Experts warn SNAP disruptions could strain food banks, deepen hardship and rattle supply chains

Starting Nov. 1, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—the nation’s 60-year-old food assistance program—could be withheld for the first time ever, leaving millions of low-income Americans facing “real distress.”

As part of the ongoing government shutdown, 40 million Americans who rely on SNAP benefits may see their monthly food budgets vanish. And experts warn that the disruptions could increase demand at food banks, drive up consumer hardship—even throw supply chains off-kilter.

“I don’t think there’s any way to sugarcoat it,” says Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. “Pretty quickly, as early as late next week, you’re going to start to see evidence of real distress out there.”

Bosso says that SNAP benefits are typically distributed on the first day of each month, supporting an estimated 40 million Americans who rely on the program for assistance. Many of those Americans also rely on food pantries by the third or fourth week of the month—by some estimates up to half, Bosso says.

The SNAP benefits are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through its Food and Nutrition Service, and the money is transferred to recipients through an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card.

“If you don’t have any money in your EBT card, it’s going to be that much harder for these families to get through the month, period,” says Bosso, author of the book “Why SNAP Works: A Political History—and Defense—of the Food Stamp Program.”

Bosso notes that the threatened reductions extend beyond SNAP, adding that federal funding for school lunches could also see reductions during the shutdown. That’s on top of the cuts to local purchase assistance programs and other initiatives. Many low-income families depend on these programs to provide as many as two meals a day for their children.

According to industry reports, SNAP benefits, or food stamps, accounted for nearly 10% of grocery industry sales. Northeastern University food pricing expert John Lowrey says that food stamps act as a subsidy for low-income consumers, increasing their purchasing power for food at retail stores.

As benefits are typically reloaded at the beginning of each month, there is something of a “SNAP cycle” where families can afford food for roughly the first two weeks, then turn to food banks to meet remaining needs, Lowrey says.

“Food bank demand and food bank usage is a really good proxy for total food need,” he says.

How might families adjust to the cuts? Lowrey notes that the cuts could push low-income consumers to substitute for cheaper, less healthy foods or skip meals, increasing stress and exacerbating health conditions.

The Trump administration also said it would not tap into its $6 billion contingency fund to cover food stamp benefits next month if the shutdown continues. That money, Bosso says, has been set aside precisely to cover any shortfalls with the SNAP program, which he says the administration is legally obligated to do.

The USDA contests this, noting in a memo that the contingency fund is “not legally available to cover regular benefits.”

Bosso says that the situation could escalate into “yet another dispute” over whether the Trump administration has the authority to withhold funds that Congress has already approved.

States with higher poverty rates often have a greater proportion of their population receiving SNAP benefits, Bosso says. And studies have shown that food assistance can help cut poverty, particularly in some of the poorer states.

An Urban Institute study, for instance, found that higher SNAP benefits from the federal government’s Thrifty Food Plan cut poverty by 7% to 8% in several poorer states, with particularly strong effects for children, including a 34.8% decline in child poverty in the District of Columbia and reductions of 10% to 14% in 13 other states.

“If you combine all the cuts in nutrition programs, and you consider the fact the federal workforce isn’t getting paid—you have hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are going without paychecks for over a month now—a fair number of those folks are going to start showing up at food pantries,” Bosso says.

To help maintain access to food, Bosso says states may try to increase funding for school meal programs and the broader food bank system. Massachusetts, for example, has already invested millions in grants and programs to support food security, but even this relatively affluent state faces limits in fully offsetting federal cuts, particularly amid broader economic pressures.

“I don’t think food pantries and the food bank system can plug all those holes,” Bosso says. “But we’ll see.”

Lowrey adds that the changes could also affect supply chains.

“We might see a surge in demand or higher sales in more rural locations,” he says. “From a supply chain perspective, major food retailers may strategically locate more inventory in these areas to meet that surge in demand or higher sales in cheaper food categories, such as shelf-stable items, causing retailers to locate inventory accordingly.”

This story is republished courtesy of Northeastern Global News news.northeastern.edu.