States target use of SNAP benefits for junk food

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits help keep tens of millions of people across the country from going hungry. But Republicans across America have called for significant changes to be made to the SNAP program that could have a significant impact on what recipients can and cannot buy with their benefits.

SNAP benefits—commonly known as “food stamps”—are administered nationwide to low- and no-income households that would otherwise struggle to afford groceries. In 2023, the program served an average of 42.1 million people per month—some 12.6 percent of U.S. residents. On average, SNAP recipients will receive an estimated $187 per month (or about $6.16 per day) per person in regular SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2025.

But despite its significance, there have long been efforts from certain corners of Congress to cut back on what SNAP families are permitted to buy using their pre-loaded electronic benefit transfer cards. Over the years, numerous bills have been put through by lawmakers wanting to cut the purchase of so-called “junk” foods—products that are typically highly processed and contain high levels of sugar and/or fat.

These efforts have, so far, fallen flat. But since there is now a renewed push at the state and federal level to restrict what Americans can buy, and with Republicans ruling the roost over the House and the Senate, changes are more likely than ever to be on the way.

“These proposals may seem appealing at first—after all, who wouldn’t want to promote healthier eating habits? However, examining them closely makes it clear that the intent is power and controlling individuals with low incomes rather than improving nutrition,” Kavelle Christie, a health policy and advocacy expert told Newsweek. “SNAP has long been a political target, often viewed as a means to impose moral judgments on low-income families rather than recognized as the essential safety net it truly is.”

The Fight Against SNAP ‘Junk’ Purchases

“If someone wants to buy junk food on their own dime, that’s up to them,” Republican Representative Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma said in January while introducing the Healthy SNAP Act, which would exclude soft drinks, candy, ice cream and prepared desserts from being purchased using SNAP benefits. “But what we’re saying is, don’t ask the taxpayer to pay for it and then also expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the resulting health consequences.”

He is not alone in his actions. Kentucky Representative Matt Lockett and Republican Idaho Representative Jordan Redman have introduced similar bills. Texas congressman Keith Self has introduced an act that would ban the purchase of any carbonated beverage that contains more than 1 gram of added sugar.

Efforts at the state level focus on one consistent issue: that the taxpayer is ultimately funding the incidence of health problems caused by diet-related conditions like obesity. In a December letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders called on the incoming Trump administration to take action against SNAP benefits being allowed for the purchase of “junk” food.

Like others, she cited how the purchases of unhealthy food and drink are “fueling obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and a wide range of chronic health conditions across America.”

Since being appointed to the Trump administration earlier this month, Kennedy and Rollins have both signaled they are in favor of stripping unhealthy foods from SNAP.

“The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps and in school lunches,” Kennedy told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison.”

Backlash

But critics of the state plans have warned that in a country where food prices are rising, cutting out swathes of products could have a serious impact on affordability for America’s poorest. Overall, U.S. food prices rose by 23.6 percent from 2020 to 2024, according to the USDA. An August 2024 study by PlushCare found that unhealthy foods are cheaper to buy than healthy foods in all 50 U.S. states, with differences ranging from around 2.9 percent to 3.7 percent.

A 2023 study by Cleveland Clinic found that 46 percent of Americans view healthy foods as being more expensive.

“Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients’ inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods,” Valerie Imbruce, director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, told Newsweek. “Soda and candy are much cheaper and more calorie dense than 100 percent fruit juices or prebiotic non-artificially sweetened carbonated beverages, thanks to price supports and subsidies by the federal government to support a U.S. sugar industry.”

Imbruce said that tightening the belt on SNAP also tends to miss the bigger picture—that a lot of foods typically considered healthy actually contain much more unhealthy components than the average person might expect.

“Sugar is found in nearly every aisle of the grocery store,” she said. “Not just in soda and candy. For example, a popular flavored yogurt can contain 20 grams of sugar, which is more than a candy bar. The same is true for granola bars and even pasta sauces. Why target soda and candy while leaving these items unquestioned?”

In a similar vein, Christie cited the lack of availability of fruits and vegetables in some parts of the U.S.

“Families with low incomes aren’t buying soda and snacks out of laziness or neglect. They’re buying what’s available and affordable,” she said. “In many food deserts, fresh fruit might be miles away, while processed foods are cheap and easy to find. Banning certain items without addressing these underlying structural problems will only further limit people’s choices.”

The backlash is not just limited to poverty reduction advocates and health policy experts. Companies that sell the very foods on the Republican chopping block have also hit back as it could, of course, hit company profits. But they have also addressed the fairness of removing freedom of choice from poorer Americans.

The American Beverage Association, which represents brands like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, has said Huckbee’s proposal is “an attempt to strip hard-working Americans and our Veterans of the freedom to choose foods that best meet their families’ needs,” and that they could “effectively create a two-tiered system in which the right to personal autonomy around diet is conditioned on income and means. This goes against America’s commitment to individual liberty and freedom.