Quick bites from the food safety arena
- Three Salmonella outbreaks affecting the United Kingdom and at least six other European countries continue to spread. More than 600 people have fallen sick and two have died. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is monitoring one cluster of Salmonella Enteritidis cases in which 34 people have been hospitalized. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment has restarted an investigation into a Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak that began in spring 2025.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign a bill creating certified labels for foods that are not ultra-processed. The legislation, AB 2244, draws its definition of ultra-processed food from earlier state legislation, the “Real Food, Healthy Kids Act.” It would make the state a leader in helping consumers identify ultra-processed foods even as trade groups like the Consumer Brands Association point out that there is no “agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods.”
- A survey in the United Kingdom found that recalls cost food and beverage businesses about half a million pounds (equivalent to 730,000 USD) and require several hours of effort to trace products. Similar product tracing in the United States can take several days to weeks.
- A consent decree filed in federal court in Minnesota bars Gold Star Distribution Inc. from distributing food due to persistent insanitary conditions at its Minneapolis warehouse. The company has also stopped distributing drugs and medical devices affected by conditions at the facility. Repeated inspection by state and federal officials identified problems involving rodents (live and dead), birds (live and dead) and worms in and around pallets of FDA-regulated products.
Today’s Topic: SNAP
Changes in the fine print — the very details — of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, might this year prevent Congress from passing a Farm Bill.
SNAP, which was called the Food Stamp program until 2008, cost federal taxpayers $101.7 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2025. It is the biggest line item in the Farm Bill.
It’s big enough to have its own fraud unit run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Administration, which has disqualified or suspended 6,000 retailers and disabled or blocked over 2,000 illegal point-of-sale devices. Most fraudsters aim to turn SNAP benefits into cash.
“Operation SNAP Back” is currently targeting fraudulent SNAP retailers — bodegas, convenience stores, and grocery stores — across New York City’s five boroughs with undercover investigations leading to action against 170 retailers.
Cost shifting concerns slow Farm Bill
Since July 2025, Democrats have been upset about SNAP eligibility changes in the comprehensive omnibus One Big Beautiful Bill, which also shifts more administrative costs to the states.
Changes in SNAP are usually included in agriculture and food policy updates to the Farm Bill every five years, but Congress has not passed a Farm Bill since 2018.
The House passed its latest version in April. Senate Republicans, however, could not move theirs out of committee until Sept. 16 because Democrats were unified in their opposition. Democrats are holding the Farm Bill hostage until Republicans ease up on those SNAP changes.
USDA administers SNAP and provides food assistance to low-income people. SNAP is the nation’s largest nutrition assistance program, accounting for about 69 percent of USDA nutrition assistance spending in fiscal year (FY) 2025.
The number of individuals and households receiving SNAP benefits, usually on an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, has declined over the past year, slowly coming down from pandemic levels reached earlier this decade.
The total number of households receiving SNAP benefits in May 2026 reached 19,951,747, down 11.5 percent from May 2025. Individual SNAP enrollments in May totaled 36,685,024, or 12.3 percent less than May 2025’s count of 41,847,818.
There’s no immediate evidence, however, that those reductions stem from recent eligibility changes rather than economic improvements.
Also, in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Democrats mostly expressed concern about requiring states to cover more of SNAP’s administrative costs if a state’s payment error rates exceeded a certain percentage.
On Sept. 16, the Committee managed to send “Farm Bill 2.0” to the Senate floor on a party-line vote of 12 to 11 after Sen. Mitch McConnell’s, R-KY, return to Congress. Because McConnell was absent from the Senate after a serious fall in June, Democrats were able to keep the Farm Bill bottled up in committee all summer.
And the 119th Congress is also closer to the finish line than most people realize. The Senate has no legislative days scheduled in October, eight in November, and 14 in December. The target adjournment date is Dec. 18, 2026. It remains to be seen whether the Farm Bill will be a high priority for action during that time.
From the New Deal to Food Stamps
Food stamps were one of FDR’s New Deal programs, rolled out during the Great Depression, to deliver unmarketable food surpluses to many unemployed people. The pilot program ran from 1939 to 1943.
The pilot ended when the conditions that brought it about no longer existed. Wartime unemployment barely existed, and food surpluses had disappeared.
With congressional authorization, the Kennedy Administration brought food stamps back as a pilot in 1961.
The Food Stamp Act of 1964 created the permanent Food Stamp program to strengthen the U.S. agricultural economy and increase the food purchasing power of low-income households to improve nutrition.
