Can the Government Tell SNAP Users What to Eat?

Yahoo

22-04-2025

Several states, backed by Trump-era officials like RFK Jr., are seeking USDA approval to ban SNAP users from buying soda and candy, citing health concerns.
Critics argue the bans are stigmatizing, difficult to enforce, and unlikely to improve diets without complementary incentives for healthier food choices.
Industry groups and public health experts warn that these restrictions may create confusion and inequality, with studies showing positive incentives are more effective than outright bans.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Trump administration, has long believed that those who use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, should be barred from using their benefits to pay for 'soda or processed foods.' And it appears he may actually be getting his way. 'The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps, and in school lunches,' Kennedy shared on Fox News in February. 'There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison.'He also has an ally in Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, who Fortune noted in February stated, "When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious? These are all massive questions we're going to be asking and working on in the coming months and years.'
Now, it appears there are answers to those questions, as several states are planning to institute or are currently considering banning the use of SNAP benefits to purchase soda and candy.
Related: RFK Jr. Wants to Close a Controversial FDA Loophole in Food Additive Regulation
For background, the SNAP program is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), not the HHS. The USDA cannot regulate the use of SNAPs, as they are administered at the state level. As stated in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, SNAP benefits can be used for 'any food or food product intended for human consumption." The only restrictions are on alcohol, tobacco, and prepared hot foods.
However, state legislators can approach the USDA to request a waiver to add restrictions they wish to implement. According to Food Dive, governors from Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, and West Virginia have asked the USDA to approve restrictions over the last month. Reuters also reported that Nebraska plans to ask for its own restrictions. However, experts argue that this approach is both exclusionary and may not actually help people make better food choices.
'Research has shown the benefits of incentives in helping shoppers obtain foods for a healthier diet,' Stephanie Hodges, a public health dietitian at The Nourished Principles, told The Food Institute. Hodges added that without new incentives that go hand in hand with the restrictions, it is very unlikely that people will now use the funds in a new way.
'When we think of consumer shopping behavior, even our own, we aren't replacing a soft drink or a candy bar with an apple or a head of broccoli," Hodges added. "Banning certain beverages, foods, or food groups without providing incentives for healthier food options is not going to have the impact that many policymakers think it will on health and nutrition.'
Related: These Foods Will Likely Get More Expensive After Trump's Tariffs Take Effect
There is evidence suggesting that an incentive replacement could be beneficial. The Food Institute cited a 2014 Stanford study that showed a ban on using SNAP dollars to buy sugar-sweetened beverages is "more likely to significantly reduce obesity prevalence and type 2 diabetes incidence than a policy to subsidize vegetable and fruit purchases using SNAP dollars." However, it also found that a vegetable and fruit subsidy — providing participants with partial refunds for every fruit and vegetable they purchase, thus allowing them more money back on their SNAP cards — could "significantly increase the proportion of SNAP participants who meet federal vegetable and fruit consumption guidelines."
Naturally, industry leaders are incensed by the potential restrictions. "Nearly 80% of families on SNAP work, they just don't make enough to make ends meet. Low-income working families were promised a new, better era and not to be left behind again. Instead, they're being denigrated and treated like second-class citizens," the American Beverage Association, which represents massive companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, shared in a statement. It added that these potential restrictions send a "ridiculously conflicted message: It's okay to buy a wide array of desserts, snack cakes and treats, just not soda and candy. How does that make sense?"
The National Confectioners Association also called the move "misguided," adding in its own statement: "This policy approach is misguided and not needed when it comes to chocolate and candy. SNAP participants and non-SNAP participants both understand that chocolate and candy are treats, not meal replacements. People in the U.S. enjoy chocolate and candy two to three times per week, averaging just 40 calories and about one teaspoon of added sugar per day. In fact, candy purchasing patterns are basically equivalent between SNAP and non-SNAP families, with only about 2% of SNAP purchases being candy."
In fact, it's not just candy. According to the USDA's own data, food purchases, consumption patterns, and dietary outcomes "among SNAP participants and higher-income households are more similar than different."
Additionally, the association noted that even the term "candy" could make these restrictions difficult to implement, as the definition changes from state to state. "The same granola bar or trail mix could be banned as a SNAP-eligible purchase in one state, but be eligible across the border in another state. Varying definitions lead to consumer and retailer confusion. In addition, arbitrary definitions of candy create purchasing disparities across varying confectionery products."
Related: RFK Jr. Wants to 'Make America Healthy Again' — Here's What That Means for You
If these restrictions are approved, the Trump administration will be the first in history to ban specific foods from purchase through the program. And it's a move that experts at the Food Action Research Center say is going in the wrong direction.
"The Trump administration's push to accelerate these efforts undermines the dignity of people with low incomes and signals a dangerous policy direction — one that ignores data and imposes costly and ineffective restrictions," Crystal FitzSimons, the organization's interim president, said. "Research consistently shows that the primary barrier to healthier food is affordability, and incentive-based options are more successful at encouraging nutritious food purchases."
FitzSimons added that rather than "limiting access, fueling stigma, and making the program more difficult and costly to administer, lawmakers should be focused on expanding resources, promoting healthier food access, and more urgently, opposing the harmful proposals to weaken SNAP. We look forward to working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Congress to reject these harmful proposals and advance policies that reduce hunger and improve health."
Read the original article on Food & Wine