document_title: Biochemical oxygen demand

question_text: bod of raw municipal sewage may be in the range of about

text: Biochemical oxygen demand

text: Background[edit]

text: Most natural waters contain small quantities of organic compounds. Aquatic microorganisms have evolved to use some of these compounds as food. Microorganisms living in oxygenated waters use dissolved oxygen to oxidatively degrade the organic compounds, releasing energy which is used for growth and reproduction. Populations of these microorganisms tend to increase in proportion to the amount of food available. This microbial metabolism creates an oxygen demand proportional to the amount of organic compounds useful as food. Under some circumstances, microbial metabolism can consume dissolved oxygen faster than atmospheric oxygen can dissolve into the water or the autotrophic community (algae, cyanobacteria and macrophytes) can produce. Fish and aquatic insects may die when oxygen is depleted by microbial metabolism.[3]

text: Biochemical oxygen demand is the amount of oxygen required for microbial metabolism of organic compounds in water. This demand occurs over some variable period of time depending on temperature, nutrient concentrations, and the enzymes available to indigenous microbial populations. The amount of oxygen required to completely oxidize the organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water through generations of microbial growth, death, decay, and cannibalism is total biochemical oxygen demand (total BOD). Total BOD is of more significance to food webs than to water quality. Dissolved oxygen depletion is most likely to become evident during the initial aquatic microbial population explosion in response to a large amount of organic material. If the microbial population deoxygenates the water, however, that lack of oxygen imposes a limit on population growth of aerobic aquatic microbial organisms resulting in a longer term food surplus and oxygen deficit.[4]

text: A standard temperature at which BOD testing should be carried out was first proposed by the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal in its eighth report in 1912:

text: " (c) An effluent in order to comply with the general standard must not contain as discharged more than 3 parts per 100,000 of suspended matter, and with its suspended matters included must not take up at 65°F more than 2.0 parts per 100,000 of dissolved oxygen in 5 days. This general standard should be prescribed either by Statute or by order of the Central Authority, and should be subject to modifications by that Authority after an interval of not less than ten years.

text: This was later standardised at 68 °F and then 20 °C. This temperature may be significantly different from the temperature of the natural environment of the water being tested.

text: Although the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal proposed 5 days as an adequate test period for rivers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, longer periods were investigated for North American rivers. Incubation periods of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 days were being used into the mid-20th century.[5] Keeping dissolved oxygen available at their chosen temperature, investigators found up to 99 percent of total BOD was exerted within 20 days, 90 percent within 10 days, and approximately 68 percent within 5 days.[6] Variable microbial population shifts to nitrifying bacteria limit test reproducibility for periods greater than 5 days. The 5-day test protocol with acceptably reproducible results emphasizing carbonaceous BOD has been endorsed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This 5-day BOD test result may be described as the amount of oxygen required for aquatic microorganisms to stabilize decomposable organic matter under aerobic conditions.[7] Stabilization, in this context, may be perceived in general terms as the conversion of food to living aquatic fauna. Although these fauna will continue to exert biochemical oxygen demand as they die, that tends to occur within a more stable evolved ecosystem including higher trophic levels.[4]

text: Typical values[edit]

text: Most pristine rivers will have a 5-day carbonaceous BOD below 1 mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers may have a BOD value in the range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Rivers may be considered severely polluted when BOD values exceed 8 mg/L.[8] Municipal sewage that is efficiently treated by a three-stage process would have a value of about 20 mg/L or less. Untreated sewage varies, but averages around 600 mg/L in Europe and as low as 200 mg/L in the U.S., or where there is severe groundwater or surface water Infiltration/Inflow. The generally lower values in the U.S. derive from the much greater water use per capita than in other parts of the world.[1]

text: Methods[edit]

text: There are two commonly recognized methods for the measurement of BOD.

text: Dilution method[edit]

text: This standard method is recognized by U.S. EPA, which is labeled Method 5210B in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater[9] In order to obtain BOD5, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in a sample must be measured before and after the incubation period, and appropriately adjusted by the sample corresponding dilution factor. This analysis is performed using 300 ml incubation bottles in which buffered dilution water is dosed with seed microorganisms and stored for 5 days in the dark room at 20 °C to prevent DO production via photosynthesis. In addition to the various dilutions of BOD samples, this procedure requires dilution water blanks, glucose glutamic acid (GGA) controls, and seed controls. The dilution water blank is used to confirm the quality of the dilution water that is used to dilute the other samples. This is necessary because impurities in the dilution water may cause significant alterations in the results. The GGA control is a standardized solution to determine the quality of the seed, where its recommended BOD5 concentration is 198 mg/l ± 30.5 mg/l. For measurement of carbonaceous BOD (cBOD), a nitrification inhibitor is added after the dilution water has been added to the sample. The inhibitor hinders the oxidation of ammonia nitrogen, which supplies the nitrogenous BOD (nBOD). When performing the BOD5 test, it is conventional practice to measure only cBOD because nitrogenous demand does not reflect the oxygen demand from organic matter. This is because nBOD is generated by the breakdown of proteins, whereas cBOD is produced by the breakdown of organic molecules.

text: BOD5 is calculated by:

text:
Unseeded:

B
O
D

5

=

(

D

0

−

D

5

)

P

{\displaystyle \mathrm {BOD} _{5}={\frac {(D_{0}-D_{5})}{P}}}

Seeded:

B
O
D

5

=

(

D

0

−

D

5

)
−
(

B

0

−

B

5

)
f

P

{\displaystyle \mathrm {BOD} _{5}={\frac {(D_{0}-D_{5})-(B_{0}-B_{5})f}{P}}}

text: where:

text: Manometric method[edit]

text: This method is limited to the measurement of the oxygen consumption due only to carbonaceous oxidation. Ammonia oxidation is inhibited.

text: The sample is kept in a sealed container fitted with a pressure sensor. A substance that absorbs carbon dioxide (typically lithium hydroxide) is added in the container above the sample level. The sample is stored in conditions identical to the dilution method. Oxygen is consumed and, as ammonia oxidation is inhibited, carbon dioxide is released. The total amount of gas, and thus the pressure, decreases because carbon dioxide is absorbed. From the drop of pressure, the sensor electronics computes and displays the consumed quantity of oxygen.

text: The main advantages of this method compared to the dilution method are:

text:
simplicity: no dilution of sample required, no seeding, no blank sample.
direct reading of BOD value.
continuous display of BOD value at the current incubation time.

text: Alternative methods[edit]

text: Biosensor[edit]

text: An alternative to measure BOD is the development of biosensors, which are devices for the detection of an analyte that combines a biological component with a physicochemical detector component. Enzymes are the most widely used biological sensing elements in the fabrication of biosensors. Their application in biosensor construction is limited by the tedious, time consuming and costly enzyme purification methods. Microorganisms provide an ideal alternative to these bottlenecks.[10]

text: The vast variety of micro organisms are relatively easy to maintain in pure cultures, grow and harvest at low cost. Moreover, the use of microbes in biosensor field has opened up new possibilities and advantages such as ease of handling, preparation and low cost of device. A number of pure cultures, e.g. Trichosporon cutaneum, Bacillus cereus, Klebsiella oxytoca, Pseudomonas sp. etc. individually, have been used by many workers for the construction of BOD biosensor. On the other hand, many workers have immobilized activated sludge, or a mixture of two or three bacterial species and on various membranes for the construction of BOD biosensor. The most commonly used membranes were polyvinyl alcohol, porous hydrophilic membranes etc.[11]

text: A defined microbial consortium can be formed by conducting a systematic study, i.e. pre-testing of selected micro-organisms for use as a seeding material in BOD analysis of a wide variety of industrial effluents. Such a formulated consortium can be immobilized on suitable membrane, i.e. charged nylon membrane useful for BOD estimation. Suitability of charges nylon membrane lies in the specific binding between negatively charged bacterial cell and positively charged nylon membrane. So the advantages of the nylon membrane over the other membranes are : The dual binding, i.e. Adsorption as well as entrapment, thus resulting in a more stable immobilized membrane. Such specific Microbial consortium based BOD analytical devices, may find great application in monitoring of the degree of pollutional strength, in a wide variety of Industrial waste water within a very short time.[11]

text: Biosensors can be used to indirectly measure BOD via a fast (usually <30 min) to be determined BOD substitute and a corresponding calibration curve method (pioneered by Karube et al., 1977). Consequently, biosensors are now commercially available, but they do have several limitations such as their high maintenance costs, limited run lengths due to the need for reactivation, and the inability to respond to changing quality characteristics as would normally occur in wastewater treatment streams; e.g. diffusion processes of the biodegradable organic matter into the membrane and different responses by different microbial species which lead to problems with the reproducibility of result (Praet et al., 1995). Another important limitation is the uncertainty associated with the calibration function for translating the BOD substitute into the real BOD (Rustum et al., 2008).

text: Fluorescent RedOx Indicator[edit]

text: A surrogate to BOD5 has been developed using a resazurin derivative which reveals the extent of oxygen uptake by micro-organisms for organic matter mineralization.[12] A cross-validation performed on 109 samples in Europe and the United-States showed a strict statistical equivalence between results from both methods.[13] The French start-up Envolure (Montpellier, France) offers the kit ENVERDI which enables the users to perform up to 40 BOD5 simultaneously in 48 hours in a single 96-wells microplate.

