As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.

Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.

But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, an anchor at MSNBC, published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.

“You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases,” the email said. “You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver.”

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 1 year ago

"The cruelty is the point."

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sure, I can’t think of a better use of the USDA other than micromanaging the point-of-sale for thousands of grocery stores.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I think in normal circumstances, requiring snap customers be treated the same offers them protection. In this case, it would make sense to allow discounts. But, as always. The cruelty is the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It's not?

    The rule that all consumers get treated equally is a pretty fucking big one, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable groups.

    It's just that now that regulation is becoming problematic in different ways because of a fundamental breakdown of the systems we rely on.

    Getting rid of it would do more harm than good as soon as benefits come back as corporations will abuse it for their own benefit.

    Don't unwittingly hand corporations more fucking power

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    “You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver.”

    Grocery stores should respond with: "With trump refusing to fund SNAP during the shutdown with funds specifically allocated for this purpose, SNAP does not exist right now. Therefore there is no SNAP rule to break because there is no SNAP right now."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Seriously. This is a chance to gain some lifelong brand loyalty for minimal cost. Any grocery store that isn't offering some steep discounts on staple foods right now (totally ignoring the SNAP thing, because why even would they try to make the linkage) is missing the fucking boat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    They could offer the discount to all but advertise it's for snap (non) recipients. It might start to foster a bigger sense of community.

    Who am I kidding. The same assholes that hoarded on COVID would hoard and try to sell at market price later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I see... The Cheeto in Chief is attempting to invoke crime so he can deploy troops huh?

    Just a guess, but tis the first thing that comes to mind. He's about the least Christian person I could imagine. And we soon will be in the Christmas giving season... But only for cronies.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    "We've got to let the free market provide the solution."

    Free market surprisingly provides a fairly humane solution.

    "Not like that!"

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Ok, then how about a bunch of items go “unnoticed” or keyed in wrong and written off in the checkout by the cashier, which isn’t really a discount or a service, just some clumsiness. It’s their first day on the job, don’t you know.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    The party of small government at work.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Im going to get a lot of flak but I completely see why they would do this. Unfortunately this situation should not even exist but if there is a requirement to treat all customers the same they should enforce it. I will say though that is bullshit considering the app stuff. They should crack down and force them to offer all deals to any customers even anonymous walk in ones.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I like this, everyone should get the discount or no one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    There is some sort of law around this which is why the usda put this out but they seemed to have allowed this loyalty program type thing to go with the idea anyone can sign up but the amount of hoops and requirements has gotten out of control and they really need to treat it as seperate pricing for seperate groups.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Always been this way to prevent abuse of the system and customers by grocery stores.

    The email referred to SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    There is something seriously wrong with this logic.

    Clearly treating SNAP recipients favorably is not abusive. This is to prevent stores from getting an unfair advantage at the cost of a free market. It is essentially a cut out so grocery stores can't compete for customers only if they are SNAP.

    Probably harkens back to some misinterpretation of the procurement rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • 17 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    The hell they can't, a business can set their own prices, and give discounts to anyone they like. WTF!?!

  • source
  • How you gonna enforce that lol

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Is there reasoning behind this, or is it just a fuck poor people?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The reason is fuck poor people, they want them to starve so they can try to blame it on "the radical left".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Reasoning behind.... What? Life? The state of this fucked up world? Why someone like Trump supposedly got voted in by like half of the population? Why he's still there?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Do it anyway fuck trump

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I guess I'm the designated article-reader today. TL;DR: Businesses need government approval to process EBT payments for the SNAP program. The regime is strictly interpreting a regulation that's intended to prevent price-gouging SNAP recipients to inflict maximum cruelty by preventing discounts instead. It could enforce the rule by revoking a store's SNAP-EBT approval.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If the SNAP program is supposedly unable to function because the government is shut down, how is it still somehow finding the money and manpower to enforce its regulations?

    No money or manpower to help the public, yet somehow plenty to harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who is going to know? What a weird fucking statement to make in the first place. It's like your president wants you all to suffer while he laughs from his palace and eats cake?! Weird, eh?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Restaurants are doing it. There's one in Dallas that's giving free kids meals when you show your card.

  • source
  • 6 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    The cruelty is the point with demons.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Don't understand if they can give discounts to veterans they can give a discount to people who have a card for snap. Just frame it as a discount on total bill not a per item discount. Fuck the USDA.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Some friends own a farm in Pennsylvania. They will tell you their food is "grown organically" but they can't say it's "organic" because that is an official certification endowed by the USDA. To be "organic" many requirements must be met (which they do), the last of which is to pay a hefty fee to the USDA (which they don't). The way they phrased it, the fee is so high they can't afford it.

    So all their food is organic in every way except the name. It would be illegal for them to even say it's organic aloud.

    In case there was any uncertainty that organic food is a scam, it is! The extra markup you pay goes straight to The Man. Fuck the USDA!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    The law exists to prevent stores from charging extra to snap beneficiaries. This is a clear bad faith use.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    "Free market"

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Sometimes you gotta give yourself the discount. The five finger discount.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/lefty_news@ibbit.at view that post
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Is it against the law for grocers to give discounts to poor shoppers?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I hope this makes them open their eyes. I'm sure Obama will still be blamed some how.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago
    2 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Hmmm depending on the precedent here the Trump admin might accidentally doing something good.

    Major Grocery Chain Uses ‘Dynamic Pricing’ to Adjust Prices Based on Income

    Based on what they seem to be saying this could be a blow to surveillance capitalism attempt to nickel and dime. For sure those systems wouldn't lower the price. Still this admin isn't looking out for anyone but themselves.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    But they can give discounts to everyone. Just can't discriminate, it seems.

  • source