Indiana bans sugary drinks, candy from SNAP
The mother, who is on SNAP, has a job, but has a limited income so she can't afford to take her children on vacation or to the movie theater, said her friend Stephanie Boys, an associate professor of social work and an adjunct professor of law at Indiana University.
To that mother, Boys said game night with a little treat is how she makes memories with her children.
'They eat healthy the rest of the time, it's just that's their family time,' Boys said. 'She is on such a limited budget that she doesn't know if she'll be able to afford the weekly treat.'
Her friend's son is autistic, Boys said, so he relies on structure and always looks forward to family game night, which includes their weekly sweet treat. Boys said her friend has been stressed further because her son only takes his medicine with a sip of ginger ale.
'Having that weekly night to look forward to is very important to him. It's going to be even more difficult than with a neurotypical kid to try to explain, 'we're still going to play our games, we just might not have our soda with it,'' Boys said.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently signed a waiver filed by Indiana officials to remove sugary soft drinks and candy from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
'More taxpayer-funded SNAP dollars are spent on sugary drinks and candy than on fruits and vegetables. Indiana is proud to lead the way in the Make America Healthy Again agenda by making this common sense move to return the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to its intended purpose: nutrition,' said Indiana Mike Braun in a statement.
Braun's statement claimed purchases of sugary drinks, desserts and candy exceed the combined sales of fruits and vegetables on SNAP, but data does not bear that out. A USDA study from 2016 showed soft drinks comprise around 5% of each dollar spent in SNAP and candy amounts to 2%. The vast majority — 80% — is spent on meat, fruits, vegetables, rice, beans, eggs, dairy and prepared foods.
Children enrolled in SNAP consume 43% more sugary drinks than non-SNAP recipients with similar incomes, according to Braun's statement. Boys and Leslie Lenkowsky, professor emeritus in public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University, said they haven't seen that statistic in SNAP reports and aren't sure where Braun received that information.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was in Indianapolis in April to roll out Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again initiative and stated that every governor should follow Braun's lead.
Lenkowsky said the U.S. has had various food stamp programs that have gone through many changes in eligibility rules and restrictions over the years. Indiana's ban on sugary drinks and candy will be hard to enforce, he said, because it will rely on merchants at stores telling customers they can't make those purchases using SNAP.
What will likely happen, Lenkowsky said, is that people on SNAP will try to re-budget to see if they can afford soda and candy another way. If not, he said what could happen is people negotiate with their friends or neighbors that they will buy them a grocery item or two on their SNAP benefits if the other person buys them soda or candy.
While the pendulum may shift on food benefits, Lenkowsky said the bottom line is that people in poverty need support.
'People may be poor and needy, but they deserve respect,' Lenkowsky said.
Boys said she wasn't surprised that Indiana was approved to remove sugary soft drinks and candy from SNAP because some U.S. Congressmen and women have proposed similar actions.
Arkansas filed a similar waiver to Indiana's by banning soft drinks and candy, Nebraska filed for a waiver to ban sugary drinks and energy drinks from SNAP, and Iowa filed a waiver to ban anything that's eligible for sales tax, which bans sugary snacks and drinks, from SNAP, Boys said.
'I think we're going to see more and more states asking for these waivers,' Boys said.
But waivers like this don't address food deserts or access to healthy foods, Boys said. People who use SNAP typically live closer to a convenience store than a grocery store, so there's more access to snacks and processed foods, she said.
While convenience stores do sell some healthy items, like apples and bananas, the cost of those foods is greatly marked up compared to a grocery store, Boys said. Government officials should work toward incentivizing healthier eating in another way, she said.
Removing sugary drinks and candy from SNAP will put more of a stigma on children who live in poverty, Boys said.
For example, Boys said at her children's school students are encouraged to bring candy on standardized test days to share with the class. Under this change, some students won't be able to participate.
