As a physician, social and behavioral epidemiologist, and longtime hospital executive, I understand all too well how dire our nation’s health crisis is, especially in underserved communities. It is certainly true that poorer populations, such as those families eligible for food stamps, have worse health outcomes and higher rates of obesity than the rest of the population. As a result, their medical care can be costly.

These are no doubt just some of the reasons that Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced S. 1485 , the Healthy SNAP Act of 2023, which would ban the use of food stamps for the purchase of any soft drink, whether it be full-calorie or zero. Supporters insist that the legislation is an important way of using the might of the federal government to address the growing obesity epidemic.

But there’s little reason to believe that the use of SNAP funds to purchase sodas would do much to reduce obesity at the population level. The Food and Drug Administration reports that, as of 2020, less than 6% of the typical diet is made up of sugar-sweetened beverages , and according to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, our country’s overall consumption of these drinks is down nearly 20% over the past two decades. This generational shift is most obvious among children, who are drinking 36% fewer calories every day.

Even still, obesity in America is rising at alarming levels. In less than 20 years’ time, the obesity rate among adults and children has risen 39%. Diabetes across all ages went up 51% over that same time period.

Experts point to a variety of nutritional culprits, such as fats, oils, and starches, consumed in excess as the causes of our growing waistlines. The Agriculture Department says our collective increased caloric intake has added about 417 calories to our average daily diets in 40 years — 32 of those added calories can be attributed to sugars. But with nearly 60% of beverages sold in the United States containing zero sugar , it’s hard to see how prohibiting the use of food stamps to buy any type of soda would accomplish anything.

It is also not clear how supporters of this legislation intend for it to work. Their presumption is that reducing the intake of high-caloric beverages will improve people’s health. But clearly, there is limited evidence that this strategy would lead to reductions in obesity.

If we care about improving our national health, we must embrace a holistic approach. That begins with fundamentally transforming our culture’s relationship with food. Research shows that balance and moderation, not deprivation and prohibition, properly orient our brains to make nutritious choices that, compounded over time, help keep our bodies healthy and strong for as long as possible.

We also know that when we are obsessed with calorie-counting and restrictive diets, we aren’t teaching the healthy habits that flourish into healthy lifestyles. This can catalyze harmful disordered eating and often leads to yo-yo dieting, which does nothing to remedy or prevent the systemic health problems associated with poor eating.

Instead, the public health goal should be to encourage balanced living, including properly fueling our bodies, staying active, and prioritizing our emotional well-being. Physicians know that when patients focus on this comprehensive approach to their wellness, they’ll end up with better outcomes, since nutrition, activity, and emotional well-being can all affect our weight, shaping our overall health. Such patient conscientiousness is key to meaningful and lasting change that, when applied across populations, can truly make a difference in public health and reduce costs.

Moreover, with this bill, proponents would allow the government to decide what people could eat, but they reserve such an indignity only for those unfortunate enough to rely upon the program to put food on their tables. This raises ethical questions about whether or not the government should have the ability to force lifestyle changes on the poor, even if officials believe it is in their best interest to do so. If we want to condition how people become eligible for SNAP — fine. But dictating what foods they may buy once they qualify veers into some pretty dangerous policy territory without making people any healthier.

Rubio and Booker should be commended for their commitment to public health. Our country would be much better off if more politicians sought creative solutions to fostering a healthier society, and in turn, lowering federal healthcare costs borne by taxpayers now and in the future. But they should take it from me: Solving a public health crisis requires more than a quick fix.

Dr. Jonathan Ellen is the CEO of Labrador Health, a medical innovation company. He previously served as CEO of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. He is a social and behavioral epidemiologist, pediatrician, and retired medical school professor.