By Aaron Coleman

Food banks and food pantries are an important part of America’s charitable safety net. Every day, volunteers, churches, nonprofits, and local organizations work tirelessly to ensure that families don’t go to bed hungry. Their work deserves recognition and support, and there is certainly room to expand these efforts.

But charity alone cannot solve hunger. Food banks were never designed to permanently feed tens of millions of Americans. They are emergency resources. They exist to help people through temporary crises, not to serve as a substitute for public policy. As long as millions of Americans continue to struggle with low wages, rising food prices, unexpected medical bills, and economic instability, food pantries will remain overwhelmed. The question should not be how many more food pantries we can build. The question should be why so many Americans need them in the first place.

The Case for Universal Food Benefits

The long-term solution to hunger in America is universal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known by the EBT card that recipients use.

Currently, food assistance is means-tested. Applicants must prove their income falls below certain limits, repeatedly verify eligibility, and navigate a bureaucracy that often discourages participation. Millions of people who qualify never receive benefits because they don’t know they’re eligible, cannot complete the paperwork, or are embarrassed by the stigma attached to receiving assistance.

A universal system would eliminate those barriers. Every American would receive a basic monthly food benefit regardless of income. Wealthier households would effectively pay for their own benefits, and everyone else’s, through the tax system, just as they do with public schools, highways, and Social Security. No complicated eligibility rules. No stigma. No one falling through the cracks.

“But That’s Socialism”

Whenever proposals expand the social safety net, some conservatives immediately respond with the same accusation:  “That’s socialism.”

Helping people afford groceries is no more socialism than maintaining roads, funding public schools, or providing firefighters. Markets would still grow, transport, and sell food through private businesses. Universal food benefits would simply ensure every consumer has purchasing power, much like Medicare or Social Security operate within a capitalist economy.

A civilized society recognizes that access to food is a basic necessity. Markets work exceptionally well for producing food, but they don’t guarantee that every person can afford it. America produces more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is not scarcity, it’s access. No child should be hungry because their parents had an unexpected medical emergency. No senior citizen should choose between buying groceries and filling a prescription. No veteran should stand in line at a food pantry after serving their country.

The Fraud Argument Doesn’t Hold Up

Another common objection is fraud. Critics warn that expanding food benefits would lead to widespread abuse of the system. But what exactly are we afraid of? That someone might buy an extra bag of rice? That a family might have two scoops of beans instead of one?

Food benefits are among the least attractive government programs to defraud because they are restricted to purchasing eligible food items. They cannot legally be spent on luxury vacations, expensive electronics, or entertainment. The overwhelming majority of recipients simply use them to buy groceries.

Every public program experiences some level of improper payments. The question isn’t whether fraud exists, it always will to some degree. The real question is whether preventing every possible misuse is worth allowing millions of honest people to struggle with hunger.  If the choice is between a tiny amount of abuse and ensuring that every American has enough to eat, the moral answer seems obvious.

Hunger Is a Policy Choice

America has the resources to eliminate hunger. We have the farms. We have the grocery stores. We have one of the most productive agricultural systems in human history. The fact that people still go hungry is not because America lacks food. It is because we have chosen policies that leave access to that food dependent on income, paperwork, and bureaucratic hurdles. Universal food benefits would not eliminate every economic hardship, but they would ensure that no one has to wonder where their next meal is coming from.

Feeding People Is an Investment

Good nutrition improves educational outcomes, workplace productivity, physical health, and mental health. Children who aren’t hungry perform better in school. Adults with reliable access to food are healthier and more productive. Seniors with adequate nutrition experience fewer health complications. Reducing hunger isn’t simply an act of compassion. It’s smart economic policy. The costs of chronic hunger, higher healthcare spending, reduced productivity, poorer educational achievement, and increased emergency assistance, are paid by society one way or another. We can either pay to prevent hunger or pay for its consequences.

America Can Do Better

Food banks will always have an important role. Emergencies happen. Natural disasters occur. Families experience temporary hardships. But they should be a backup plan, not the foundation of America’s response to hunger. The wealthiest nation in the world should be able to guarantee that every person has enough to eat. Universal food benefits are not about creating dependency. They’re about recognizing that in a country capable of feeding hundreds of millions of people, hunger should no longer exist. When future generations look back at this moment, they shouldn’t ask why we built more food pantries. They should ask why we ever accepted hunger as inevitable in the first place.

Fmr. Rep. Aaron Coleman, Kansas House of Representatives 2021-2023 District 37, is the Sergeant-At-Arms of SDUSA.