An Ethical Look at an Expansion of SNAP

Food stamps in the United States are a hot-button topic in many political circles. Some believe the program should be abolished entirely, others believe reform is needed to curtail rising costs, while others believe the program should be expanded to help those in need during tough economic times. One company that has advocated an expansion of the program is Yum Brands Inc., a corporation that owns fast-food conglomerates Taco Bell and KFC. Yum Brands has lobbied officials in various states across the country to allow for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (commonly referred to as food stamps) to spend their benefits at fast-food restaurants in order to provide recipients with expanded options. Whatever one’s opinion of the matter, it is important to discuss the various ethical issues associated with the program and its possible expansion.

As stated in the news article “Yum’s Campaign to Allow Food Stamps at KFC Runs Afoul of USDA,” the program has been expanded in recent years, with the federal government spending $64.4 billion dollars to provide assistance during the 2010 fiscal year (par. 4), resulting in a record 45.8 million Americans receiving benefits from the USDA (par. 5). Although there are various restrictions to in place for the SNAP program, exceptions have been made by states such as California, Arizona, Michigan, and others to allow for recipients to purchase hot meals from fast-food restaurants if they are unable to cook for themselves (“Yum’s Campaign” par. 8). Due to the fact that expansions have already been implemented in other states, a nationwide expansion would not be unprecedented.

When discussing the utilitarian aspect of expanding food stamps to fast-food restaurants, there are a few matters to consider. Most importantly, one must determine if the expansion provides assistance to a majority of recipients. It is impossible to deny that expansion would provide more options for recipients, as more establishments would accept the benefits. Also, it is important to determine whether those who are permitted to purchase fast food with SNAP benefits are receiving an unfair advantage over those who are denied the privilege. In both cases, it is possible to conclude that an expansion would be best under utilitarianism ethics because it provides equal access to benefits and also allows for a majority of beneficiaries to access more food options.

The matter is not as simple under Kantian ethics. Whereas utilitarianism is based more upon the consequences of a decision, Kantian ethics focuses more on intentions, and the plan with the best intentions is the one that should be implemented (L’Etang 740). If viewing the matter from a Kantian perspective, the program should not be expanded. Not only would it mean recipients would likely be consuming food that is less healthy, but as stated in the article, they would also receive less food with their food stamps (“Yum’s Campaign” par. 18). The federal government should have the best interests of the people in mind when formulating an approach for SNAP, which is why restrictions are already in place to prevent recipients from purchasing items such as alcohol and cigarettes. Still, opponents to SNAP feel that the government is just continuing to generate poverty with the liberal allowance of SNAP benefits.

Lastly, if Yum Brands were making a decision that is socially responsible for society, they would consider halting their campaign to expand the program. Their intentions are likely revenue-based, as it stated in the article that their revenue fell 7.9 percent last year (“Yum’s Campaign” par. 12), and with food stamp working-poor recipients at an all-time high, it makes sense that they would want to usurp some of the federal money from supermarkets without considering what is best for those who receive the benefits. Ultimately, whether SNAP should be expanded to include purchases at fast-food restaurants depends upon one’s ethical perspective. If looking at the matter from a utilitarian perspective, the program should be expanded because it provides benefits to a majority of recipients, but if looked at from a Kantian perspective, the expansion does not have the best interests of the people in mind because they will likely consume less healthy food and receive less food with their benefits.

Works Cited

L’Etang Jacquie. “A Kantian Approach to Codes of Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 11.10 (1992): 737-744. JSTOR. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

Patton, Leslie. Yum’s Campaign to Allow Food Stamps at KFC Runs Afoul of USDA. Bloomberg, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.