text: Software sensor[edit]

text: Rustum et al. (2008) proposed the use of the KSOM to develop intelligent models for making rapid inferences about BOD using other easy to measure water quality parameters, which, unlike BOD, can be obtained directly and reliably using on-line hardware sensors. This will make the use of BOD for on-line process monitoring and control a more plausible proposition. In comparison to other data-driven modeling paradigms such as multi-layer perceptrons artificial neural networks (MLP ANN) and classical multi-variate regression analysis, the KSOM is not negatively affected by missing data. Moreover, time sequencing of data is not a problem when compared to classical time series analysis.

text: Dissolved oxygen probes: Membrane and luminescence[edit]

text: Since the publication of a simple, accurate and direct dissolved oxygen analytical procedure by Winkler,[14] the analysis of dissolved oxygen levels for water has been key to the determination of surface water purity and ecological wellness. The Winkler method is still one of only two analytical techniques used to calibrate oxygen electrode meters; the other procedure is based on oxygen solubility at saturation as per Henry's law. Though many researchers have refined the Winkler analysis to dissolved oxygen levels in the low PPB range, the method does not lend itself to automation.

text: The development of an analytical instrument that utilizes the reduction-oxidation (redox) chemistry of oxygen in the presence of dissimilar metal electrodes was introduced during the 1950s.[15] This redox electrode (also known as dissolved oxygen sensor[16]) utilized an oxygen-permeable membrane to allow the diffusion of the gas into an electrochemical cell and its concentration determined by polarographic or galvanic electrodes. This analytical method is sensitive and accurate to down to levels of ± 0.1 mg/l dissolved oxygen. Calibration of the redox electrode of this membrane electrode still requires the use of the Henry's law table or the Winkler test for dissolved oxygen.

text: During the last two decades, a new form of electrode was developed based on the luminescence emission of a photo active chemical compound and the quenching of that emission by oxygen. It is also called optical dissolved oxygen sensor.[16] This quenching photophysics mechanism is described by the Stern–Volmer equation for dissolved oxygen in a solution:[18]

text:
I

{\displaystyle I}

: Luminescence in the presence of oxygen

I

0

{\displaystyle I_{0}}

: Luminescence in the absence of oxygen

K

S
V

{\displaystyle K_{SV}}

: Stern-Volmer constant for oxygen quenching

[

O

2

]

{\displaystyle {\ce {[O2]}}}

: Dissolved oxygen concentration

text: The determination of oxygen concentration by luminescence quenching has a linear response over a broad range of oxygen concentrations and has excellent accuracy and reproducibility.[19] There are several recognized EPA methods for the measurement of dissolved oxygen for BOD, including the following methods:

text:
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Method 4500 O[20]
In-Situ Inc. Method 1003-8-2009 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Measurement by Optical Probe.[21]

text: Test limitations[edit]

text: The test method involves variables limiting reproducibility. Tests normally show observations varying plus or minus ten to twenty percent around the mean.[22]:82

text: Toxicity[edit]

text: Some wastes contain chemicals capable of suppressing microbiological growth or activity. Potential sources include industrial wastes, antibiotics in pharmaceutical or medical wastes, sanitizers in food processing or commercial cleaning facilities, chlorination disinfection used following conventional sewage treatment, and odor-control formulations used in sanitary waste holding tanks in passenger vehicles or portable toilets. Suppression of the microbial community oxidizing the waste will lower the test result.[22]:85

text: Appropriate microbial population[edit]

text: The test relies upon a microbial ecosystem with enzymes capable of oxidizing the available organic material. Some waste waters, such as those from biological secondary sewage treatment, will already contain a large population of microorganisms acclimated to the water being tested. An appreciable portion of the waste may be utilized during the holding period prior to commencement of the test procedure. On the other hand, organic wastes from industrial sources may require specialized enzymes. Microbial populations from standard seed sources may take some time to produce those enzymes. A specialized seed culture may be appropriate to reflect conditions of an evolved ecosystem in the receiving waters.[22]:85–87

text: History[edit]

text: The Royal Commission on River Pollution, which was established in 1865 and the formation of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal in 1898 led to the selection in 1908 of BOD5 as the definitive test for organic pollution of rivers. Five days was chosen as an appropriate test period because this is supposedly the longest time that river water takes to travel from source to estuary in the U.K.. In its sixth report the Royal Commission recommended that the standard set should be 15 parts by weight per million of water.[23] However, in the Ninth report the commission had revised the recommended standard :

text: " An effluent taking up 2–0 parts dissolved oxygen per 100,000 would be found by a simple calculation to require dilution with at least 8 volumes of river water taking up 0.2 part if the resulting mixture was not to take up more than 0.4 part. Our experience indicated that in a large majority of cases the volume of river water would exceed 8 times the volume of effluent, and that the figure of 2–0 parts dissolved oxygen per 100,000, which had been shown to be practicable, would be a safe figure to adopt for the purposes of a general standard, taken in conjunction with the condition that the effluent should not contain more than 3–0 parts per 100,000 of suspended solids."[23]

text: This was the cornerstone 20:30 (BOD:Suspended Solids) + full nitrification standard which was used as a yardstick in the U.K. up to the 1970s for sewage works effluent quality.

text: The United States includes BOD effluent limitations in its secondary treatment regulations. Secondary sewage treatment is generally expected to remove 85 percent of the BOD measured in sewage and produce effluent BOD concentrations with a 30-day average of less than 30 mg/L and a 7-day average of less than 45 mg/L. The regulations also describe "treatment equivalent to secondary treatment" as removing 65 percent of the BOD and producing effluent BOD concentrations with a 30-day average less than 45 mg/L and a 7-day average less than 65 mg/L.[24]


document_title: 50 First Dates

question_text: drew barrymore character name in 50 first dates

root

text: 50 First Dates

text: Plot[edit]

text: Henry Roth is a veterinarian at Sea Life Park on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. He has a reputation of womanizing female tourists and does not display any interest in committing to a serious relationship. Henry's closest friends are Ula, a marijuana-smoking Islander; his assistant Alexa, whose gender is unclear; Willy, his pet African penguin; and Jocko, a walrus.

tag: p

text: One day Henry’s boat breaks down while he is sailing around Oahu. He goes to the Hukilau Café to wait for the Coast Guard. There he sees a young woman named Lucy Whitmore, who makes architectural art with her waffles. Henry thinks she is a local, which prevents him from introducing himself, but the next day he comes back. Lucy and he hit it off instantly and she asks him to meet her again tomorrow morning.

text: However, when Henry goes back to the café the following day, Lucy does not have any recollection of ever meeting him. The restaurant owner Sue explains to Henry that the year before, Lucy and her father Marlin went up to the North Shore to pick a pineapple for his birthday. On the way back, they had a serious car accident that left Lucy with anterograde amnesia, which inhibits her ability to form new memories. As such, she wakes up every morning thinking it is Sunday, October 13, of last year.

text: To spare Lucy the heartbreak of reliving the accident every day, Marlin and Doug, Lucy's lisping steroid-addicted brother, re-enact Marlin's birthday by following a script, including putting out the Sunday newspaper, refilling Lucy's shampoo bottles, re-watching the same Minnesota Vikings game, and re-watching the movie The Sixth Sense where Marlin and Doug halfheartedly say, "Wow. Didn't see that coming," during the famous plot-twist.

text: Despite Sue's warning, Henry invites Lucy to have breakfast with him. Eventually she does, but it ends poorly when Henry unintentionally hurts Lucy’s feelings. He follows her home to apologize where Marlin and Doug instruct Henry to leave Lucy alone. Henry begins concocting ways to run into Lucy on the following days, such as pretending to have car trouble, creating a fake road block, or by having Ula beat him up. Eventually, Marlin and Doug figure this out due to Lucy singing The Beach Boys' "Wouldn't It Be Nice" on the days when she meets Henry.

text: One day, as Henry is about to sit with Lucy at breakfast, she notices a police officer writing her a ticket for her expired plates. Lucy attempts to argue that they are not yet expired, and takes a newspaper to prove herself, but sees that the date on all the newspapers is not October 13 as she thought. Lucy rushes home, and Marlin and Doug are forced to admit their ruse when she confronts them (and presumably not for the first time; when Marlin sees Lucy's frantic behavior as her truck pulls up to the house, he immediately realizes what happened and loudly announces to Doug that Lucy "had a bad day").

text: Henry comes up with an idea to make a video explaining to Lucy her accident and their relationship. Although Lucy is upset over understanding about her accident and memory loss, Henry believes that she is more upset realizing her life is a lie every day. Because of this, Henry, Marlin and Doug show Lucy the tape every morning and help her spend her days by picking up where the tape says she left off. She spends more time with Henry and goes to see some of her old friends. Lucy decides to erase Henry completely from her life after learning of his decision not to take a sailing trip to Bristol Bay to study walruses, something he has been planning for the past 10 years. Although Henry would rather spend that year making Lucy fall in love with him every day rather than go on the sailing trip, Lucy is convinced she is a burden on him and is preventing Henry from really living his life. Henry reluctantly helps Lucy destroy her journal entries of their relationship.

