The Farm Bill is up for renewal once again, as it is every five years, and once again that means it’s time for another fight over food stamps, or more formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Last time around, the bill stalled for two years over a debate over whether to sharply cut benefits. This time around it appears the main disagreement will be over whether to change the rules in a way that many say will mean fewer recipients.

Currently, people who are 18 to 49 years old, without children, must have a job or join a training program for 20 hours a week to receive benefits for more than three months. According to a report on CNN (tinyurl.com/y887w633), that’s about 3.5 million out of a total of 41 million that receive benefits.

The first draft of the House Farm Bill released on April 12 would expand that to include all “work-capable” adults up to 59 years old, and would include adults with school-age children in 2021. It also proposes the federal government spend $1 billion to create training programs where recipients can fulfill their work/train obligations.

Congressman John Faso thinks this is a good idea. He wrote in an op-ed: “While many receiving SNAP benefits do work—and others are seniors, children or disabled, and therefore can’t be expected to work—a large group of those currently receiving benefits are neither disabled nor employed. In 2016, there were over 11 million non-disabled people aged 18 to 59 receiving SNAP, who aren’t working.”

He continued, “A purpose of benefit programs such as SNAP should be to help people gain self-sufficiency. We would be more successful at reducing systemic hunger and poverty if states required able-bodied adults to participate actively in employment and training programs that put them on a path toward stable employment.”

Hunger activists say the main purpose of SNAP is to feed people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford an adequate diet. Jacob Leibenluft, executive vice president for policy at the Center for American Progress, said, “This bill is a thinly veiled effort to take food away from struggling workers and families under the guise of helping people work. If the congressional majority were really serious about helping workers get ahead, they would propose policies that actually do that—such as raising the minimum wage or making it easier to access child care—rather than kicking workers when they’re down.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the new requirement will reduce the number of recipients by one million people over the next decade.

Another area where Faso would alter SNAP is in the area of nutrition. He wrote, “The program’s title suggests that it promotes healthy and nutritious food options but does nothing to limit the ability to purchase products that no one will argue are part of a healthy diet. Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of SNAP benefits are spent on sugary beverages, and it’s past time that Washington prohibits the use of SNAP benefits to purchase soda.”

A couple of months ago, President Donald Trump proposed cutting SNAP benefits in half and replacing them with boxes of pre-selected foods such as cereal and canned vegetables.

James D. Weill, president of the Food Research & Action Center, said restricting food will damage the program. He wrote, “It does this by stigmatizing beneficiaries and throwing sand in the gears of this very successful program.”

He said, “This is counterproductive because SNAP is one of the crown jewels of U.S. public policy. It reduces hunger and poverty (according to one study, it is the most effective federal program in lifting children out of poverty); improves academic outcomes; improves dietary intake; improves health outcomes and reduces health care costs; protects against obesity; and has a range of other positive effects. The health impacts of larger monthly allotments in particular were demonstrated by research on the positive outcomes when benefits were temporarily boosted from 2009-2013.”

Just a few months ago, the congressional majority passed tax cuts in which, according to the Tax Policy Center, the wealthiest 1% of Americans will get an average tax cut of over $1 million and the middle 20% of earners will get a cut of $420.

Given that recent history, it’s easy to imagine that the best interests of food recipients are not high on the list of the majority in Washington.