'If their friends come to school with candy and they don't have that, it's hard for parents to explain why they can't buy that. Especially when you go to the grocery store and at check out there's all this candy right in front of you,' Boys said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
38 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Bring on the ‘MAHA Boxes'
Millions of Americans might soon have mail from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The health secretary—who fiercely opposes industrial, ultraprocessed foods—now wants to send people care packages full of farm-fresh alternatives. They will be called 'MAHA boxes.' For the most part, MAHA boxes remain a mystery. They are mentioned in a leaked draft of a much-touted report the Trump administration is set to release about improving children's health. Reportedly, the 18-page document—which promises studies on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation and changes in how the government regulates sunscreen, among many other things—includes this: 'MAHA Boxes: USDA will develop options to get whole, healthy food to SNAP participants.' In plain English, kids on food stamps might be sent veggies. The idea might seem like a throwaway line in a wish list of policies. (Kush Desai, a deputy White House press secretary, told me that the leaked report should be disregarded as 'speculative literature.') But MAHA boxes are also referenced in the budget request that President Donald Trump sent Congress in May. In that document, MAHA boxes full of 'commodities sourced from domestic farmers and given directly to American households' are proposed as an option for elderly Americans who already get free packages of shelf-stable goods from the government. When I asked the Department of Health and Human Services for more information about MAHA boxes, a spokesperson referred me back to the White House; the Department of Agriculture, which runs the food-stamp program, did not respond. MAHA boxes are likely to come in some form or another. Some of the packages might end up in the trash. Lots of people, and especially kids, do not enjoy eating carrots and kale. Just 10 percent of U.S. adults are estimated to hit their daily recommended portion of vegetables. But if done correctly, MAHA boxes could do some real good. For years, nutrition experts have been piloting similar programs. A recent study that provided diabetic people with healthy meal kits for a year found that their blood sugar improved, as did their overall diet quality. Another, which provided people with a delivery of fruits and vegetables for 16 weeks, showed that consumption of these products increased by nearly half a serving per day. It makes sense: If healthy food shows up at your door, you're probably going to eat it. 'Pretty much any American is going to benefit from a real healthy food box,' Dariush Mozaffarian, the director of the Tufts Food Is Medicine Institute, told me. Sending people healthy food could be a simple way to deal with one of the biggest reasons why poor Americans don't eat more fruits and veggies. The food-stamp program, otherwise known as SNAP, provides enrollees with a debit card they can use for food of their choosing—and a significant portion of SNAP dollars go to unhealthy foods. Research finds that has less to do with people having a sweet tooth than it does the price of a pound of brussel sprouts. Several studies have found that, for food-stamp recipients, price is one of the biggest barriers to eating healthy. Many states already have incentives built into SNAP to encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables. MAHA boxes would be an even more direct nudge. Most nutrition experts I spoke with for this story were much more supportive of MAHA boxes being sent to Americans in addition to food stamps than as a replacement for them. Exactly how the care packages would fit into other food-assistance programs isn't yet clear. Despite its shortcomings, SNAP is very effective at limiting hunger in America. Shipping heavy boxes of produce to the nation's poor is a much bigger undertaking than putting cash on a debit card. There's also the question of what exactly these MAHA boxes will include. If the 'whole, healthy food' in each care package includes raw milk and beef tallow —which Kennedy has promoted—that would only worsen American health. (His own eating habits are even more questionable: Kennedy once said that he ate so many tuna sandwiches that he developed mercury poisoning.) In May, after the Trump administration mentioned MAHA boxes in its budget request, a White House spokesperson told CBS News that the packages would be similar to food boxes that the first Trump administration sent during the pandemic in an effort to connect hungry families with food that would otherwise go to waste. According to a letter signed by Trump that was sent to recipients, each box was supposed to come with 'nutritious food from our farmers.' News reports at the time suggested that wasn't always the case. One recipient reportedly was shipped staples such as onions, milk, some fruit, and eggs, along with seven packages of hot dogs and two blocks of processed cheese. Another described their box as 'a box full of old food and dairy and hot dogs.' The COVID-era program did eventually deliver some 173 million food boxes. But it was still a failure, Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research & Action Center, an organization that advocates for people on food-assistance programs, told me. The logistics were such a mess that they prompted a congressional investigation. Nonprofits, which helped distribute the packages, received 'rotten food and wet or collapsing boxes,' investigators were told. And the setup of the program was apparently so rushed that the government did not bother to check food distributors' professional references; investigators concluded that a 'company focused on wedding and event planning without significant food distribution experience' was awarded a $39 million contract to transport perishables to food banks. This time around, the White House doesn't have to navigate the urgency of a sudden pandemic in its planning. But questions remain about who exactly will be responsible for getting these boxes to millions of Americans around the country. The White House will likely have to partner with companies that have experience shipping perishable items to remote areas of the country. And although the White House budget says that MAHA boxes will replace a program that primarily provides canned foods to seniors through local food banks, it remains to be seen whether these organizations would have the resources to administer a program of this size. Perhaps the Trump administration has already thought through all these potential logistical hurdles. But trouble with executing grand plans to improve American health has been a consistent theme throughout Trump's tenures in office. In 2020, for example, he pledged to send seniors a $200 discount card to help offset rising drug costs. The cards never came amid questions about the legality of the initiative. Americans do need to change their eating habits if we hope to improve our collective problems of diet-related disease. Getting people excited about the joys of eating fruits and vegetables is laudable. So, too, are some of Kennedy's other ideas on food, such as getting ultraprocessed foods out of school cafeterias. But Kennedy still hasn't spelled out how he will deliver on these grand visions. The government hasn't even defined what an ultraprocessed food is, despite wanting to ban them. The ideas are good, but a good idea is only the first step.
