Access to nutrition is among the most critical issues affecting a large population of citizens of the theUnited States. Thus, there was a need for policymakers to devise a proposal to address the problem in the unforeseeable future. Currently, the bill dealing with issues relating to nutrition is the Food and Nutrition Law enacted in 2008, which has for years performed a vital role in ensuring individuals acquire multiple enhancements in the Food Stamp Program. Prior to the proposed bill, the Food Stamp Program performed various essential functions, such as amending or reauthorizing the current small household nutrition programs through allocating adequate resources to ensure the sole purpose of this litigation is attained within the stipulated time (Feng et al., 2018). However, the regulation has failed in its mandate to achieve its function. Thus, the Food and Nutrition Law of 2008 introduced the proposed bill of the Improving Access of Nutrition Act of 2021. The proposal bill entails amending the Food and Nutrition Regulation of 2008 by repealing a particular work prerequisite to disqualify healthy adults from eligibility to receive the supplemental nourishment assistance program.
The bill’s introduction into Congress has attracted mixed reactions from legislators, non-profit organizations, and citizens due to the cons and pros linked to this litigation. The proposal bill entails amending the Food and Nutrition Regulation of 2008 by repealing a particular work prerequisite to disqualify healthy adults from eligibility to receive the supplemental nourishment assistance program. Some of the legislators and members of the public have supported the bill arguing it will assist in curbing the issue of food insecurity as there is a particular population of individuals benefitting from the program. At the same time, they are considered to be ineligible (Davis, 2015). Statistics undertaken by various institutions have created the perception that some non-disabled people have been misusing food stamps offered by the government. In contrast, they have adequate funds or salaries to support themselves and their families (Toossi et al., 2021). On the other hand, an opposing group has argued the government is aimed at depriving the less privileged in society of benefitting from this Food Stamp program. However, the implementation of the litigation by Congress will attract both cons and pros in the future.
One of the significant benefits linked to this proposal is it will lead to the introduction of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which will, in turn, assist in promoting health and food security as there is a large population of individuals of low socioeconomic status who are struggling to access these essentials. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will also assist in offering economic stimulus within the nation’s jurisdiction. In assessing the proposed bill, it will also attract prospective cons upon being enacted by Congress. There has been a large population of healthy individuals depending on this food program which has deprived the needy of accessing these services. The bill’s introduction will be of significance in establishing work prerequisites for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, thus mitigating incidents of healthy adults from benefitting from the Food Stamp Program (Gosliner & Shah, 2020). The other major disadvantage is that the proposed litigation will play a vital role in reducing dependency, thus adversely affecting the nation’s economy.
The proposed bill of the Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2021 will improve the current state of litigation being deployed by the nation. Currently, the bill favors individuals considered to be able-bodied rather than unhealthy due to the multiple loopholes present in this law. However, implementation of the law will eliminate these loopholes, thus leading individuals deserving to benefit from this program, such as diabetic individuals, to have easy access to these food stamps. In addition, the proposed bill will offer strict requirements for individuals to access food banks provided by both state and federal governments. In addition, the program will assist in alleviating the health status of American citizens.
Impact on Nutrition and Dietetics
The proposed bill will attract American citizens to multiple effects on dietetics and nutrition. One of the significant impacts of the prospective regulation is it will help supplement the food budget of low-class families into accessing healthy foods, thus leading to creating a healthy nation. The other effect of the proposed bill will ensure a large population of American citizens have access to a balanced diet for families unable to afford these foods. Individuals will have access to a high-quality diet that deals with issues linked to establishing and managing various chronic illnesses such as Diabetes. The proposed bill aims at determining the essential nutrients which need to be consumed by individuals deserving the government’s help and thus will guide policymakers and administrators in determining essential nutrients required in foods to be supplied to low-class citizens. The affordability of food has been the main challenge among low-class families, which has undermined the health status of these individuals (Gundersen, 2021). The proposed litigation will also assist in supplementing the price of various food commodities, proving to be expensive to a specific population of individuals.
Impact on Groups and Individuals
Various individuals and groups are likely to be impacted due to the implementation of the bill. Among the major groups to benefit from this program will be the less privileged as they will have easy access to a quality diet through equal distribution of food stamps. Individuals with chronic illnesses are also likely to take advantage of the program as there will be adequate funds or resources to cater to their needs (Kim, 2016). Children and the elderly are also likely to benefit as they are a large population whose dietary needs need to be catered to by the government. In addition, the proposed bill prioritizes the need to ensure disabled individuals access these food stamps intending to acquire a balanced diet. The non-profit organizations will also be impacted by the proposed law of the Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2021, as they are obligated to deal with societal problems affecting various communities. The non-profit organizations will be directly involved in assisting policymakers in determining individuals deserving to benefit from services provided by this program.
Overall, the report has assisted in offering in-depth information relating to the proposed bill of the Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2021. The proposed litigation aims to improve or repeal the Food and Nutrition Law enacted in 2008, which has proven to meet its mandated obligations for years. The prospective law, as indicated, has both disadvantages and pros for American citizens and rectifies the issue of non-deserving citizens accessing these services. In addition, the proposed bill will create a sense of sanity in the United States by ensuring there is equality while accessing these food stamps.
Davis DE, Huang R. The Effect of Snap Benefits for Food Insecurity. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published online 2015.
Feng X, Astell-Burt T, Badland H, Mavoa S, Giles-Corti B. Modest ratios of fast food outlets to supermarkets and green grocers are associated with higher body mass index: Longitudinal analysis of a sample of 15,229 Australians aged 45 years and older in the Australian National Liveability Study. Health & Place. 2018;49:101-110.
Gosliner W, Shah H. Participant voices: Examining issue, program and policy priorities of SNAP-Ed eligible adults in California. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
Gundersen C. Viewpoint: A proposal to reconstruct the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a universal basic income program for food. Food Policy. 2021;101:102096.
Kim J. Do SNAP participants expand non-food spending when they receive more SNAP Benefits?—Evidence from the 2009 SNAP benefits increase. Food Policy. 2016;65:9-20.