At first, families had to purchase vouchers and received coupons worth more than their cash contribution. By July 1, 1974, the program was operating nationwide.
In 1977, a new Food Stamp Reform Act passed, making the program more accessible to low-income families by eliminating the requirement that participants pay for a portion of their food stamps.
The Pros of SNAP (the benefits)
- Reduces food insecurity and lifts millions of families out of poverty.
- Provides significant poverty relief
- Improves health outcomes and reduces healthcare costs for low-income children.
- Supports low-wage workers by filling income gaps during underemployment.
The Cons of SNAP (the criticisms)
- The high taxpayer cost to fund the massive federal budget requirements.
- Opportunity for fraud and abuse, such as trafficking benefits for cash.
- Dietary quality concerns, since it allows the purchase of junk food and soda.
- Administrative burdens and work requirements can restrict access for those in need.
Our Take
Since the modern food stamp program began, certain financial criteria, work requirements and asset limitations have been among the rules that participants must follow.
Congress has set these rules, and they have also changed over the years. For the 2026 fiscal year, household income before any deductions must generally be at or below 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL).
Net monthly income, after allowable deductions (such as high housing costs, childcare, or out-of-pocket medical expenses), must be at or below 100 percent of the FPL.
One of the Big Beautiful Bill changes requires more people to show proof of work or approved job training. The work requirement was extended to include people ages 55 through 64 with school-aged children.
Next to the poverty-level income requirements, the biggest hurdle to obtaining SNAP benefits can be the asset limit. This means SNAP participants cannot have more than a certain amount in any “countable resources,” including cash, checking or savings accounts.
Many states waive the asset test for “standard applicants,” with the most common limit imposed being $3,000. States may also use USDA’s Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) to make households categorically eligible for SNAP because they qualify for other poverty assistance. BBCE allows higher income amounts for SNAP eligibility.
SNAP is not for everybody. Illegal immigrants are entirely ineligible; as are full-time college students, union members on strike and most convicted felons.
By the numbers
101,700,000,000 – The amount, in dollars, spent on SNAP benefits in federal FY 2025.
187.94 – The amount, in dollars, of the average monthly SNAP benefit paid to an individual in FY 2025. Actual amounts vary by state. In the current fiscal year, California and Connecticut SNAP payments are close to the average. Minnesota and Wisconsin are among the lowest average payments, while Massachusetts, New York and Illinois are among the highest.
351.92 – The amount, in dollars, of the average monthly SNAP benefit paid to a household in the current federal fiscal year.
1,696 – The gross monthly income limit, in dollars, for an individual to be eligible for SNAP benefits. That is 130 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Net monthly income after certain deductions is also a factor in eligibility. That limit is $1,305 for an individual, or 100 percent of the FPL.
2,608 – The amount, in dollars, of a Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) gross monthly income limit for an individual to receive SNAP benefits. That is 200 percent of the FPL. More than 40 states use this option to loosen the program’s usual income and asset tests to make more people eligible for benefits. Some states use a level of 185 percent or 165 percent of the FPL to make their calculations for eligibility.
5,358 – The amount, in dollars, of a BBCE gross monthly income limit in many states for a family of four to receive SNAP benefits for the current fiscal year.
3,000 – The amount, in dollars, of the limit on liquid assets that a SNAP participant may have to receive benefits in several states. For households with a member over 60 years of age or with a disability, the limit rises to $4,500. States that use BBCE typically do not have an asset test.
What it means
The federal government currently covers the full cost of SNAP benefits and shares administrative costs with the states.
At issue now is the federal government’s plan to shift some benefit costs to the states beginning in October 2027, and more administrative costs beginning this October. These cost shifts are drawing the most controversy, and they could kill the Farm Bill before the current Congress adjourns.
The stated goal of the planned cost shifting is to bring error rates under control.
State payment error rates measure each state’s accuracy in benefit determinations, while the national performance measure, or national payment error rate, represents the average of these rates, weighted by state caseload sizes.
Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments.
For FY 2025, the combined national error rate was 10.62 percent, with 1.33 percent attributed to underpayments and 9.28 percent to overpayments.
That translates into nearly $11 billion in errors for 2025, most of which are overpayments.
In the past, Republicans and Democrats would seek a compromise to resolve the differences over SNAP eligibility and cost shifts. That isn’t happening so far this year. What is not in dispute is that the clock is running down on the opportunity to find a solution during this congressional session.
Do you have any comments, questions or suggestions for future coverage? Click here to give us your feedback.
