Subscribe to The Tonic
Last week, Kansas lawmakers introduced legislation that would prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from using their benefits to purchase soda and candy. If passed, the bill would direct state officials to request a federal waiver allowing the restriction—a move that has failed in the past, including under the past Trump administration.
But this is a new Trump administration.
With RFK Jr. leading the charge at HHS and the “Make America Healthy Again” movement gaining traction, some believe this could finally be the moment for stricter nutrition regulations within SNAP.
The argument for these regulations? Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to fund unhealthy dietary habits, especially when diet-related diseases are skyrocketing.
Makes sense to me.
Supporters of the bill, like Sen. Renee Erickson, say it’s a common-sense reform: “You can still buy pop and candy—you just can’t use taxpayer money to do it.” It’s a clean, direct message that resonates with many.
But here’s where things get messy. SNAP restrictions like these have been proposed before, and they consistently run into the same problem: Are we really addressing the root causes of poor nutrition or just penalizing low-income families for struggling within a broken system?
For starters, the USDA’s own research has shown that food stamp recipients don’t buy drastically different foods than non-recipients. In fact, a 2016 USDA report found that both groups spend most of their grocery budget on meat, poultry, and seafood, with sweetened beverages ranking second.
SNAP recipients spent just one percentage point more on soda than non-SNAP households (5% vs. 4%).
So, if the goal is to dramatically improve public health, banning soda and candy from food stamp purchases isn’t going to move the needle much. Meanwhile, the real drivers of poor nutrition—food deserts, the rising cost of fresh produce, and a healthcare system that barely addresses diet—remain largely unaddressed.
Then there’s the issue of enforcement.
If this bill passes, grocery stores would have to navigate a complicated web of rules determining which products are eligible. For example, Kit Kats and Twix (which contain flour) would still be allowed under the bill's definition, while a Snickers bar would not.
Some sugary juices would be banned, while others, depending on their fruit juice content, would still qualify. If this sounds arbitrary and convoluted, that’s because it is. Imagine trying to make heads or tails of this stuff as a grocery store clerk.
“Excuse me—can I get a manager on checkout line 1?”
This raises a fundamental question: Do we really want the government micromanaging people’s grocery choices, or should we focus on policies that make healthier food more accessible and affordable? Critics of the Kansas bill argue that we should invest in solutions that empower, not restrict—expanding incentives for fresh produce, improving food education, and fixing systemic issues in our agricultural and healthcare systems.
The key takeaway? At the end of the day, we all want the same thing—healthier Americans and a food system that doesn’t fuel chronic disease. However, history shows that outright bans and restrictions rarely achieve their intended goals. Instead of removing choices, maybe we should work on giving people better ones.
This bill is still in committee, and whether it moves forward remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: this debate isn’t ending anytime soon. The fight over food policy is just getting started, and how lawmakers navigate it will be telling.
We’ll be keeping an eye on where this goes next. Stay tuned.
Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.
Comments