Trump officials weigh limiting SNAP to “healthy” foods
U.S. officials including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brooke Rollins have raised the prospect of changing how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, can be used, arguing that benefits should not subsidize items they describe as unhealthy. Kennedy, the newly confirmed health and human services secretary, has been the most vocal, and Rollins, the new agriculture secretary, has said she expects the issue to be part of their early work.
Kennedy said in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he wants policy changes affecting SNAP and other nutrition programs. “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 Ingraham, adding that “the federal government in many cases is paying for it” and that officials “shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison.”
Rollins, in interviews after being confirmed, suggested she wants questions answered about what taxpayers are funding through SNAP. “When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?” Rollins said, describing the issue as “massive questions” the administration would be tackling.
Under the program’s current structure, however, restricting purchases is difficult. SNAP is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, administered through individual states, and authorized by the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. That law says SNAP benefits can be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” with exceptions including alcohol, tobacco and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption.
Advocates and critics alike say that any effort to narrow the menu faces legal and administrative friction. Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said excluding specific foods would require Congress to change the law, or for states to obtain waivers allowing them to restrict purchases. Bergh said such requests have not been approved under either Republican or Democratic presidents over the past 20 years, including proposals to stop SNAP from paying for items such as bottled water, soda, chips, ice cream, decorated cakes and “luxury meats” such as steak.
In the past, USDA officials have rejected state waiver efforts, arguing that there were no clear standards to define whether foods are “good or bad” or “healthy or not healthy,” and saying restrictions would be complicated and costly to implement. The agency also argued such rules might not change what recipients buy, and might not reduce obesity or related health conditions.
Gina Plata-Nino, a deputy director at the Food Research and Action Center, said opponents of SNAP restrictions argue the proposals amount to cuts and stigma. “This is just another way to cut benefits,” Plata-Nino said, adding, “It’s like, how do we restrict people more? How do we stigmatize them more?”
Even where lawmakers consider proposals that would limit SNAP purchases, the definitions can become contentious and produce edge cases. In Kansas and other states, pending bills that would ban soft drinks and candy have been paired with rules that would allow drinks containing milk and certain milk alternatives, as well as drinks with more than 50% vegetable or fruit juice. For candy, the bills have characterized it as unrefrigerated, flourless preparations containing “sugar, honey or other natural or artificial sweeteners” combined with ingredients such as chocolate, fruits or nuts.
Those definitions can lead to outcomes lawmakers may not intend. Under the described approach, Kit Kat and Twix bars would not be banned because they contain flour, and some juices with high sugar could still be allowed if they meet the majority fruit-juice threshold. Such “conundrums,” the article says, have stymied changes to SNAP for decades even when states have tried.
The latest effort could gain momentum with a new White House focus on diet, nutrition and early disease risk, according to some officials. Dr. Anand Parekh, chief medical officer of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said that the SNAP program should be framed around the program’s nutrition purpose. “When we talk about the SNAP program, we have to remind people that the ‘N’ stands for nutrition,” Parekh said, adding that he believes both parties can work toward “innovations here to improve diet quality and nutrition.”
Still, for people who rely on SNAP, the debate plays out in everyday choices about how to stretch limited budgets. Martina Santos, 66, of New York City, said she uses SNAP benefits for essentials including meat, oil, milk and coffee and supplements those items with produce from a pantry run by the West Side Campaign Against Hunger, where she also volunteers. Santos said she has diabetes and other health conditions and wants benefits to support “healthy food” aimed at avoiding “all the disease they’re having around right now: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure.”
In Congress, lawmakers have introduced measures to restrict items such as soda and candy. Rep. Josh Breechan, an Oklahoma Republican, sponsored the Healthy SNAP Act, arguing that SNAP should not pay for junk food that can contribute to health consequences. Breechan said, “If someone wants to buy junk food on their own dime, that’s up to them,” but that the policy idea is to ensure “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.”