text: A few weeks later, Henry is preparing to leave for his sailing trip. Before he departs, Marlin tells him that Lucy is now living at the brain institute and teaching an art class. He also tells him that she sings. Then he gives Henry a Beach Boys CD. Listening to the CD, Henry becomes emotional and curses Marlin for giving him the CD and causing him to miss Lucy. He then remembers that Marlin once told him that Lucy only sings after she meets him.  Concluding that Lucy remembers him, he returns home. Henry rushes to the brain institute where Lucy now resides and asks if she knows who he is. Lucy says she does not know him but shows him the pictures she has painted of him, saying she dreams about him every night.

text: Some time later, Lucy wakes up and plays a video tape marked "Good Morning Lucy." It again informs her of her accident, but ends with her and Henry’s wedding. On the tape, Henry says to put a jacket on and come have breakfast when she is ready. Lucy then sees that she is on Henry’s boat, which finally made it to Alaska. She goes up on deck and meets Marlin, Henry and their daughter, Nicole.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Adam Sandler as Henry Roth, a marine veterinarian with a talent for wooing women and a fear of commitment
Drew Barrymore as Lucy Whitmore, Henry's love interest with short-term memory loss
Rob Schneider as Ula, Henry's marijuana-smoking, native Hawaiian assistant and best friend; he is unhappily married to an overweight native woman and has five young, athletically talented children
Sean Astin as Doug Whitmore, Lucy's older brother, a lisping, steroid-dependent bodybuilder
Blake Clark as Marlin Whitmore, Lucy's widowed father, a professional fisherman
Lusia Strus as Alexa, Henry's ambiguously gendered assistant
Dan Aykroyd as Dr. Joseph Keats, a physician specializing in brain disorders
Amy Hill as Sue, the Hukilau café manager and friend of Lucy and her late mother
Pomaika'i Brown as Nick, the Hukilau café chef.
Allen Covert as Ten-Second Tom, a hospital patient with severe memory impairment (reprised as 220 Tom in Blended)
Missi Pyle as Noreen, a tax attorney Henry meets at a bar but then tries to fix up with Alexa
Maya Rudolph as Stacy, pregnant friend of Lucy's at beach party
Kevin James as Factory worker
Lynn Collins as Linda

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: The film was originally titled "50 First Kisses".[2] Drew Barrymore, who knew of the original script, wrote a letter to Sandler and suggested it as their next film together.  In 2014, Barrymore said it had been more of a drama and was re-written by Sandler and they reworked it into more of a comedy.[3]

text: Locations[edit]

text: Most of the film was shot on location in Kaneohe, Kaʻaʻawa, Wahiawā, Makapuʻu, and Waimānalo, Oahu, as well as in Kāne'ohe Bay. Due to the high cost of filming outside of the studio zone, some interior scenes (such as inside the Whitmore residence) were shot on sets in Los Angeles carefully decorated to look like they were in Hawaii.[4]

text: The walrus tank is actually in Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in Vallejo, California, and the golf course is the Ocean Trails Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

text: Critical reception [edit]

text: The film received mixed reviews from critics. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 44% based on 175 reviews, and the site's consensus states [that the] "Gross-out humor overwhelms the easy chemistry between Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, who bring some energy and yucks to this tale of a girl with short-term memory loss and the guy who tries to get her to love him."[5]

text: Critics who enjoyed the film (such as The New York Times reviewer A.O. Scott) praised the uplifting story while lamenting the seemingly excessive and incongruous amount of crude humor and drug references.[6] Roger Ebert gave it three out of four stars, saying "The movie is sort of an experiment for Sandler. He reveals the warm side of his personality, and leaves behind the hostility, anger and gross-out humor... The movie doesn't have the complexity and depth of Groundhog Day... but as entertainment it's ingratiating and lovable."[7]

text: Sandler and Barrymore won the award for Best On-Screen Team at the MTV Movie Awards. The two actors, who had previously worked together in the popular film The Wedding Singer, are said to regard 50 First Dates as one of their favorite personal efforts.[citation needed]

text: Fictional medical condition[edit]

text: In an article in the BMJ on depictions of amnesia in film, clinical neuropsychologist Sallie Baxendale writes that 50 First Dates "maintains a venerable movie tradition of portraying an amnesic syndrome that bears no relation to any known neurological or psychiatric condition".[8]

text: In 2010, researchers described a woman who developed the kind of memory impairment after she was involved in a car accident. She described that her memory was normal for events on the same day and that overnight memories for the previous day were lost. However, a neuropsychological test did reveal some improvement in recall for tasks which she had, unknowingly, performed the previous day. Though the woman claimed not to have seen 50 First Dates prior to her 2005 accident (but has watched it several times since), she stated that Drew Barrymore was her favorite actress, leading researchers to conclude that her condition might have been influenced by some knowledge of the film's plot, and its impact upon her understanding of amnesia.[9] Similarly, in the Truman Show delusion, patients believe that they are living inside a reality television show, as in the 1998 film The Truman Show.

text: In July 2015, two people were discovered to have a form of anterograde amnesia that resembles the one depicted in the movie. One is a man in the UK, originally from Germany. He wakes up every day thinking it is March 14, 2005, because that is the day he underwent anesthesia for a dental procedure which led to this condition as a rare, unexplained complication (however, his anterograde amnesia, like that of others with the condition, causes him to forget facts not daily, but within 90 minutes).[10] The other is a woman who reportedly believes every day is October 15, 2014. She used to be a pub manager and was visiting Kettering General Hospital for a kickboxing injury when she slipped and hit her head on a metal pole.[11][12]

text: Ten-Second Tom's ten-second memory is similar to the second-to-second consciousness of Clive Wearing, a British man whose long- and short-term memory centers were destroyed from a viral infection of the brain caused by the herpes virus.

text: Real world application[edit]

text: The Hebrew Home of Riverdale, New York has started an experimental program in which residents with early dementia watch a video every morning in which they see comforting messages and reminders from family members that they may still know. After April 2015, the program may include more residents. Robert Abrams of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital considered this idea "both innovative and thoughtful." Charlotte Dell, director of social services for the home, said the program was inspired by 50 First Dates.[13]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text:
50 First Dates: Love songs from the Original Motion Picture
Soundtrack album by Various ArtistsReleased
February 3, 2004 (2004-02-03)Genre
Ska, reggae, new waveLength
49:37Label
MaverickProducer
Nick Hexum

tag: table

text: The soundtrack contains cover versions of songs that were originally recorded in the 1980s. This includes mostly reggae covers, due to their emphasized upbeat that gives a tropical or Hawaiian feel. It was a moderate commercial hit, reaching #30 on the Billboard 200 and #1 on the Top Soundtracks chart and Top Reggae Albums chart in the United States.

text: Despite being prominently featured in the film, neither Israel Kamakawiwoʻole's "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"/"What a Wonderful World" nor The Beach Boys' "Wouldn't It Be Nice" were included on the soundtrack.

text: The soundtrack was produced by 311's frontman, Nick Hexum. 311 provided a cover of The Cure's Lovesong for the soundtrack. It is heard over the film's end credits.

text: No.TitleWriter(s)ArtistLength1."Hold Me Now" (Thompson Twins)Tom Bailey, Alannah Currie, Joe LeewayWayne Wonder4:122."Lovesong" (The Cure)Robert Smith, Simon Gallup, Porl Thompson, Boris Williams, Roger O'Donnell3113:283."Lips Like Sugar" (Echo & the Bunnymen)Will Sergeant, Ian McCulloch, Les PattinsonSeal featuring Mikey Dread5:004."Your Love (L.O.V.E. Reggae Mix)" (The Outfield)John SpinksWyclef Jean featuring Eve4:135."Drive" (The Cars)Ric OcasekZiggy Marley of Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers4:266."True" (Spandau Ballet)Gary Kempwill.i.am & Fergie of The Black Eyed Peas4:247."Slave to Love" (Roxy Music)FerryElan Atias3:558."Every Breath You Take" (The Police)StingUB403:559."The Ghost in You" (The Psychedelic Furs)Richard Butler, Tim ButlerMark McGrath of Sugar Ray3:0110."Friday I'm in Love" (The Cure)Smith, Gallup, Thompson, Williams, Perry BamonteDryden Mitchell of Alien Ant Farm3:2111."Breakfast in Bed" (Dusty Springfield)Eddie Hinton, Donnie FrittsNicole Scherzinger of The Pussycat Dolls3:3612."I Melt With You" (Modern English)Robbie Grey, Gary McDowell, Stephen Walker, Michael Conroy, Richard BrownJason Mraz3:3613."Forgetful Lucy"Sandler, Allen Covert, Tim HerlihyAdam Sandler1:51Total length:49:37

text:
The Beach Boys – "Wouldn't It Be Nice"
The Cure – "Boys Don't Cry"
The English Beat – "Hands Off She's Mine"
The Flaming Lips – "Do You Realize??"
Wyclef Jean – "Baby"
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole – "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"/"What a Wonderful World" medley (Originally recorded by Judy Garland/Louis Armstrong)
The Maile Serenaders – "My Sweet Sweet"
The Makaha Sons of Ni'Ihau – "Aloha Ka Manini"
Manfred Mann – "Blinded by the Light"
Bob Marley & The Wailers – "Could You Be Loved" and "Is This Love"
Paul McCartney & Linda McCartney – "Another Day"
No Doubt – "Underneath It All"
O-Shen – "Throw Away The Gun"
Harve Presnell – "They Call the Wind Mariah"
Leon Redbone & Ringo Starr – "My Little Grass Shack In Kealakekua, Hawaii"
Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider – "Ula's Luau Song"
Snoop Dogg – "From tha Chuuuch to da Palace"
311 – "Amber" and "Rub A Dub"
Toots & the Maytals – "Pressure Drop"
The Ventures – "Hawaii Five-O"
Patty and Mildred Hill – "Happy Birthday to You"


document_title: Solid body

question_text: when was the first solid body electric guitar made

text: Solid body

text: Instruments[edit]

text: Solid-body instruments :

text:
Some electric guitars
Most bass guitars
Electric upright bass
Some Electric ukuleles
Few electric mandolins
Most electric violins
Most electric sitars
Most electric violas
Electric cello

text: Solid-body instruments do not include :

text:
Semi-acoustic instruments
Electric pianos, even those with strings such as the electric grand piano
Pedal steel guitar

text: Electric lap steel guitars without sounding boards are considered to be solid-body instruments by some authorities, and not by others. This has a major effect on some claims of historical priority, as they predate the first models of solid-body electric guitar, which may otherwise be claimed to be the first commercially successful solid-body instruments. While noting this, it will be assumed that electric lap steels without sounding boards are solid-body instruments for the purposes of this article.

