Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly confirmed health and human services secretary, and Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, have signaled that they want to tighten what SNAP can be used to purchase, reviving a policy idea that has surfaced for years but has often stalled in practice. Kennedy has called for changes that would prevent SNAP, which helps low-income Americans buy food, from being used for “ soda or processed foods,” saying the government should not subsidize foods he described as harmful. Rollins, in early comments after her confirmation, said she and Kennedy would ask “massive questions” about whether taxpayer dollars should fund “really bad food and sugary drinks,” including for children.
Kennedy made the argument in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, saying: “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,” and adding that the federal government in many cases pays for what he characterized as poison. Rollins, speaking after she was confirmed, said she looked forward to working with Kennedy on the issue and asked whether taxpayers were “OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious.”
Making those changes, however, runs into legal and administrative constraints that critics say have kept proposals from moving beyond drafting. SNAP is run by USDA rather than HHS and is administered through state agencies, according to the reporting. The program’s authority comes from the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which states that SNAP benefits can be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” while carving out limits for alcohol, tobacco and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption. Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said excluding particular foods would require Congress to change the law—or for states to seek waivers to restrict purchases.
Bergh said that lawmakers in several states have proposed stopping SNAP from paying for a range of items, including bottled water, soda, chips, ice cream, decorated cakes and what she described as “luxury meats” such as steak, but that “None of those requests have ever been approved under either Republican or Democratic presidents.” In the past, USDA officials rejected some waiver requests, according to the reporting, citing a 2007 paper that said there were no clear standards to define foods as “good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.” USDA also argued that restrictions would be difficult to implement, complicated and costly, and that they might not change recipients’ purchasing patterns or reduce health conditions such as obesity.
Anti-hunger advocates say the policies raise stakes beyond nutrition messaging. Gina Plata-Nino, a deputy director at the Food Research and Action Center, said in response to the idea of limiting SNAP purchases that it would be used to reduce aid and increase stigma, calling it “just another way to cut benefits” and describing it as a question of how to restrict and “stigmatize” SNAP recipients more. The reporting notes that SNAP provides, on average, about $187 per month, or about $6.16 per day, based on the latest figures cited in the story.
The push for restrictions has also been reflected in pending legislative proposals at both the federal and state levels. The reporting described bills in Congress and several states that would restrict SNAP from paying for soda, candy and other items, including the Healthy SNAP Act sponsored by Oklahoma Republican Rep. Josh Breechan. Breechan said: “If someone wants to buy junk food on their own dime, that’s up to them,” adding: “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.’”
At the same time, implementation plans for bans face practical questions about definitions and thresholds. In Kansas and elsewhere, the reporting said pending bills would target soft drinks and candy while allowing drinks containing milk or milk alternatives such as soy or almond milk, and allowing beverages with more than 50% vegetable or fruit juice. Candy is characterized in some proposals as an unrefrigerated, flourless preparation of sweeteners such as sugar or honey, combined with ingredients or flavorings in bars, drops or pieces; under that definition, the reporting said packaged products that contain flour, such as Kit Kat and Twix, would not be banned, and some juices with high sugar content could still be allowed if they contain enough fruit by volume.
SNAP recipients and advocates argue that these kinds of rules could collide with how families use benefits to meet needs day to day. The reporting included the example of Martina Santos, 66, of New York City, who said she uses her monthly SNAP benefit to buy necessities including meat, oil, milk and coffee and supplements with fresh vegetables and fruits from a pantry run by the West Side Campaign Against Hunger. Santos, who said she has diabetes and other health conditions, said she understands the importance of using benefits for nutritious options, describing SNAP as something “to be used toward healthy food” to help avoid diseases including obesity and diabetes.
Even with legal hurdles and definitional complexity, some officials and policy experts see new momentum. Dr. Anand Parekh, chief medical officer of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the conundrums that have stymied changes for decades do not necessarily mean the current moment will be the same, describing the momentum behind Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement as a reason to focus on solutions to poor diets. Parekh said, “When we talk about the SNAP program, we have to remind people that the ‘N’ stands for nutrition,” adding that it was “about time that both parties can come together and see what are the innovations here to improve diet quality and nutrition.”