Opinion - Big Soda tries to buy influencers, has a national meltdown
Comparing a soda ban to COVID authoritarianism might make for a catchy tweet, but it's intellectually dishonest — and dangerously misleading.
That's the line that some right-wing influencers pushed recently to stir outrage over the commonsense proposal of removing sugary drinks from SNAP, the government's food assistance program. They equated it to vaccine coercion, calling it 'government overreach.'
But according to right-leaning journalist Nick Sortor, it appears that this wasn't a grassroots outcry at all, but a manufactured backlash, apparently bankrolled by a shady public relations campaign.
Thankfully, people like conservative activist and former swimmer Riley Gaines saw through it.
Let's be clear: No one is banning soda. Anyone can still buy it. The issue is whether taxpayers should have to subsidize it. Right now, they are doing so — heavily.
SNAP, which helps over 42 million Americans afford groceries, costs more than $100 billion a year. According to USDA and independent research, soft drinks consistently rank among the top individual items purchased with SNAP benefits.
While estimates vary, sugary drinks are believed to account for up to 10 percent of all SNAP beverage purchases. That's billions in taxpayer dollars funneling to Big Soda.
No wonder they're panicking.
The exclusion of sugary drinks from SNAP — alcohol and tobacco are already excluded — implies a financial hit. So it seems suspicious that a shadowy influencer campaign suddenly materialized, allegedly offering content creators up to $1,000 to post anti-reform talking points. Pictures of Donald Trump sipping Diet Coke suddenly spread on X like sacred scrolls.
Luckily, some refused to be played.
Gaines, the NCAA athlete-turned-advocate, said she was approached and declined. Instead of parroting the script, she asked questions. Who was behind this? Why the secrecy?
'Sad to see people sell out for really not that much money,' she wrote.
Her integrity earned her a public thank-you from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is spearheading the soda reform effort.
And Eric Daugherty, a director with Florida's Voice who was also approached, publicly acknowledged the veracity of Sortor's theory. To his credit, he apologized for his participation in the campaign, a move that took courage.
As Gaines and Daugherty understand, this isn't about party lines. It's about principle, and it's about protecting children's health, which should be bipartisan.
After all, in an era of skyrocketing obesity and chronic illness — not to mention government waste — why should taxpayers fund sugar addiction?
And even setting the addictive nature aside, regular consumption of soda is linked to several negative health effects, including an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease due to its high added sugar content. It can also contribute to tooth decay and metabolic issues, even in individuals who are not overweight.
Emerging research also suggests soda may impair fertility, which could play a small but meaningful role in the nation's ongoing birth rate decline.
Some lawmakers like Sen. Katie Britt, the Republican from Alabama behind the Healthy SNAP Act, are starting to ask important questions about these negative effects.
Indeed, Kennedy's federal push is part of a broader, state-level movement to combat obesity, and Britt's not alone in that fight.
In Florida, State Sen. Jonathan Martin is pushing a bill to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches. In Texas, the state Senate unanimously passed a health bill promoting nutrition and physical education. Another bill would restrict junk food in SNAP.
And Utah just became the first state to pass a bill banning soda in SNAP. A companion bill would ban harmful food additives in school meals. Gov. Spencer Cox (R) has until March 27 to act.
But just as Big Soda targeted public figures with national followings, they're fighting back on the state level, too.
According to the Miami Herald, lobbyists for the Florida Beverage Association — an affiliate of the American Beverage Association — are working hard to kill Martin's bill. If their efforts succeed, it could mean that synthetic dyes and carcinogens remain on cafeteria trays.
At the hearing for the bill this week, lawmakers raised objections that sounded suspicious, such as the idea that victories for Make America Healthy Again are better executed by the federal government rather than the state.
Are they worried that Kennedy wants all the credit for himself? That can't be the case. The secretary's been clear that wins for children are his top priority, not padding his own ego. Besides, this objection conflicts with the success that the movement is seeing in states like Texas and Utah.