text: History[edit]

text: Early prototypes[edit]

text: Commercial models[edit]

text: The first commercially successful solid-body instrument was the Rickenbacker frying pan lap steel guitar, produced from 1931 to 1939. The first commercially available non lap steel guitar was also produced by the Rickenbacker/Electro company, starting in 1931 The model was referred to as the "electric Spanish Guitar" to distinguish it from the "Hawaiian" lap steel.

text: The first commercially successful solid-body electric guitar was the Fender Broadcaster in 1950. A trademark dispute with the Gretsch Corporation who marketed a line of Broadcaster drums led to a name change to the current designation, Fender Telecaster in 1951 (Transition instruments produced between the two model names had no model name on the head stock and are now referred to as 'No Casters"). Fender also produced a one pickup version called the Fender Esquire starting in 1950. These were followed by the Gibson Les Paul in 1952.

text: Additional history[edit]

text: Solid Body Electric Guitars

text: The solid body electric guitar is one of the most well-known solid body instruments. Instrumental in rock, metal, blues, and country music, the electric guitar has been responsible for creating various sounds.

text: There are some common characteristics of solid body electric guitars. They typically have six strings although there are some seven- and eight-string models. Most have at least a volume and tone control. If they have more than one guitar pickup they have a switch that allows them to switch between the different pickups. There are various types of pickups that can be outfitted to a guitar. They can have single-coils, a P-90, or a humbucker. These pickups can be either passive or active (require batteries).

text: Sometimes guitars are outfitted with pick guards which prevent the guitar from being scratched by a guitar pick.

text: The origins of the solid body electric guitar are confusing. The first commercially available solid body electric Spanish guitar was produced by the Rickenbacker company in 1931. Les Paul, a guitarist, is often erroneously credited with inventing the first solid body, but Fender is often incorrectly credited as the first to commercially market a solid body electric guitar, which itself was based on a design by Merle Travis. Also it is reported that around the same time (1940) a solid body was created by Jamaican musician and inventor, Hedley Jones. In the 1940s, Les Paul created a guitar called the “Log,” which came “from the 4” by 4” solid block of pine which the guitarist had inserted between the sawed halves of the body that he’d just dismembered. He then carefully re-joined the neck to the pine log, using some metal brackets.” [1] He then put some pickups that he designed on it. He soon went to companies asking if they would buy his guitar. They turned him down. However, after the Fender Telecaster electric guitar became popular, the Gibson company contacted him and had him endorse a model named after him, The Les Paul guitar. It came out in 1952.

text: While Les Paul was looking for a manufacture for his log, Leo Fender was working on the Fender Telecaster. It was released in 1950. The telecaster had a “basic, single-cutaway solid slab of ash for a body and separate screwed-on maple neck was geared to mass production. It had a slanted pickup mounted into a steel bridge-plate carrying three adjustable bridge-saddles.” [2] Its color was blond. It is considered “the world’s first commercially marketed solid body electric guitar.” .[2] The Telecaster continues to be manufactured today.

text: The follow-up to the Telecaster, the Stratocaster, appeared in 1954. It had three pickups instead of two. It had a vibrato bar on the bridge. This allowed players to bend notes. “The contoured body with its beveled corners reduced the chafing on the player’s body.”[3] It also had cutaway above and below the fretboard to allow players easy access to the top frets.

text: In 1958, Gibson introduced the Explorer and the Flying V. Only about 100 Explorers were produced. Very few of the Flying V were produced either. Both were discontinued shortly after. The Flying V did manage to find a few followers and Gibson reintroduced the guitar in 1967. The Explorer was also reintroduced, in the mid-1970s. Both guitars are still in production today.

text: In 1961, Gibson discontinued the Les Paul model and replaced it with a new design. The result was the Solid Guitar (SG). It weighed less and was less dense than the Les Paul. It had double cutaways to allow easier access to the top frets. Eventually the Les Paul was put back into production in 1968 because Blues and Hard Rock guitarists liked the sound of the Les Pauls. The SG and the Les Paul are still in production today.

text: Fender and Gibson went on to make more well-known models. Gibson made the Melody Maker and the Firebird. Fender later created the Jazzmaster, and Jaguar.

text: Some of the designs that Gibson and Fender created provide the basis for many guitars made by various manufacturers today.

text: Solid Body Electric Bass

text: A typical solid body bass guitar has specific characteristics. It usually consists of four strings (some have been made with more), a 34” scale neck, at least one pickup, sometimes a pickguard, frets, and a bridge. It also has a volume and tone control. Some solid body basses have a three-band equalizer to stabilize the low frequency of the bass. Woods typically used to make the body of the bass are alder, maple, or mahogany. Rosewood or ebony are used for to make the fingerboard. The pickups are of the same style as used for guitars except they are designed for basses.

text: The double bass guitar was very heavy and not as easy to carry as other string instruments. Paul Tutmarc built an electronic bass that was played the same way as a guitar. This bass was called the Audiovox Model 736 Electronic Bass. “About 100 Audiovox 736 basses were made, and their distribution was apparently limited to the Seattle area.”[4]:29 The idea did not catch on and the company folded.

text: In the late 1940s when dance bands downsized,[4]:31 guitar players who lost their positions playing guitar were told they could play double bass. However, “they did not want to take the time to learn upright technique. They needed a bass they could play like a guitar-a fretted bass.”[4]:31 Leo Fender heard these criticisms and took his telecaster model and adopted it to a bass guitar. The result was the Fender Precision Bass. It consisted of an ash bolt-on maple neck. The scale for the bass was 34.” “It also had “cutaways for better balance.”[4]:33 Now guitarists could double on bass, and the bass player of the band would not have to carry around a huge upright bass. It entered the market in 1951.

text: Fender’s second bass model, the Jazz Bass, was introduced in 1959. It had a slimmer neck at the nut, a different two pickup combination, and an offset body shape. While it did not become extremely popular among jazz players, it was well received in rock music.

text: Many companies today produced models based on the body shapes first started by Fender.

text: Gibson created the Gibson Electric Bass to be introduced in the 1953. The scale, 30 ½” was shorter than the Fender basses. Its body was designed to look like a violin. It had a single pickup. It also had an endpin which allowed the bass player to play it vertically. In 1959 Gibson created the EB-0 which was designed to complement the Les Paul Junior. In 1961 it was redesigned to match the SG guitar and the EB-) designation was retained. A two pickup version was later introduced called the EB-3 and a long scale variant was made called the EB-3L.

text: Gibson also created the Thunderbird in 1963, which complemented the Firebird. It had the 34” scale for the neck. This was the same scale as the Fender basses.

text: Other companies have created designs that are different from the Fender and Gibson models.

text: Solid Body Electric Mandolin

text: Electric mandolins are similar to electric violins because they traditionally have one pickup. Some manufacturers produce electric violins because they also have a single pickup.

text: Epiphone currently produces an electric mandolin called the Mandobird IV and VIII, IV and VIII standing for four and eight strings respectively.[5][6]

text: They usually have a bolt on neck and a rosewood inlay. Both Mandobird models have a single coil pickup.

text: Solid Body Electric Violin

text: The solid body electric violin is different from the traditional violin because it does not have a hollow body and has a “Piezo Pickup with Passive Volume and Tone Controls.” [7] These features allow it to be amplified. The body is made of wood, usually maple. The fingerboard is made out of ebony. The top of the violin might be made out of flame maple or solid spruce. The body of the electric violin compared to an acoustic violin has cutaways that allow for weight reduction and a lighter body.

text: Solid Body Electric Sitar

text: While a regular sitar has 21, 22, or 23 strings an electric sitar is designed similar to a guitar. It first appeared in 1967 when “Vinnie Bell invented the Coral electric sitar, a small six-string guitar-like instrument producing a twangy sound that reminded people of its Indian namesake.” [8] It is played like a regular guitar. An electric sitar’s electronics consist of “Three pickups with individual volume and tone controls are standard, including one pickup over the sympathetic strings.” The bridge of the electric sitar is creates the sound of a sitar. Like electric guitars, made by Fender especially, the neck of a sitar is usually “made of bolt-on, hard maple wood with an optional mini-harp.” The sitar also has 13 drone strings located above the six strings that reach from the fretboard to the bridge.

