foods ineligible under the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) are considered. METHODS: The National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (collected 2012-2013) provided weekly food expenditures for 1,234 SNAP households. Descriptive statistics and t-tests (completed in 2017) were used to characterize and compare households' cash and restricted food expenditures. RESULTS: On average, SNAP households' allocated 7%, 6%, 17%, and 66% of their food expenditures to currently restricted foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods, and WIC-ineligible foods. Given a sugar-sweetened beverage or snack food restriction, the average SNAP household can cover their restricted expenditures with cash. However, the average household's expenditures on current restricted and WIC-ineligible foods exceed their cash expenditures by a mean of $40.84 (SE=$2.44). Note that results characterize the impact of proposed SNAP restrictions on the average SNAP household. Individually, it is likely that some SNAP households would be affected by a sugar-sweetened beverage or snack food restriction. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation restricting specific foods will likely be less effective at altering SNAP households' food expenditures than legislation seeking to restrict all WIC-ineligible foods.