We also saw this type of industry pushback firsthand in Arizona. When a bill to restrict sugary drinks in SNAP came up for a vote, a lobbyist testified against it. (One of us also testified.) The lobbyist downplayed the correlation between soda and obesity, a testament to just how far these companies will go to deny reality and block reforms that could help low-income families escape chronic diseases like diabetes. He showed up again to oppose the bill in the Senate. Two trips, two attempts to protect profits over public health.
Reforms like Martin's challenge powerful corporate interests. But don't expect Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to come swooping in. Most of the states leading this charge, at least for now, are red.
This new health movement is being led by conservatives willing to call out corporate overreach, even when it costs money. Hopefully, Florida — typically known for leading the way on common sense — will follow suit.
And let's address the broader smear campaign. Calling this reform 'tyranny' is an insult to real overreach like pandemic-era restrictions that kept people from visiting sick relatives or attending church. This isn't about food police. It's a line in the sand between corporate manipulation and public responsibility.
Let's not forget what SNAP stands for: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The 'N' is for nutrition. Soda contains no nutrients — just sugar and chemicals. A program meant to nourish struggling families shouldn't bankroll the opposite.
Gaines and others stood tall when Big Soda tried to buy their sentiment. They defended the health of vulnerable Americans — and the dignity of a new health-focused movement that cuts across party lines, slaughtering sacred cows on both sides: namely corporate idealization on the right, and fear of fat-shaming on the left.
That's integrity. And it's worth more than a thousand bucks and a bottle of Coke.
Grace Price is an investigative reporter focused on the interaction between nutrition and disease. Nora Kenney is director of communications at End Chronic Disease.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
16 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How Doubling Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Will Hit U.S. Businesses and Consumers
Canned foods, cars, houses, and a range of other goods could soon get more expensive as businesses face a newly doubled tariff rate of 50% for steel and aluminum imports. President Donald Trump described the increase, which raised the levies from the 25% rate announced in February beginning on Wednesday, as an effort to 'further secure the steel industry in the United States' during a Friday rally at a steel mill in Pittsburgh, Penn.—once the heart of the domestic steel industry. But while American steel industry groups have hailed the tariff hike, economic experts have sounded alarms, saying it could further disrupt the already-volatile global supply chain and put more strain on businesses—and Americans' wallets. 'Consumers will have to pay the price,' says Virginia Tech economics professor David Beiri. 'The continued uncertainty that is created by the government is poisoning business plans.' How will steel and aluminum tariff hikes impact businesses? The United States is highly reliant on steel imports, bringing in more of the material from abroad than any other country in the world, according to the International Trade Administration. More than 26 million metric tons of steel were imported last year, most of which came from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and China. 'We are equally dependent on aluminum,' says Jonathan Colehower, managing director at consulting company UST. The domestic steel industry has voiced support for the increased tariffs, saying they will help it weather increased competition from foreign steel manufacturers. 'Chinese steel exports to the world have more than doubled since 2020, surging to 118 million MT in 2024—more than total North American steel production,' the American Iron and Steel Institute, one of several trade associations representing the American steel industry, said in a statement after Trump announced the higher rate. 'This tariff action will help prevent new surges in imports that would injure American steel producers and their workers.' But experts worry about the industry's ability to meet increased demand as businesses, facing the additional import costs, seek cheaper alternatives for their products. While the U.S. once dominated the steel industry, the boom has died down in the last century. 'With domestic capacity not necessarily being able to produce what we might need…there is going to be a transitory effect,' says Beiri, referring to the adjustment period the steel industry will have to navigate as the supply chain changes. Colehower says the domestic steel supply may tighten as a result of the increased tariffs, which could cause domestic prices to rise amid high demand. 'There's absolutely no way it's going to be able to make up the difference immediately,' he says of the domestic steel industry. The Aluminum Association, a trade group that represents both U.S.-based and foreign companies, said it supports tariff-free Canadian aluminum, pointing to the American aluminum industry's reliance on the country's northern neighbor. 'Aluminum is a critical material for our economy and national defense – used in everything from cars to beverage cans to fighter jets. Today, the United States is investing significantly and will need both smelted and recycled aluminum to meet growing demand,' the association said. 