text: Solid Body Electric Viola

text: Electric violas are designed similar to electric violins. They usually have the same features.

text: Solid Body Electric Cello

text: Electric cellos are similar to regular cellos, but they have a smaller body. Some electric cellos have no body branching out from the middle where the strings are. Some electric cellos have the out line of the traditional body around the middle, creating the feel of a traditional cello. It is played like a traditional cello.

text: The electric cello contains a volume control. Some have eq controls also. The fingerboard is made out of ebony. A piezo pickup is mounted at the bridge for amplification.

text: The body can be made out of alder.


document_title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

question_text: when did food stamps become part of the farm bill

question_tokens: when did food stamps become part of the farm bill

text: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

text: History[edit]

text: First Food Stamp Program (FSP) (May 16, 1939 – Spring 1943)[edit]

text: The idea for the first food stamp program has been credited to various people, most notably U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program's first administrator, Milo Perkins.[6] Of the program, Perkins said, "We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm."[7] The program operated by permitting people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures; for every $1 of orange stamps purchased, 50 cents' worth of blue stamps were received. Orange stamps could be used to buy any food; blue stamps could be used only to buy food determined by the department to be surplus.

text: Over the course of nearly four years, the first FSP reached approximately 20 million people in nearly half of the counties in the U.S., at a total cost of $262 million. At its peak, the program assisted an estimated four million people. The first recipient was Mabel McFiggin of Rochester, New York; the first retailer to redeem the stamps was Joseph Mutolo; and the first retailer caught violating program rules was Nick Salzano in October 1939. The program ended when the conditions that brought the program into being—unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment—ceased to exist.[8]

text: Pilot Food Stamp Program (1961–1964)[edit]

text: The 18 years between the end of the first FSP and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports, and legislative proposals. Prominent U.S. Senators actively associated with attempts to enact a food stamp program during this period included George Aiken, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver, and Stuart Symington. From 1954 on, U.S. Representative Leonor Sullivan strove to pass food-stamp-program legislation.

text: On September 21, 1959, P.L. 86-341 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to operate a food-stamp system through January 31, 1962. The Eisenhower Administration never used the authority. However, in fulfillment of a campaign promise made in West Virginia, President John F. Kennedy's first Executive Order called for expanded food distribution and, on February 2, 1961, he announced that food stamp pilot programs would be initiated. The pilot programs would retain the requirement that the food stamps be purchased, but eliminated the concept of special stamps for surplus foods. A Department spokesman indicated the emphasis would be on increasing the consumption of perishables.

text: Of the program, U.S. Representative Leonor K. Sullivan of Missouri asserted, "...the Department of Agriculture seemed bent on outlining a possible food stamp plan of such scope and magnitude, involving some 25 million persons, as to make the whole idea seem ridiculous and tear food stamp plans to smithereens."[9][10]

text: Food Stamp Act of 1964[edit]

text: The Food Stamp Act of 1964 appropriated $75 million to 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three cities. The measure drew overwhelming support from House Democrats, 90 percent from urban areas, 96 percent from the suburbs, and 87 percent from rural areas. Republican lawmakers opposed the initial measure: only 12 percent of urban Republicans, 11 percent from the suburbs, and 5 percent from rural areas voted affirmatively. President Lyndon B. Johnson hailed food stamps as "a realistic and responsible step toward the fuller and wiser use of an agricultural abundance".[11]

text: Rooted in congressional logrolling, the act was part of a larger appropriation that raised price supports for cotton and wheat. Rural lawmakers supported the program so that their urban colleagues would not dismantle farm subsidies. Food stamps, along with Medicaid, Head Start, and the Job Corps were foremost among the growing anti-poverty programs.

text: President Johnson called for a permanent food-stamp program on January 31, 1964, as part of his "War on Poverty" platform introduced at the State of the Union a few weeks earlier. Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman submitted the legislation on April 17, 1964. The bill eventually passed by Congress was H.R. 10222, introduced by Congresswoman Sullivan. One of the members on the House Committee on Agriculture who voted against the FSP in Committee was then Representative Bob Dole.

text: As a Senator, Dole became a staunch supporter of the program, after he worked with George McGovern to produce a bipartisan solution to two of the main problems associated with food stamps: cumbersome purchase requirements and lax eligibility standards. Dole told Congress regarding the new provisions, “I am confident that this bill eliminates the greedy and feeds the needy.”[citation needed] The law was intended to strengthen the agricultural economy and provide improved levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the practical purpose was to bring the pilot FSP under congressional control and to enact the regulations into law.

text: The major provisions were:

text:
The State Plan of Operation requirement and development of eligibility standards by States;
They required that the recipients should purchase their food stamps, while paying the average money spent on food then receiving an amount of food stamps representing an opportunity more nearly to obtain a low-cost nutritionally adequate diet;
The eligibility for purchase with food stamps of all items intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and imported foods (the House version would have prohibited the purchase of soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury frozen foods);
Prohibitions against discrimination on basis of race, religious creed, national origin, or political beliefs;
The division of responsibilities between States (certification and issuance) and the Federal Government (funding of benefits and authorization of retailers and wholesalers), with shared responsibility for funding costs of administration; and
Appropriations for the first year limited to $75 million; for the second year, to $100 million; and, for the third year, to $200 million.

text: The Agriculture Department estimated that participation in a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $360 million annually, far below the actual numbers.

text: Program expansion: participation milestones in the 1960s and early 1970s[edit]

text: In April 1965, participation topped half a million. (Actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation topped 1 million in March 1966, 2 million in October 1967, 3 million in February 1969, 4 million in February 1970, 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6 million two months later in May 1970, 10 million in February 1971, and 15 million in October 1974. Rapid increases in participation during this period were primarily due to geographic expansion.

text: Major legislative changes (early 1970s)[edit]

text: The early 1970s were a period of growth in participation, concern about the cost of providing food stamp benefits, and questions about administration, primarily timely certification. During this time, the issue was framed that would dominate food stamp legislation ever after: how to balance program access with program accountability. Three major pieces of legislation shaped this period, leading up to massive reform to follow:

text: P.L. 91-671 (January 11, 1971) established uniform national standards of eligibility and work requirements; required that allotments be equivalent to the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet; limited households' purchase requirements to 30 percent of their income; instituted an outreach requirement; authorized the Agriculture Department to pay 62.5 percent of specific administrative costs incurred by States; expanded the FSP to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States; and provided $1.75 billion appropriations for Fiscal Year 1971.

text: Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-86, August 10, 1973) required States to expand the program to every political jurisdiction before July 1, 1974; expanded the program to drug addicts and alcoholics in treatment and rehabilitation centers; established semi-annual allotment adjustments, bi-monthly issuance, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) “cash-out” (which gave the option to states to issue Food Stamp benefits to SSI recipients in the form of their estimated cash value consolidated within the SSI grant, in order to reduce administrative costs); introduced statutory complexity in the income definition (by including in-kind payments and providing an accompanying exception); and required the Department to establish temporary eligibility standards for disasters.

text: P.L. 93-347 (July 12, 1974) authorized the Department to pay 50 percent of all states' costs for administering the program and established the requirement for efficient and effective administration by the States.

text: 1974 nationwide program[edit]

text: In accordance with P.L. 93-86, the FSP began operating nationwide on July 1, 1974. (The program was not fully implemented in Puerto Rico until November 1, 1974.) Participation for July 1974 was almost 14 million.

text: Eligible access to Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries[edit]

text: Once a person is a beneficiary of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program he (or she) may be automatically eligible for Food Stamps depending on his (or her) state’s laws. How much money in food stamps they receive also varies by state. Supplemental Security Income was created in 1974.[12]

text: Food Stamp Act of 1977[edit]

text: Both the outgoing Republican Administration and the new Democratic Administration offered Congress proposed legislation to reform the FSP in 1977. The Republican bill stressed targeting benefits to the neediest, simplifying administration, and tightening controls on the program; the Democratic bill focused on increasing access to those most in need and simplifying and streamlining a complicated and cumbersome process that delayed benefit delivery as well as reducing errors, and curbing abuse. The chief force for the Democratic Administration was Robert Greenstein, Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

text: In Congress, major players were Senators George McGovern, Jacob Javits, Humphrey, and Dole and Congressmen Foley and Richmond. Amid all the themes, the one that became the rallying cry for FSP reform was "EPR"—eliminate the purchase requirement—because of the barrier to participation the purchase requirement represented.[citation needed] The bill that became the law (S. 275) did eliminate the purchase requirement. It also:[citation needed]

text:
eliminated categorical eligibility;
established statutory income eligibility guidelines at the poverty line;
established 10 categories of excluded income;
reduced the number of deductions used to calculate net income and established a standard deduction to take the place of eliminated deductions;
raised the general resource limit to $1,750;
established the fair market value (FMV) test for evaluating vehicles as resources;
penalized households whose heads voluntarily quit jobs;
restricted eligibility for students and aliens;
eliminated the requirement that households must have cooking facilities;
replaced store due bills with cash change up to 99 cents;
established the principle that stores must sell a substantial amount of staple foods if they are to be authorized;
established the ground rules for Indian Tribal Organization administration of the FSP on reservations; and
introduced demonstration project authority.