Time Magazine
38 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Public Health Workers Criticize RFK Jr. After CDC Shooting
More than 750 public health workers sent a letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday, urging him to 'stop spreading inaccurate health information' and guarantee employees' safety, in the wake of a shooting at the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) earlier this month. The letter—signed by both named and anonymous current and former staffers at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CDC, and National Institutes of Health who noted they signed the letter in their 'own personal capacities'—said the attack on the CDC's headquarters in Atlanta on Aug. 8 'was not random.' 'The attack came amid growing mistrust in public institutions, driven by politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of villainization—and now, violence,' public health workers said in the letter, which was also addressed to members of Congress. 'CDC is a public health leader in America's defense against health threats at home and abroad. When a federal health agency is under attack, America's health is under attack. When the federal workforce is not safe, America is not safe.' The public health workers went on to accuse Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, of being 'complicit in dismantling America's public health infrastructure and endangering the nation's health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information.' They cited several statements and actions that Kennedy has made in recent months, pointing to his claim that mRNA vaccines 'fail to protect effectively' against upper respiratory infections such as COVID-19—despite years of research showing that the shots are both safe and effective—and his announcement that HHS would be winding down mRNA vaccine development. They also condemned his decision to remove all the experts from a critical vaccine advisory committee. And they said some of Kennedy's past comments—such as claiming that there is a 'cesspool of corruption at CDC'—were 'sowing public mistrust' in the health agency. The public health workers expressed their wish to honor police officer David Rose, who was killed while responding to the attack on the CDC headquarters in August. HHS said in a statement to TIME that Kennedy 'is standing firmly with CDC employees—both on the ground and across every center—ensuring their safety and well-being remain a top priority.' The agency added that, after the shooting earlier this month, Kennedy traveled to Atlanta and called the CDC 'a shining star' among the world's health agencies. 'For the first time in its 70-year history, the mission of HHS is truly resonating with the American people—driven by President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's bold commitment to Make America Healthy Again,' HHS said. 'Any attempt to conflate widely supported public health reforms with the violence of a suicidal mass shooter is an attempt to politicize a tragedy.' Law enforcement officials said they found evidence that the suspect in the August shooting, who they identified as Patrick Joseph White of Georgia, blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for his health ailments. White was found dead at the scene, and authorities later said that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. CDC Director Susan Monarez noted the dangers posed by misinformation in a staff meeting in the wake of the attack. 'We know that misinformation can be dangerous,' she said, according to NBC News. 'Not only to health, but to those that trust us and those we want to trust. We need to rebuild the trust together.' The day after the shooting, Kennedy expressed his condolences to Rose's family in a post on X. 'We know how shaken our public health colleagues feel today. No one should face violence while working to protect the health of others,' he said. 'We are actively supporting CDC staff on the ground and across the agency. Public health workers show up every day with purpose—even in moments of grief and uncertainty. We honor their service. We stand with them. And we remain united in our mission to protect and improve the health of every American.' Kennedy was one of President Donald Trump's most controversial Cabinet nominees, and faced heated questioning by Senators during his confirmation hearings. He has drawn outrage from the medical establishment in the past for spreading disinformation, including repeating the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. In their letter, public health workers claimed Kennedy's 'dangerous and deceitful statements and actions have contributed to the harassment and violence experienced by CDC staff.' They implored him to take three steps by Sept. 2 to 'uphold his pledge to safeguard the health of the American public,' including asking him to 'stop spreading inaccurate health information,' particularly regarding vaccines, infectious disease transmission, and the country's public health institutions. They also urged him to affirm the scientific integrity of the CDC and guarantee the safety of HHS employees, such as through emergency procedures and alerts. 'The deliberate destruction of trust in America's public health workforce puts lives at risk,' they wrote in the letter. 'We urge you to act in the best interest of the American people—your friends, your families, and yourselves.'