'In the years if not decades it will take to build new U.S. smelter capacity, our metal needs must be met by importing.' How will the higher tariffs impact the prices of goods? Steel and aluminum are used in various products, from beer cans and office supplies to automobiles—the prices for all of which are likely to rise as a result of the doubled import taxes. The Can Manufacturers Institute, the trade association of the metal can manufacturing industry, opposed the tariff increase in a statement after Trump announced the coming change in the rate, saying it would 'further increase the cost of canned goods at the grocery store.' The can manufacturing industry imports nearly 80% of its tin-mill steel from foreign countries. 'Doubling steel tariffs will inflate domestic canned food prices, and it plays into the hands of China and other foreign canned food producers, which are more than happy to undercut American farmers and food producers,' the trade association said. Beer companies and other beverage businesses are also set to be impacted. The real estate and construction industries, both of which use steel to build homes, warehouses, and other structures will be footing a bigger bill, as well, Colehower says. He predicts businesses such as Lowe's and Home Depot, the latter of which vowed before the tariff hike that it would not be increasing the cost of its goods, will be severely affected. Farm equipment and transportation vehicles, including cars, bicycles, and others, will also likely cost more as a result of the new tariff rate, Colehower says. Some companies could seek to adjust their business models in the face of increased costs. Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, for instance, said in February that the company would consider making more beverages in plastic bottles to offset aluminum price hikes under the tariffs announced that month. Negotiations over the tariffs are ongoing between the U.S. and its trading partners, several of which have expressed ire at the increased import taxes. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, called the steel tariffs a 'direct attack on Canadian workers.' A European Commission official on Friday said the decision 'adds further uncertainty to the global economy and increases costs for consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' The U.K. has been spared from the tariff hike; Mexico announced Wednesday that it plans to ask for a similar exemption. Canada, Mexico, and the European Union were previously exempt from steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed during his first term in 2016, but are subject to the current levies.
USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's early-term momentum has hit a wall. Here's why.
Trump's early-term momentum has hit a wall. Here's why. From Gaza to Ukraine and from federal judges to the Federal Reserve, President Donald Trump has seen his early White House successes take a back seat to emerging struggles. Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk slams Trump's big tax bill on X Days after leaving the White House, Elon Musk slammed President Trump's big tax bill on X. WASHINGTON − Governing? Harder than it looked. Just as Donald Trump is pushing to pass the centerpiece of his domestic agenda, former BFF Elon Musk is trashing his "big, beautiful bill" as "a disgusting abomination." The president's prediction that Vladimir Putin would heed his entreaties to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours is stretching into Month Five. Judges he appointed to the bench are daring to rule against him. From cutting federal spending to deporting illegal immigrants, from reaching a nuclear deal with Iran to negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza, Team Trump is running into roadblocks that are making it difficult to deliver on promises he confidently made before moving into the White House. More: Trump erupts when asked about 'TACO trade' ― a new nickname mocking his tariff approach There are some skid marks where the rubber has met the road. To be sure, some of Trump's problems come from a surplus of early successes and from the breadth of his ambitions. Through a flood of executive orders and actions, he has launched a transformation of the USA's approach to the world and the federal government's role in Americans' lives. Congressional Democrats are still struggling to craft a consistent and coherent strategy against him. But the pushback from other forces has become increasingly problematic for the White House − pushback from skeptical judges, foreign leaders with their own priorities, a steady-as-she-goes Federal Reserve and the reality of budget arithmetic. If Trump's first 100 days were a rollercoaster, the second 100 days, a span that ends on Aug. 8, are proving to be a bit of a slog. Ukraine: 'It'll be done within 24 hours' The question for Trump − as it was for many of his predecessors in the White House − is how he chooses to respond, whether he doubles down or adjusts his goals and tactics when obstacles loom. Consider Ukraine. In dozens of campaign speeches, candidate Trump said he would settle the war in Ukraine within a day of taking office, and perhaps even before he moved in. More: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know about Ukraine's audacious drone strike "I know Zelenskyy, I know Putin," he said at one Pennsylvania rally, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart "It'll be done within 24 hours, you watch. They all say, 'That's such a boast.' It will be done very quickly.'" But Putin has swatted away Trump's demands