text: In addition to EPR, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 included several access provisions:[citation needed]

text:
using mail, telephone, or home visits for certification;
requirements for outreach, bilingual personnel and materials, and nutrition education materials;
recipients' right to submit applications the first day they attempt to do so;
30-day processing standard and inception of the concept of expedited service;
SSI joint processing and coordination with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the major cash welfare program;
notice, recertification, and retroactive benefit protections; and
a requirement for States to develop a disaster plan.

text: The integrity provisions of the new program included fraud disqualifications, enhanced Federal funding for States' anti-fraud activities, and financial incentives for low error rates.

text: The House Report for the 1977 legislation points out that the changes in the Food Stamp Program are needed without reference to upcoming welfare reform since "the path to welfare reform is, indeed, rocky...."[citation needed]

text: EPR was implemented January 1, 1979. Participation that month increased 1.5 million over the preceding month.

text: Cutbacks of the early 1980s[edit]

text: The large and expensive FSP proved to be a favorite subject of close scrutiny from both the Executive Branch and Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted cutbacks including:

text:
addition of a gross income eligibility test in addition to the net income test for most households;
temporary freeze on adjustments of the shelter deduction cap and the standard deduction and constraints on future adjustments;
annual adjustments in food stamp allotments rather than semi-annual;
consideration of non-elderly parents who live with their children and non-elderly siblings who live together as one household;
required periodic reporting and retrospective budgeting;
prohibition against using Federal funds for outreach;
replacing the FSP in Puerto Rico with a block grant for nutrition assistance;
counting retirement accounts as resources;
state option to require job search of applicants as well as participants; and
increased disqualification periods for voluntary quitters.

text: Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) began in Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1984.

text: Mid-to-late 1980s[edit]

text: Recognition of the severe domestic hunger problem in the latter half of the 1980s led to incremental expansions of the FSP in 1985 and 1987, such as elimination of sales tax on food stamp purchases, reinstitution of categorical eligibility, increased resource limit for most households ($2,000), eligibility for the homeless, and expanded nutrition education. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 and the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act in 1990 foretold the improvements that would be coming. The 1988 and 1990 legislation accomplished the following:

text:
increasing benefits by applying a multiplication factor to Thrifty Food Plan costs;
making outreach an optional activity for States;
excluding advance earned income tax credits as income;
simplifying procedures for calculating medical deductions;
instituting periodic adjustments of the minimum benefit;
authorizing nutrition education grants;
establishing severe penalties for violations by individuals or participating firms; and
establishing EBT as an issuance alternative.

text: Throughout this era, significant players were principally various committee chairmen: Congressmen Leland, Hall, Foley, Leon Panetta, and, de la Garza and Senator Patrick Leahy.

text: 1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act[edit]

text: By 1993, major changes in food stamp benefits had arrived. The final legislation provided for $2.8 billion in benefit increases over Fiscal Years 1984-1988. Leon Panetta, in his new role as OMB Director, played a major role as did Senator Leahy. Substantive changes included:

text:
eliminating the shelter deduction cap beginning January 1, 1997;
providing a deduction for legally binding child support payments made to nonhousehold members;
raising the cap on the dependent care deduction from $160 to $200 for children under 2 years old and $175 for all other dependents;
improving employment and training (E&T) dependent care reimbursements;
increasing the FMV test for vehicles to $4,550 on September 1, 1994 and $4,600 on October 1, 1995, then annually adjusting the value from $5,000 on October 1, 1996;
mandating asset accumulation demonstration projects; and
simplifying the household definition.

text: Later participation milestones[edit]

text: In December 1979, participation finally surpassed 20 million. In March 1994, participation hit a new high of 28 million.

text: 1996 welfare reform and subsequent amendments[edit]

text: The mid-1990s was a period of welfare reform. Prior to 1996, the rules for the cash welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), were waived for many states. With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform act, called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), AFDC, an entitlement program, was replaced that with a new block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

text: Although the Food Stamp Program was reauthorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, the 1996 welfare reform made several changes to the program, including:

text:
eliminating eligibility to food stamps of most legal immigrants who had been in the country less than five years;
placing a time limit on food stamp receipt of three out of 36 months for Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs), who are not working at least 20 hours a week or participating in a work program;
reducing the maximum allotments to 100 percent of the change in the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) from 103 percent of the change in the TFP;
freezing the standard deduction, the vehicle limit, and the minimum benefit;
setting the shelter cap at graduated specified levels up to $300 by fiscal year 2001, and allowing states to mandate the use of the standard utility allowance;
revising provisions for disqualification, including comparable disqualification with other means-tested programs; and
requiring states to implement EBT before October 1, 2002.

text: As a result of all these changes, "participation rates plummeted" in the late 1990s, according to Slate online magazine.[13][quantify]

text: The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Act of 1998 (AREERA) made some changes to these provisions, most significantly:

text:
using additional Employment and Training (E&T) funds to providing work program opportunities for able-bodied adults without dependents;
allowing states to exempt up to 15 percent of the able-bodied adults without dependents who would otherwise be ineligible;
restoring eligibility for certain elderly, disabled, and minor immigrants who resided in the United States when the 1996 welfare reform act was enacted; and
cutting administrative funding for states to account for certain administrative costs that previously had been allocated to the AFDC program and now were required to be allocated to the Food Stamp Program.

text: The fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill included two significant changes. The legislation increased the excess shelter cap to $340 in fiscal year 2001 and then indexed the cap to changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Consumers each year beginning in fiscal year 2002. The legislation also allowed states to use the vehicle limit they use in a TANF assistance program, if it would be result in a lower attribution of resources for the household.

text: Electronic Benefits Transfer[edit]

text: In the late 1990s, the Food Stamp Program was revamped, with some states phasing out actual stamps in favor of a specialized debit card system known as Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), provided by private contractors. Many states merged the use of the EBT card for public welfare programs as well, such as cash assistance. The move was designed to save the government money by not printing the coupons, make benefits available immediately instead of requiring the recipient to wait for mailing or picking up the booklets in person, and reduce theft and diversion.[5]

text: Renaming the Food Stamp Program[edit]

text: The 2008 farm bill renamed the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (beginning October 2008) and replaced all references to "stamp" or "coupon" in federal law with "card" or "EBT."[14][15]

text: Temporary benefits increase from April 2009 to November 2013[edit]

text: SNAP benefits temporarily increased with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), a federal stimulus package to help Americans affected by the Great Recession of 2007.[16] Beginning in April 2009 and continuing through the expansion's expiration on November 1, 2013, the ARRA appropriated $45.2 billion to increase monthly benefit levels to an average of $133.[16][17] This amounted to a 13.6 percent funding increase for SNAP recipients.[17]

text: This temporary expansion expired on November 1, 2013, resulting in a relative benefit decrease for SNAP households; on average, benefits decreased by 5 percent.[16] According to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of four dropped from $668 to $632, while the maximum monthly benefit for an individual dropped from $200 to $189.[16]

text: Corporate influence and support[edit]

text: In June 2014, Mother Jones reported that "Overall, 18 percent of all food benefits money is spent at Walmart," and that Walmart had submitted a statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stating,

text: Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors, and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control. These factors include... changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.[18]

text: Companies that have lobbied on behalf of SNAP include PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and the grocery chain Kroger. Kraft Foods, which receives "One-sixth [of its] revenues ... from food stamp purchases" also opposes food stamp cuts.[18]

text: Eligibility[edit]

text: Because SNAP is a means-tested program, recipients must meet all eligibility criteria in order to receive benefits. There are income and resource requirements for SNAP, as well as specific requirements for immigrants, elderly persons and persons with disabilities.[19][20]

text: Income requirements[edit]

text: For income, individuals and households may qualify for benefits if they earn a gross monthly income that is 130% (or less) of the federal poverty level for a specific household size. For example: the SNAP-eligible gross monthly income is $1,245 or less for an individual. For a household of 4, the SNAP eligible gross monthly income is $2,552 or less. Gross monthly income is the amount an individual makes each month before any deductions, i.e. taxes, insurance, pensions, etc.[19]

text: Resource requirements[edit]

text: There is also a resource requirement for SNAP, although eligibility requirements vary slightly from state to state. Generally speaking, households may have up to $2,250 in a bank account or other countable sources. If at least one person is age 60 or older and/or has disabilities, households may have $3,500 in countable resources.[19]

text: Housing expenditure[edit]

text: The lack of affordable housing in urban areas means that money that could have been spent on food is spent on housing expenses. Housing is generally considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of total household income; rising housing costs have made this ideal difficult to attain.

text: This is especially true in New York City, where 28% of rent stabilized tenants spend more than half their income on rent.[21] Among lower income families the percentage is much higher. According to an estimate by the Community Service Society, 65% of New York City families living below the federal poverty line are paying more than half of their income toward rent.[22]

text: The current eligibility criteria attempt to address this, by including a deduction for "excess shelter costs". This applies only to households that spend more than half of their net income on rent. For the purpose of this calculation, a household's net income is obtained by subtracting certain deductions from their gross (before deductions) income. If the household's total expenditures on rent exceed 50% of that net income, then the net income is further reduced by the amount of rent that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this deduction can be no more than $417, except in households that include an elderly or disabled person.[23] Deductions include:

text:
a standard deduction that is subtracted from income for all recipients,
an earned income deduction reflecting taxes and work expenses,
a deduction for dependent care expenses related to work or training (up to certain limits),
a deduction for child support payments,
a deduction for medical expenses above a set amount per month (only available to elderly and disabled recipients), and
a deduction for excessively high shelter expenses.[24]

tag: ol

text: The adjusted net income, including the deduction for excess shelter costs, is used to determine whether a household is eligible for food stamps.

