Zoe van Vlaanderen is a law student in the HLS Food Law & Policy Clinic and a guest contributor to this blog.
Every year, preventable diet-related diseases contribute to the deaths of nearly 1.5 million people across the U.S. Many of those who face diet-related diseases also experience food insecurity, limited or uncertain access to food. The Farm Bill funds and governs Title IV Nutrition Programs, operated by the USDA, that serve as a safety net for millions of food-insecure Americans. These programs enhance population-level access to nutritious and adequate food, potentially preventing diet-related illness. Some nutrition programs fall within the umbrella of “Food is Medicine” (FIM) by providing health supportive foods along with a nexus to the healthcare system. One such initiative is the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), which was established in the 2014 Farm Bill with strong bipartisan support. GusNIP supports multiple programs, including the Nutrition Incentive Program, which provides grants to projects incentivizing SNAP recipients to purchase and consume more fruits and vegetables, and the Produce Prescription Program, which funds FIM projects that demonstrate and evaluate the impact of fresh fruit and vegetable prescriptions on specific health conditions.
GusNIP has helped make healthy foods more affordable and accessible to vulnerable populations, addressing a root-cause of diet-related disease. For those with diet-related illnesses, having access to nutritious food through food is medicine interventions like Produce Prescriptions (PRx) programs increases fruit and vegetable intake, resulting in fewer hospital visits and, in some cases, decreased medical costs. The success of the PRx programs funded by GusNIP has been matched with increasing political interest. Recently, the Biden-Harris administration urged states to “leverage all available federal authorities” to expand the reach of FIM interventions. Congress’s current consideration of the Farm Bill is an excellent opportunity to support states by expanding and adjusting GusNIP, and there is bipartisan support to do so.
GusNIP’s current competitive grant-based model means that in many cases, smaller programs serving marginalized communities have struggled to compete with well-established programs that have existing infrastructure in place. Notably, as of early 2023, no nutrition incentive program grants had been awarded to a Tribal agency. A key barrier is the high matching requirement for nutrition incentive grants: grantees must provide an equal amount of funding from state, local, or private sources for every dollar requested.
In anticipation of the passage of the Farm Bill, three “marker bills” have been introduced to expand GusNIP. All three marker bills address the barrier created by matching requirements for nutrition incentive programs. Representatives Rick Crawford (R-AR) and Dan Kildee (D-MI) introduced the GusNIP Expansion Act, which would reduce the funding match requirement from 50% to 20%. The GusNIP Improvement Act introduced by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) similarly would reduce matching requirements from 50% to 10% and allows the Secretary of Agriculture to waive matching requirements for small GusNIP projects. The Opt for Health with SNAP (OH SNAP), bicameral legislation from Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), would eliminate the state matching requirement altogether.
Both the GusNIP Improvement Act and OH SNAP would scale GusNIP programs through increased funding. The GusNIP Improvement Act would triple GusNIP’s annual funding level and OH SNAP would increase both mandatory and discretionary funding to allow more producers and families to participate in the program.
The introduced marker bills also aim to reform PRx programs and increase accessibility. Both the GusNIP Expansion Act and the GusNIP Improvement Act would instill a two-tiered grant structure. Larger grants would be made available to well-established PRx programs to scale and expand their reach. Smaller grants would be made available to “seed” infrastructure for FIM programs, study program design, or to establish or validate PRx programs best practices. A tiered grant structure would reduce competition and open the existing grant program to states, regions, and Tribes working to establish and grow smaller programs. The GusNIP Expansion Act would also require USDA to provide a 10-year roadmap for moving the PRx program out of USDA jurisdiction and over to a more healthcare-focused agency or the private sector.
GusNIP has played a pivotal role in making healthy foods more accessible and affordable for vulnerable populations, addressing a root cause of diet-related diseases. The recent endorsement from the Biden-Harris administration and the bipartisan support in Congress underscore the growing recognition of the significance of these programs. The 2023 Farm Bill presents a unique opportunity to expand GusNIP, ensuring that more vulnerable families can reap the benefits of increased access to fruits and vegetables. The GusNIP Improvement Act, the GusNIP Expansion Act, and the Opt for Health with SNAP (OH SNAP) legislation all hold the promise of increasing funding, reducing barriers, and extending the reach of nutrition incentives.
The views and opinions expressed on the FBLE Blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FBLE. While we review posts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the reliability and completeness of any legal analysis presented; posts on this Blog do not constitute legal advice. If you discover an error, please reach out to contact@farmbilllaw.org.
