What evidence exists on the role of cooking time and kitchen access in SNAP recipients’ ability to follow the Thrifty Food Plan?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) model that sets SNAP maximum benefits assumes recipients can buy, prepare and cook most meals from scratch—an assumption researchers say requires substantial unpaid time that many low-income households lack [1] [2]. Empirical work links more available time to higher-quality, lower-sodium meals among SNAP recipients, while program and experiment literature flags cost, work schedules and practical barriers—including limited evaluations of actual kitchen access—as constraints on following the TFP in real life [1] [3] [4].
1. The TFP assumes ample time and home cooking; academic analyses quantify that burden
Multiple analytic accounts and critiques note the TFP’s menu implicitly demands significant time for shopping, meal preparation and cleanup—research cited by Brookings estimated roughly two hours per day for these activities under the plan’s implied diet [2], and UC Berkeley researchers explicitly state the TFP “assumes unlimited time to purchase, prepare, and cook all meals from scratch” [1]. The USDA’s own descriptions of the TFP focus on nutritional and cost constraints rather than time budgets, noting the Plan models a “nutritious, practical, cost‑effective diet” based on prices and dietary guidance [5] [6], which leaves time-use assumptions largely implicit in official modeling.
2. Empirical evidence links available time to diet quality among SNAP households
A JAMA Network Open paper reported by UC Berkeley found SNAP recipients with more available time prepared higher-quality meals and consumed less sodium, leading researchers to argue that time availability matters as much or more than modest benefit increases [1]. That finding suggests time scarcity—driven by work hours, commute or caregiving—can blunt SNAP’s capacity to deliver the dietary outcomes the TFP assumes. Urban Institute and other antipoverty analyses emphasize that SNAP benefit increases reduce food insecurity and poverty [7] [8], but those studies focus on purchasing power rather than the time or in‑home capacity needed to convert food dollars into the TFP diet.
3. Kitchen access and practical shopping experiments expose implementation challenges, but evidence is limited
Field experiments and shopping tests have questioned the practicability of following the TFP on full SNAP benefits: for example, Ohio Association of Food Banks and Center for Community Solutions tested whether households could realistically follow the (earlier) TFP and found practical hurdles in real markets [3]. USDA listening sessions and surveys also report barriers beyond price—participants cited access issues to healthy foods and other obstacles [4]. However, explicit, nationally representative evidence on physical kitchen access (adequate appliances, storage, or shared housing constraints) is weak or absent in the available reporting; major GAO and USDA documents focused on cost, dietary guidance, and procedural choices rather than systematically measuring in‑home cooking facilities [9] [6].
4. Policy debates acknowledge time and place constraints even as official models focus on cost
Policymakers and watchdogs argue the TFP should factor in modern work patterns and time scarcity: Brookings and Berkeley researchers recommend interventions that free up time—child care, commute reductions, flexible work—to enable meal preparation consistent with the TFP [2] [1]. USDA’s modernization of the TFP emphasized updated purchasing data and dietary alignment rather than time budgets [4] [5], and GAO urged clearer methods and accountability in reevaluations after the 2021 adjustments [9]. Advocacy groups like FRAC have long argued that SNAP allotments tied to the TFP still leave many recipients unable to afford adequate diets, a view that intersects with but is distinct from time‑use critiques [10].
5. Where the evidence is convincing—and where questions remain
Convincing evidence shows time scarcity affects meal quality for SNAP households: peer‑reviewed research ties more available time to better dietary outcomes and independent experiments show the TFP can be hard to follow in real shopping contexts [1] [3]. Less well documented in the reviewed reporting is systematic measurement of kitchen access (e.g., working stoves, refrigeration, adequate cookware) at national scale and its independent effect on TFP adherence; official USDA materials and GAO reviews concentrate on cost, dietary constraints and methodological transparency rather than home infrastructure [6] [9]. That gap matters because policy responses differ—cash or benefit increases address cost, while housing, labor and public‑health interventions would be required to address time and kitchen access.