As the current health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is urging states to seek exceptions, or waivers, that would grant them the ability to deny the purchase of sodas through food stamps offered by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Kennedy has been particularly outspoken on this matter, yet he is not alone in his drive to prohibit various foods from SNAP approval. Legislation is being considered in Congress and multiple states which would prevent SNAP benefits from being used for items like soda, candy, and similar products.
According to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., states will have the option to prevent individuals from using SNAP benefits – colloquially known as food stamps – for the purchase of sodas. Kennedy publicly announced this new approach during an event in Martinsburg, West Virginia, a state that recently enacted a law prohibiting foods containing the majority of artificial food colorings from distribution in schools; the first of its kind in the country.
In line with his ‘Make America Healthy Again’ campaign, Kennedy has been urging the government to stop sanctioning the use of the near $113 billion SNAP program, which caters to approximately 42 million Americans, to fund the purchase of sodas or processed foods. His stance is not solitary. Both in Congress and multiple states, legislative measures are being considered to limit the use of SNAP benefits for certain foods such as sodas and candy.
Advocating for the Healthy SNAP Act in Congress is Rep. Josh Breechan, an Oklahoma Republican. Bolstering Kennedy’s sentiment, he commented, ‘If someone desires to purchase junk food using their personal funds, the choice is theirs. However, what we object to is asking taxpayers to fund such purchases, and then also expect those same taxpayers to shoulder the financial burden of the resulting health concerns.’
Champions against hunger direct attention to studies showing that SNAP beneficiaries are no more prone to buying sugary beverages or snack foods than other less affluent Americans. They put forth the argument that limiting food options infringes upon the independence and self-respect of individuals who, on an average, receive about $187 per month, or roughly $6.16 per day. ‘This is simply another method of reducing benefits,’ stated Gina Plata-Nino, deputy director at the Food Research and Action Center, an advocacy nonprofit group.
‘How do we further limit people? How do we marginalize them more?’ she queried. The act of removing specific foods from the SNAP program is not as straightforward as it may seem. The program is managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), rather than Health and Human Services (HHS), and is executed at the state level.
The authorization for SNAP comes from the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which decrees that SNAP benefits can be utilized for ‘any food or food product for human consumption’, barring alcohol, tobacco, and hot food items meant to be eaten promptly. In order to exclude any food items from SNAP eligibility, Congress would need to alter the law, or states would need to secure waivers allowing purchase restrictions, much like the measure recently undertaken in West Virginia.
In the past two decades, legislators in various states have proposed the prohibition of items such as bottled water, sodas, chips, ice cream, decorated cakes and ‘luxury meats’ like steak from being paid for with SNAP benefits. However, to date, none of these requests have received approval under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, according to Bergh.
Previous objections from the Agriculture Department to these waivers were grounded in the lack of clear criteria to classify foods as either ‘good or bad’, or ‘healthy or unhealthy’. Moreover, the department argued that implementing these restrictions would be complex, expensive, and difficult. The department also questioned whether such measures would genuinely alter recipients’ food choices or mitigate health conditions like obesity.
However, according to Kennedy, new Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the USDA, supports the move towards state-level waivers. ‘It’s worth questioning whether taxpayers are comfortable funding SNAP, knowing their contributions are being spent on unhealthy foods and beverages for children who may require more nutritious options,’ Rollins stated in February.
‘These are substantial questions we’ll be examining and grappling with in the near future,’ echoed Rollins. Advocates for healthier lifestyles believe the momentum generated by Kennedy’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement could catalyze a renewed focus on solutions to poor dietary habits, which contribute significantly to premature disease and death.
Parekh emphasized the importance of nutrition when discussing the SNAP program, reminding everyone that the letter ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition. ‘It’s high time both parties unite and explore innovative means to enhance diet quality and nutrition,’ she concluded.