text: Immigrant status and eligibility[edit]

text: The 2002 Farm Bill restores SNAP eligibility to most legal immigrants that:

text:
Have lived in the country for 5 years; or
Are receiving disability-related assistance or benefits; or
Have children under 18

text: Certain non-citizens, such as those admitted for humanitarian reasons and those admitted for permanent residence, may also be eligible for SNAP. Eligible household members can get SNAP benefits even if there are other members of the household that are not eligible.[19]

text: Applying for SNAP benefits[edit]

text: To apply for SNAP benefits, an applicant must first fill out a program application and return it to the state or local SNAP office. Each state has a different application, which is usually available online. There is more information about various state applications processes, including locations of SNAP offices in various state, displayed on an interactive Outreach Map found on the FNS website.[25] Individuals who believe they may be eligible for SNAP benefits may use the Food and Nutrition Services’ SNAP Screening Tool, which can help gauge eligibility.

text: Eligible food items under SNAP[edit]

text: As per USDA rules, households can use SNAP benefits to purchase:

text:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:

fruits and vegetables;
breads and cereals;
dairy products;
meats, fish and;
poultry

Plants and seeds which are fit for household consumption.

text: Additionally, restaurants operating in certain areas may be permitted to accept SNAP benefits from eligible candidates like elderly, homeless or disabled people in return for affordable meals.

text: However, the USDA clearly mentions that households cannot use SNAP benefits to purchase the following:

text:
Wine, beer, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Certain nonfood items like:

soaps, paper products, deodorant
household supplies, and
pet foods

Hot foods
Food items that are consumable in the store
Vitamins and medicines[26]

text: Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are classified as food items and are therefore eligible items. Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items.[26]

text: Energy drinks which have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods, but energy drinks which have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible.[26]

text: Live animals and birds may not be purchased; but live fish and shellfish are eligible foods.[26] Pumpkins are eligible, but inedible gourds and solely ornamental pumpkins are not.[26]

text: Gift baskets containing both food and non-food items "are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price. Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the price."[26]

text: State options[edit]

text: States are allowed under federal law to administer SNAP in different ways. As of April 2015, the USDA had published eleven periodic State Options Reports outlining variations in how states have administered the program.[27] The USDA's most recent State Options Report, published in April 2015, summarizes:

text: SNAP's statutes, regulations, and waivers provide State agencies with various policy options. State agencies use this flexibility to adapt their programs to meet the needs of eligible, low‐income people in their States. Modernization and technology have provided States with new opportunities and options in administering the program. Certain options may facilitate program design goals, such as removing or reducing barriers to access for low-income families and individuals, or providing better support for those working or looking for work. This flexibility helps States better target benefits to those most in need, streamline program administration and field operations, and coordinate SNAP activities with those of other programs.[28]

text: Some areas of differences among states include: when and how frequently SNAP recipients must report household circumstances; on whether the state agency acts on all reported changes or only some changes; whether the state uses a simplified method for determining the cost of doing business in cases where an applicant is self-employed; and whether legally obligated child support payments made to non-household members are counted as an income exclusion rather than a deduction.[28]

text: State agencies also have an option to call their program SNAP; whether to continue to refer to their program under its former name, the Food Stamp Program; or whether to choose an alternate name.[28] Among the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, 32 call their program SNAP; five continue to call the program the Food Stamp Program; and 16 have adopted their own name.[28] For example, California calls its SNAP implementation "CalFresh", while Arizona calls its program "Nutrition Assistance".[28]

text: States and counties with highest use of SNAP per capita[edit]

text: According to January 2015 figures reported by the Census Bureau and USDA and compiled by USA Today, the states and district with the most food stamp recipients per capita are:[29]

text:
State
% of population
receiving
SNAP benefits

District of Columbia
22%

Mississippi
21%

New Mexico
22%

West Virginia
20%

Oregon
20%

Tennessee
20%

Louisiana
19%

text: According to June 2009 figures reported by the state agencies, the USDA, and Census Bureau, and compiled by the New York Times, the individual counties with the highest levels of SNAP usage were:

text:
County (or equivalent)
% of population
receiving
SNAP benefits

Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska
49%

Owsley County, Kentucky
49%

Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota
49%

Pemiscot County, Missouri
47%

Todd County, South Dakota
46%

Sioux County, North Dakota
45%

Dunklin County, Missouri
44%

East Carroll Parish, Louisiana
43%

Humphreys County, Mississippi
43%

Wolfe County, Kentucky
42%

Perry County, Alabama
41%

Phillips County, Arkansas
39%

Rolette County, North Dakota
39%

Ripley County, Missouri
39%

Ziebach County, South Dakota
39%

text: Impact[edit]

text: During the recession of 2008, SNAP participation hit an all-time high. Arguing in support for SNAP, the Food Research and Action Center argued that “putting more resources quickly into the hands of the people most likely to turn around and spend it can both boost the economy and cushion the hardships on vulnerable people who face a constant struggle against hunger.”[30] Researchers have found that every $1 that is spent from SNAP results in $1.73 of economic activity. In California, the cost-benefit ratio is even higher: for every $1 spent from SNAP between $3.67 to $8.34 is saved in health care costs.[31][32][33] The Congressional Budget Office also rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy.[33]

text: Participants[edit]

text: A summary statistical report indicated that an average of 44.2 million people used the program in FY 2016, down from 45.8 million in 2015 and below the 2013 peak of 47.6 million.[34] SNAP is able to support 75% of those eligible for the program. Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.[35]

text: As of 2013[update], more than 15% of the U.S. population receive food assistance, and more than 20% in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Tennessee. Washington D.C. was the highest share of the population to receive food assistance at over 23%.[36]

text: According to the United States Department of Agriculture (based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2010), statistics for the food stamp program are as follows:[37]

text:
49% of all participant households have children (17 or younger), and 55% of those are single-parent households.
15% of all participant households have elderly (age 60 or over) members.
20% of all participant households have non-elderly disabled members.
The average gross monthly income per food stamp household is $731; The average net income is $336.
37% of participants are White, 22% are African-American, 10% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, 4% are Native American, and 19% are of unknown race or ethnicity.[37]

text: Costs[edit]

text: Amounts paid to program beneficiaries rose from $28.6 billion in 2005 to $76.1 billion in 2013, falling back to $66.6 billion by 2016. This increase was due to the high unemployment rate (leading to higher SNAP participation) and the increased benefit per person with the passing of ARRA. SNAP average monthly benefits increased from $96.18 per person to $133.08 per person. Other program costs, which include the Federal share of State administrative expenses, Nutrition Education, and Employment and Training, amounted to roughly $3.7 million in 2013.[5] There were cuts into the program's budget introduced in 2014 that were estimated to save $8.6 billion over 10 years. Some of the states are looking for measures within the states to balance the cuts, so they would not affect the recipients of the federal aid program.[38]

text: Food security and insecurity[edit]

text: While SNAP participants and other low-income nonparticipants spend similar amounts on food spending, SNAP participants tend to still experience greater food insecurity than nonparticipants. This is believed to be a reflection of the welfare of individuals who take the time to apply for SNAP benefits rather than the shortcomings of SNAP. Households facing the greatest hardships are the most likely to bear the burden of applying for program benefits.[39] Therefore, SNAP participants tend to be, on average, less food secure than other low-income nonparticipants.[39]

text: Self-selection by more food-needy households into SNAP makes it difficult to observe positive effects on food security from survey data.[40] Statistical models that control for this endogeneity suggest that SNAP receipt reduces the likelihood of being food insecure and very food insecure by roughly 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively.[41]

text: Poverty[edit]

text: Because SNAP is a means-tested entitlement program, participation rates are closely related to the number of individuals living in poverty in a given period. In periods of economic recession, SNAP enrollment tends to increase and in periods of prosperity, SNAP participation tends to be lower.[39] Unemployment is therefore also related to SNAP participation. However, ERS data shows that poverty and SNAP participation levels have continued to rise following the 2008 recession, even though unemployment rates have leveled off. Poverty levels are the strongest correlates for program participation.

