Twelve states have obtained USDA approval to prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from being used on soda and other “junk” foods. Despite strident opposition by some SNAP users claiming that the move discriminates against the marginalized (or against their food liberties), the intention of these efforts is to improve health outcomes. Other states are likely to follow suit.
Partisan rancor has been roused by claims that President Donald Trump will cut funding for the poor by curtailing SNAP funding. Conservatives counter that the state-administered system is rife with fraud and inefficiencies that unfairly disadvantage those who genuinely need assistance, and that any savings can be used to improve food quality and health outcomes. Many taxpayers disapprove of using public money to subsidize unhealthy beverages and candies, which are considered luxuries rather than necessities. The state SNAP waivers don’t seek to cut funds but address illness.
There will always be some who object to Trump’s actions, no matter how beneficial: Lowering prescription drug prices, deporting illegal immigrants convicted of child rape, and ending animal testing in FDA programs elicit knee-jerk criticisms in some far-left corners. Yet, the SNAP program waivers are not being initiated by the president but by individual states.
The MAHA initiative has certainly encouraged states to solicit these changes for their citizens. In announcing recent state waiver approvals, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins joined HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to laud the trend. Kennedy proclaimed:
“For years, SNAP has used taxpayer dollars to fund soda and candy — products that fuel America’s diabetes and chronic disease epidemics. These waivers help put real food back at the center of the program and empower states to lead the charge in protecting public health.”
States’ rights coupled with improved health for the nation’s poorest citizens seems like a step forward, but liberal mainstream media and soft drink manufacturers don’t appear to think so. ABC News medical correspondent Dr. Darien Sutton intoned, “There’s no evidence that taking away access to soda will actually fight these conditions.” (Just like taking away free cigarettes won’t fight lung cancer?)
There are other possible SNAP program waivers in the works. Mandating work requirements as a condition of receipt will surely agitate the equity crowd, but other possibilities include linking SNAP benefits to nutrition and food preparation education classes. Will detractors howl in derision at that, too?
The fact is, MAHA initiatives, such as restricting toxic foods from the taxpayer tab, offer American voters – and SNAP beneficiaries – change they can believe in. Despite incessant efforts to sabotage Trump administration programs to make America healthier (economically as well as physically), policies that improve the health of the nation’s most marginalized citizens fly in the face of claims that the president is ushering in an oligarchy or rewarding billionaires. (He has even pressured Coca-Cola to switch from high fructose corn syrup to sugar in its products.)
The naysayers may neigh, but these innovative policy initiatives have already left the barn. Toxic dyes are being eliminated from children’s foods. Vaccines are undergoing more rigorous evaluation before being injected into young arms. A revamped food pyramid is rumored to be in the works, and perhaps whole milk will find its way back into school lunches.
That, too, should be a snap.