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Canine Parvovirus: Decoding the Gaps in Puppy Protection
That smell. Anyone who has worked in a vet clinic knows it. Metallic. Foul. The unmistakable scent of parvoviral enteritis. You can clean the floors with bleach until your eyes water, but the memory of it sticks with you. It's the smell of a gut lining shedding itself. The smell of a battle we should be winning far more often than we are. A puppy comes in. Limp. Barely responsive. The owner says he was fine yesterday, just a little quiet. Now he's all bloody diarrhea and vomiting. Lethargic. Dehydrated. The SNAP test confirms it in minutes. Parvo. Then comes the talk. The one we all dread. We lay out the gold standard: hospitalization. IV fluids to fight the vicious dehydration. Powerful anti-nausea meds like maropitant or ondansetron to stop the vomiting so the gut has a chance to heal [1]. Broad-spectrum antibiotics, because with a trashed intestinal barrier and a tanking white blood cell count—leukopenia, a hallmark of the disease—secondary infection isn't just a risk. It's a near certainty. We talk about feeding tubes, pain control, maybe even transfusions [1]. And then we talk about the estimate. The number that makes the air go still. This is the real conflict with parvo. It isn't just a virus. It's an economic dilemma wrapped in a tragedy. We have the tools. We know what to do. But when hospitalization isn't an option financially, what's left? We've cobbled together outpatient protocols. Not ideal, but better than nothing. Sending families home with bags of subcutaneous fluids to poke under their puppy's skin every few hours. Injectable antibiotics. Oral supplements pushed into a nauseous mouth every couple of hours [1]. It's a grueling, exhausting effort for a worried owner. The data says the mortality rate is around 19% to 25% with this approach [1]. Better than the near-certain death of doing nothing, but a tough gamble. And it's a gamble made every single day in clinics everywhere. So why are we even having these conversations? We have a fantastic vaccine. A core vaccine. One of the most effective tools in our entire arsenal. Yet here we are, mopping up bloody diarrhea and calculating fluid rates. The disconnect is infuriating. The problem isn't the vaccine. It's the schedule. And, more specifically, it's the biology of a puppy. It all comes down to maternal antibodies. Pups get a dose of immunity from their mother's milk, which is great for protecting them in those first few weeks. But those same protective antibodies see the vaccine as an invader and neutralize it before the puppy's own immune system can learn from it [2]. This window of interference can last for a while, sometimes all the way up to 16 weeks of age. This is the whole game. The entire reason for the puppy series. We vaccinate every 3 to 4 weeks, starting around 6 to 8 weeks old, hoping to catch the exact moment those maternal antibodies fade enough for the vaccine to take hold [2]. But people don't always get it. They hear 'puppy shots' and think it's a one-and-done deal. They get a vaccine or two and think the dog is safe. They take their 12-week-old pup to the dog park, proud as can be. And then they end up in our hospital. The single most important shot in the whole series is the last one. The one given at or after 16 weeks. That's the one most likely to work, free and clear of mom's interference. Skipping it, or stopping the series early, is like building a brick wall and leaving out the top two rows. It's a setup for failure. And it's a failure we see over and over. Chihuahuas, German Shepherds, pit bull-type breeds—we seem to see it more in them, though any unvaccinated pup is a target [1]. It's easy to get frustrated. To blame owners. But the problem is bigger. Parvo is a disease of logistics. It survives in the environment for months, maybe even a year or more. It laughs at most household cleaners. You need a 1:30 bleach solution to kill it, and you need to let it sit [1] [2]. How many new puppy owners know that? How many people know that the soil in their backyard could be contaminated from a previous dog? It's also a disease that can be diagnostically tricky. We see it in older dogs sometimes, or it presents with weird symptoms that don't fit the classic picture. We even have to consider it in cats, where it's called panleukopenia—a close cousin [3]. When the case is confusing, PCR testing is the way to go, but that adds another layer of cost and time [3]. Ultimately, the fight against parvo happens on two fronts. In the treatment ward, it's a desperate, expensive, and emotionally draining battle of supportive care. But the real war is won in the exam room, with a conversation. A clear, direct explanation of why the vaccine schedule is what it is. It's not about over-vaccinating; some vets even use titer tests to check immunity later in life [2]. It's about navigating that treacherous window of vulnerability in puppyhood. It's about explaining that the cost of that final booster is a tiny fraction of the thousands it costs to treat a full-blown infection. The perceived mortality for parvo is often way higher than reality—people think it's a 50% chance of death—but the truth is, with care, most can be saved [1] [2]. The question is, how do we make sure they never need saving in the first place? How do we make prevention simple enough, and cheap enough, that the treatment room stays quiet? [1] Sarpong, K. J., Lukowski, J. M., & Knapp, C. G. (2017). Evaluation of mortality rate and predictors of outcome in dogs receiving outpatient treatment for parvoviral enteritis. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 251(9), 1035–1041. [2] Kelman, M., Barrs, V. R., Norris, J. M., & Ward, M. P. (2020). Canine parvovirus prevention and prevalence: Veterinarian perceptions and behaviors. Preventive veterinary medicine, 174, 104817. [3] Marenzoni, M. L., Momesso, M., Marchesi, M. C., Manuali, E., Pavone, S., Sgariglia, E., Tordo, E., Vescera, F., De Nicola, G., Stefanetti, V., & Brachelente, C. (2020). When the diagnosis of parvovirus in dogs and cats becomes challenging. Veterinaria italiana, 56(67-76), 10.12834/VetIt.1415.7682.1.
