BALTIMORE — A group of kindergartners at Moravia Park Elementary School sat eagerly as nutrition educator Karen Turner taught them about healthy living. One key lesson: drinking plenty of water.
“What about Pepsi?” Turner asked.
“No!” the children shouted.
“What about Capri Sun?”
“No!”
For over 15 years, Turner has been promoting healthy habits to students at schools like Moravia Park, where all children qualify for free or reduced-price meals. Her efforts are part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed), a federal initiative designed to help low-income Americans make healthier food choices.
However, Turner’s work—and similar nutrition education programs across the U.S.—faces uncertainty. House Republicans have proposed eliminating SNAP-Ed, alarming advocates who warn that such a cut could hinder efforts to combat childhood obesity and chronic diseases, areas that have become central to President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda.
Nearly 20% of U.S. children are obese, a sharp rise from the 1970s, when rates were much lower, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health official, has called for broad reforms to the food system.
“If you want America to be healthier and you’re cutting SNAP-Ed, I don’t see how that can be done,” Turner said, pointing to the program’s role in Maryland’s fight against obesity and poor nutrition.
The proposed cut was included in the House version of Trump’s tax and immigration bill, which passed last month. The Senate has yet to decide, though Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), a member of the Agriculture Committee, stated that a decision is pending. Some Republicans argue that SNAP-Ed is ineffective, claiming it has not led to significant improvements in nutrition or obesity among food stamp recipients. This view contradicts evaluations from those who have studied the program, which indicate that it has had a positive impact on the health of participants.
A 2019 Government Accountability Office report suggested that the USDA needed to improve how it assesses SNAP-Ed’s effectiveness. Since then, the program has made strides in refining its reporting.
The proposed cut is part of broader changes to SNAP, the nation’s food assistance program. Among other provisions, the House bill includes expanded work requirements and mandates that states contribute a portion of SNAP benefits, potentially reducing access for millions of low-income Americans.
SNAP-Ed, which receives $536 million annually, is one of the USDA’s largest nutrition education programs. Eliminating it would save the government an estimated $5.5 billion over the next decade. Critics argue that such cuts would come at a time when diet-related chronic diseases, especially among children, are on the rise.
At Moravia Park Elementary, the SNAP-Ed program has provided practical lessons in healthy cooking and gardening. During a recent class, adults learned how to prepare healthier meals with ingredients provided by a local food bank. Cheryl Colvin, a participant, shared how Turner’s classes have taught her to cook more healthfully, replacing fried foods with roasted alternatives.
“Can you see how that can actually help you save money?” Turner asked the group as they planted lettuce in recycled containers.
Maryland has run a SNAP-Ed program through the University of Maryland Extension for nearly 25 years. Nationwide, SNAP-Ed was expanded with the 2010 passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which made the program a nationwide initiative. States use federal grants to fund nutrition education activities such as farm-to-school programs, wellness policy development, and community gardens, all aimed at improving public health, particularly in low-income areas.
The proposed cut has drawn criticism from both Democrats and nutrition advocates. Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) argued that eliminating SNAP-Ed would undermine efforts to help low-income families stretch their food stamp benefits while learning how to eat healthier.
Despite the GOP’s claims that SNAP-Ed is ineffective, evaluations suggest otherwise. Pamela Bruno, who has studied Maine’s SNAP-Ed program, pointed to data showing improvements in participants’ diets and physical activity.
Jerry Mande, who oversaw SNAP-Ed at the USDA during the Obama administration, also opposes defunding the program. He noted that recent budget proposals have suggested funding cuts, despite SNAP-Ed’s proven benefits in combating diet-related health issues.
As Congress debates the future of SNAP-Ed, advocates like Turner continue their work in schools across the country, hoping to keep these crucial programs intact.
Related Topics