for a quick ceasefire, and Ukrainian forces have engineered a stunning drone assault on Russian military forces. An end to the war seems nowhere in sight. "I'm very disappointed," Trump said on May 28. What does he do next? More: Russia demands harsh terms at Ukraine peace talks Trump has threatened sanctions on Russia but is clearly loath to impose them. He has also suggested the United States may just walk away, leaving the conflict to the two warring parties and the Europeans to figure out. He faces similar calculations on tariffs, where he has delayed or reduced his most far-reaching threats to China and elsewhere when they seemed to rattle the stock markets. Does he follow through on his July 8 deadline for trading partners to make deals or be hit with the most stringent tariffs in close to a century? And on Gaza, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longtime ally, has resisted the administration's efforts to negotiate a ceasefire. "Get it over with and let's get back to peace and stop killing people," Trump had vowed during the 2024 campaign. But the region is still wracked by chaos and violence, in recent days over the distribution of food aid. For presidents, a familiar problem Trump is hardly the first president to find himself stymied by the realities of governing and the frustrations of the balance of power. Franklin D. Roosevelt was so enraged by Supreme Court decisions undercutting his New Deal that in 1937 he proposed packing the court with additional, and presumably friendlier, justices. That idea went nowhere, though the high court started to be more welcoming to his initiatives. More than a half-century later, Bill Clinton adopted a strategy of cooperation with the new Republican House speaker, Newt Gingrich, when Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. The policy, dubbed "triangulation," dismayed liberal Democrats but led to welfare reform and a balanced budget. More: Elon Musk slams President Trump's big tax and policy bill as a 'disgusting abomination' After Democratic setbacks in the 2014 midterms, Barack Obama said he still had the ability to deploy "the pen and the phone" − that is, to sign executive actions and to activate outside allies. Trump enjoys considerable political assets, including the discombobulation of Democratic leaders and the loyalty of congressional Republicans. More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill That is being tested by the battle over the bill known as reconciliation. The sprawling measure would extend and expand tax cuts from Trump's first term, add billions of dollars for border security, and trim billions from Medicaid and clean-energy tax credits. It would also increase the national debt by a budget-busting $2.4 trillion over 10 years, according to the updated estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In previous showdowns, Trump has prevailed in Congress, in part because GOP members see their reelections at risk if an unhappy president backs primary challengers against them. He is lobbying for the bill as "arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country." But Musk, who until May 27 led Trump's DOGE budget-cutting initiative, has weighed in on the other side, warning the legislation would create a "crushingly unsustainable debt." His warnings are being cited by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and a handful of other GOP senators alarmed by the bill's impact on the federal budget deficit. The tech billionaire posted an electoral threat of his own on X. The social-media platform is a political asset, too, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that the world's richest man has been willing to spend in the past on political campaigns. "In November next year," he proposed, "we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people."
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"An unwarranted betrayal": Karine Jean-Pierre leaves Democratic Party, announces new book
Karine Jean-Pierre has left the Democratic Party. The former press secretary announced her decision on Wednesday, along with the news of her upcoming book, "Independent." "Until January 20, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the President of the United States," Jean-Pierre said in a statement. "At noon that day, I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes." Set to release on October 21, the book's subtitle promises a "look inside a broken White House" and hints at a defense of the Biden administration. In a description from the publisher, Democratic Party pressure to force Biden to end his campaign is painted as a "betrayal." The description goes on to call the book a guide to carving out "a political space more loyal to personal beliefs than a party affiliation." Jean-Pierre's book will follow Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson into the suddenly crowded market of post-mortems on Biden's single term in the Oval Office. Her departure-cum-book announcement drew mockery from her former colleagues, who called it a "joke" and a "grift." "She made a joke about being an independent last year, and now it's a book," an anonymous former White House staffer told Politico. "All ideas are monetary, even the dumb ones."Democratic strategist Caitlin Legacki pushed back against KJP while speaking to the outlet, saying that Biden and Harris did "hero's work" in preventing a Republican supermajority in Congress. "It's more productive to focus on that, and thank Biden for doing the responsible thing by stepping aside, than it is to pretend this was an unwarranted act of betrayal," she said.