text: A 2016 study found that SNAP benefits lead to greater expenditures on housing, transportation, and education by beneficiaries.[42]

text: Income maintenance[edit]

text: The purpose of the Food Stamp Program as laid out in its implementation was to assist low-income households in obtaining adequate and nutritious diets. According to Peter H. Rossi, a sociologist whose work involved evaluation of social programs, "the program rests on the assumption that households with restricted incomes may skimp on food purchases and live on diets that are inadequate in quantity and quality, or, alternatively skimp on other necessities to maintain an adequate diet".[43] Food stamps, as many like Rossi, MacDonald, and Eisinger contend, are used not only for increasing food but also as income maintenance. Income maintenance is money that households are able to spend on other things because they no longer have to spend it on food. According to various studies shown by Rossi, because of income maintenance only about $0.17–$0.47 more is being spent on food for every food stamp dollar than was spent prior to individuals receiving food stamps.[44]

text: Diet quality[edit]

text: Studies are inconclusive as to whether SNAP has a direct effect on the nutritional quality of food choices made by participants. Unlike other federal programs that provide food subsidies, i.e. the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), SNAP does not have nutritional standards for purchases. Critics of the program suggest that this lack of structure represents a missed opportunity for public health advancement and cost containment.[45][46] In April 2013, the USDA research body, the Economic Research Service (ERS), published a study that examined diet quality in SNAP participants compared to low-income nonparticipants. The study revealed a difference in diet quality between SNAP participants and low-income nonparticipants, finding that SNAP participants score slightly lower on the Healthy Eating Index[47] (HEI) than nonparticipants. The study also concluded that SNAP increases the likelihood that participants will consume whole fruit by 23 percentage points. However, the analysis also suggests that SNAP participation decreases participants' intake of dark green and orange vegetables by a modest amount.[48]

text: A 2016 study found no evidence that SNAP increased expenditures on tobacco by beneficiaries.[42]

text: Macroeconomic effect[edit]

text: The USDA's Economic Research Service explains: "SNAP is a counter-cyclical government assistance program—it provides assistance to more low-income households during an economic downturn or recession and to fewer households during an economic expansion. The rise in SNAP participation during an economic downturn results in greater SNAP expenditures which, in turn, stimulate the economy."[49]

text: In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a statement regarding SNAP benefits: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[50] Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 USDA study which found that "ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments) of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.[51]

text: A January 2008 report by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi analyzed measures of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and found that in a weak economy, every $1 in SNAP expenditures generates $1.73 in real GDP increase, making it the most effective stimulus among all the provisions of the act, including both tax cuts and spending increases.[52][53]

text: A 2010 report by Kenneth Hanson published by the USDA's Economic Research Service estimated that a $1 billion increase in SNAP expenditures increases economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion (i.e., the GDP multiplier is 1.79).[54] The same report also estimated that the "preferred jobs impact ... are the 8,900 full-time equivalent jobs plus self-employed or the 9,800 full-time and part-time jobs plus self-employed from $1 billion of SNAP benefits."[54]

text: Local economic effects[edit]

text: In March 2013, the Washington Post reported that one-third of Woonsocket, Rhode Island's population used food stamps, putting local merchants on a "boom or bust" cycle each month when EBT payments were deposited. The Post stated that "a federal program that began as a last resort for a few million hungry people has grown into an economic lifeline for entire towns."[55] And this growth "has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust".[56]

text: In addition to local town merchants, national retailers are starting to take in an increasing large percentage of SNAP benefits. For example, "Walmart estimates it takes in about 18% of total U.S. outlays on food stamps."[57]

text: Fraud and abuse[edit]

text: In March 2012, the USDA published its fifth report in a series of periodic analyses to estimate the extent of trafficking in SNAP; that is, selling or otherwise converting SNAP benefits for cash payouts. Although trafficking does not directly increase costs to the Federal Government,[58][59][60] it diverts benefits from their intended purpose of helping low-income families access a nutritious diet. Also trafficking may indirectly increase costs by encouraging participants to stay in the program longer than intended, or by incentivizing new participants seeking to profit from trafficking. The FNS aggressively acts to control trafficking by using SNAP purchase data to identify suspicious transaction patterns, conducting undercover investigations, and collaborating with other investigative agencies.

text: Trafficking diverted an estimated one cent of each SNAP dollar ($330 million annually) from SNAP benefits between 2006 and 2008. Trafficking has declined over time from nearly 4 percent in the 1990s. About 8.2 percent of all stores trafficked from 2006 to 2008 compared to the 10.5 percent of SNAP authorized stores involved in trafficking in 2011.[61] A variety of store characteristics and settings were related to the level of trafficking. Although large stores accounted for 87.3 percent of all SNAP redemptions, they only accounted for about 5.4 percent of trafficking redemptions. Trafficking was much less likely to occur among publicly owned than privately owned stores and was much less likely among stores in areas with less poverty rather than more. The total annual value of trafficked benefits increased at about the same rate as overall program growth. The current estimate of total SNAP dollars trafficked is higher than observed in the previous 2002–2005 period. This increase is consistent, however, with the almost 37 percent growths in average annual SNAP benefits from the 2002–2005 study periods to the most recent one. The methodology used to generate these estimates has known limitations. However, given variable data and resources, it is the most practical approach available to FNS. Further improvements to SNAP trafficking estimates would require new resources to assess the prevalence of trafficking among a random sample of stores.[62]

text: The USDA report released in August 2013 says the dollar value of trafficking increased to 1.3 percent, up from 1 percent in the USDA's 2006–2008 survey,[61] and "About 18 percent of those stores classified as convenience stores or small groceries were estimated to have trafficked. For larger stores (supermarkets and large groceries), only 0.32 percent were estimated to have trafficked. In terms of redemptions, about 17 percent of small groceries redemptions and 14 percent of convenience store redemptions were estimated to have been trafficked. This compares with a rate of 0.2 percent for large stores."[63]

text: The USDA, in December 2011, announced new policies to attempt to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. These changes will include stiffer penalties for retailers who are caught participating in illegal or fraudulent activities.[64] “The department is proposing increasing penalties for retailers and providing states with access to large federal databases they would be required to use to verify information from applicants. SNAP benefit fraud, generally in the form of store employees buying EBT cards from recipients is widespread in urban areas, with one in seven corner stores engaging in such behavior, according to a recent government estimate. There are in excess of 200,000 stores, and we have 100 agents spread across the country. Some do undercover work, but the principal way we track fraud is through analyzing electronic transactions” for suspicious patterns, USDA Under Secretary Kevin Concannon told The Washington Times.[65] Also, states will be given additional guidance that will help develop a tighter policy for those seeking to effectively investigate fraud and clarifying the definition of trafficking.

text: According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, there was a payment error rate of 4.36% of SNAP benefits down from 9.86% in 1999.[66] A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant.[66] There are also instances of fraud involving exchange of SNAP benefits for cash and/or for items not eligible for purchase with EBT cards.[67] In 2011, the Michigan program raised eligibility requirements for full-time college students, to save taxpayer money and to end student use of monthly SNAP benefits.[68]

text: In Maine, incidents of recycling fraud have occurred in the past where individuals once committed fraud by using their EBT cards to buy canned or bottled beverages (requiring a deposit to be paid at the point of purchase for each beverage container), dump the contents out so the empty beverage container could be returned for deposit redemption, and thereby, allowed these individuals to eventually purchase non-EBT authorized products with cash from the beverage container deposits.[69]

text: The State of Utah developed a system called "eFind" to monitor, evaluate and cross-examine qualifying and reporting data of recipients assets. Utah’s eFind system is a “back end”, web-based system that gathers, filters, and organizes information from various federal, state, and local databases. The data in eFind is used to help state eligibility workers determine applicants’ eligibility for public assistance programs, including Medicaid, CHIP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and child care assistance.[70] When information is changed in one database, the reported changes become available to other departments utilizing the system. This system was developed with federal funds and it is available to other states free of charge.

text: The USDA only reports direct fraud and trafficking in benefits, which was officially estimated at $858 million in 2012. The Cato Institute reports that there was another $2.2 billion in erroneous payouts in 2009.[citation needed] Cato also reported that the erroneous payout rate dropped significantly from 5.6 percent in 2007 to 3.8 percent in 2011.[citation needed]

text: Role of SNAP in healthy diets[edit]

text: Background[edit]

text: The 2008 Farm Bill authorized $20 million to be spent on pilot projects to determine whether incentives provided to SNAP recipients at the point-of-sale would increase the purchase of fruits, vegetables, or other healthful foods.[71] Fifteen states expressed interest in having the pilot program and, ultimately, five states submitted applications to be considered for HIP. Hampden County, Massachusetts was selected as the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) site. HIP is designed to take place from August 2010 to April 2013 with the actual operation phase of the pilot program scheduled to last 15 months, from November 2011 to January 2013.[72]

text: HIP offers select SNAP recipients a 30% subsidy on produce, which is credited to the participant’s EBT card, for 15 months. 7,500 households will participate HIP and an equal number will not; the differences between the two groups will be analyzed to see the effects of the program.[73] Produce, under the HIP, is defined as fresh, frozen, canned, or dried fruits and vegetables that do not have any added sugar, salt, fat, or oil.

text: Administrative responsibility[edit]

text: The Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) is the state agency responsible for SNAP. DTA has recruited retailers to take part in HIP and sell more produce, planned for the EBT system change with the state EBT vendor, and hired six new staff members dedicated to HIP. DTA has agreed to provide FNS with monthly reports, data collection and evaluation.

text: Proposals to restrict "junk food" or "luxury items"[edit]

text: Periodically, proposals have been raised to restrict SNAP benefits from being used to purchase various categories or types of food which have been criticized as "junk food" or "luxury items". However, Congress and the Department of Agriculture have repeatedly rejected such proposals on both administrative burden and personal freedom grounds. The Food and Nutrition Service noted in 2007 that no federal standards exist to determine which foods should be considered "healthy" or not, that "vegetables, fruits, grain products, meat and meat alternatives account for nearly three-quarters of the money value of food used by food stamp households" and that "food stamp recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks."[74] Thomas Farley and Russell Sykes argued that the USDA should reconsider the possibility of restricting "junk food" purchases with SNAP in order to encourage healthy eating, along with incentivizing the purchase of healthy items through a credit or rebate program that makes foods such as fresh vegetables and meats cheaper. They also noted that many urban food stores do a poor job of stocking healthy foods and instead favor high-profit processed items.[75]