{"id":14758,"date":"2025-06-25T23:26:10","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T23:26:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/14758\/"},"modified":"2025-06-25T23:26:10","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T23:26:10","slug":"food-assistance-programs-should-incentivize-healthier-eating-heres-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/14758\/","title":{"rendered":"Food Assistance Programs Should Incentivize Healthier Eating. Here’s Why"},"content":{"rendered":"

On May 19th, Nebraska was granted<\/a> the first waiver allowing a state to prohibit purchases of soda and energy drinks through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program<\/a> (SNAP) or food stamps. A few days later, waivers were approved for Indiana and Iowa to be able to exclude soda and candy, and soon after, waivers were granted for Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah. Waiver requests from several other states are waiting for approval.<\/p>\n

Through the years, the idea of not using SNAP to subsidize soda and candy<\/a> has had bipartisan support. And the recent efforts to use SNAP to incentivize healthier eating are the latest sign of a rapid culture shift to get at the root causes of the epidemic of chronic diseases, which in large part is fueled by what we eat and drink.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re now approaching a tipping point that puts actual systemic changes in reach \u2014 changes that would improve the lives of millions of people. Momentum is picking up, and it\u2019s time to recognize that healthy eating, the desire for good health \u2014 for ourselves and for our children \u2014 is not a partisan issue.<\/p>\n

A study by Tufts University found that diet-related diseases\u00a0cost the U.S. $1.1 trillion<\/a>\u00a0each year, and that 85% of all healthcare is connected to managing diet-related chronic diseases.It\u2019s also equal to the entire economic output of the food system\u2014in other words, for every $1 we spend on food, we lose $1 in health costs. The toll in human terms from our diet is even worse,\u00a0<\/strong>estimated to cause 500,000 deaths per year.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at how we got here. SNAP is administered by the states but managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. States wanting to make changes in SNAP benefits need to seek a waiver from the federal government. The program serves over 42 million people nationwide each month, so changes in the program can have a huge health impact.<\/p>\n

When the program was enacted in 1964, there was a\u00a0proposal<\/a>\u00a0in the House to prohibit sugary beverages, or SSBs. But some senators opposed it because it was thought that SNAP recipients were not likely to spend much of their benefits on things like soda. They were wrong. According to a 2016 study from the\u00a0USDA<\/a>, approximately\u00a020%<\/a>\u00a0of SNAP\u2019s yearly\u00a0$113 billion<\/a>\u00a0in spending \u2014 $23 billion \u2014 is used to buy unhealthy beverages and foods. This means taxpayers are paying twice \u2014 once to subsidize the purchase of the products and a second time to pay for treatment of their hugely costly health consequences. And a 2022\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0found that children on SNAP consumed more sugary beverages and processed meats than children who were income eligible for the program but not participating.<\/p>\n

The government is not a neutral player \u2014 it can put its thumb on the scale toward sickness or toward health. A 2018\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0in the journal\u00a0PLOS Medicine\u00a0found that offering a 30% financial incentive for fruit and vegetable purchases could prevent over 300,000 cardiovascular events and save over $6 billion in healthcare costs. Coupling that with a restriction on sugary beverage purchases prevents an estimated 797,000 cardiovascular events and saves $39 billion in healthcare costs.<\/p>\n

\u201cSNAP has looked essentially the same for over 60 years, despite scientific consensus that sugary drinks are harming our health,\u201d wrote<\/a> Christina Roberto and Alyssa Moran from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. \u201cBy subsidizing sugary drinks with SNAP, we are rewarding an industry that limits choices for lower-income families, ensuring the lowest-quality food is the most available and affordable option.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read More: <\/strong>What Is SNAP and What Challenges Is It Facing Under the Trump Administration?<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2004, Minnesota, under Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty,\u00a0became the first state<\/a>\u00a0to request a waiver to prohibit the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP benefits. The request was rejected, with USDA Regional Administrator Ollice Holden responding that it would \u201cstigmatize food stamp recipients\u201d and cause \u201cconfusion and embarrassment\u201d at checkout. \u201cImplementation of this waiver would perpetuate the myth that participants do not make wise food purchasing decisions,\u201d wrote<\/a> Holden.<\/p>\n

In the following two decades, this idea \u2014 that not subsidizing unhealthy foods would \u201cstigmatize\u201d SNAP recipients \u2014 was used by many opponents of the waivers. But the epidemic of diabetes and obesity is a systemic problem exacerbated by the unhealthy choices people are being guided into and indeedswimming in. It\u2019s not a coincidence that diabetes and obesity rates soared as ultraprocessed foods and sugary beverages saturated the market. There is nothing \u201cstigmatizing\u201d about taxpayers not paying for food and beverages that make you sick.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2010, New York Governor David Paterson, a Democrat, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent at the time,\u00a0requested<\/a>\u00a0permission to restrict soda from SNAP not for a permanent waiver but just for a two-year pilot program. A day later, Bloomberg got letters from the CEOs of Pepsi and Coca-Cola opposing the plan. As Murray Carpenter, author of\u00a0Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spreads Disinformation and Makes Us Sick,\u00a0notes<\/a>, in 2011 alone, the \u201ctaxpayer-funded windfall\u201d for Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other beverage makers was $3.7 billion.\u201d Now that number is up to $10 billion a year.<\/p>\n

At the time, New York City officials\u00a0estimated<\/a>\u00a0that each year $75 to $135 million in SNAP benefits was being spent on sugary beverages in the city. As Mayor Bloomberg\u00a0noted<\/a>, \u201cThis initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

The appeal landed during the Obama administration that had\u00a0pledged<\/a>\u00a0to \u201cto solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation.\u201d That same year, First Lady Michelle Obama launched Let\u2019s Move!, her healthy eating and exercise initiative, which urged people to \u201cdrink less soda or sugar-sweetened drinks.\u201d It was attacked by Republicans, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being an example of \u201cthe nanny state<\/a>.\u201d Though, in a rare show of bipartisanship, Obama was actually defended by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said \u201cI do not think that she\u2019s out there advocating that the government take over our dinner plates.\u201d Huckabee\u2019s daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is now one of the governors leading the charge to change SNAP benefits.<\/p>\n

The Big Soda lobby<\/a> kicked into high gear to block New York\u2019s request and was joined by its strange bedfellows alliance of anti-hunger groups and their advocates in Washington. Eighteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus came out against the proposal. The New York Times explained<\/a> that Coca-Cola and Pepsi were among the largest donors to the nonpartisan Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. As Marion Nestle, the renowned nutrition and public health advocate, put it<\/a>, \u201cSoda companies have worked hard to create an environment in which drinking sugary beverages all day is normal\u2026 Soft drink companies have had a free ride for decades. I hope the USDA will approve New York\u2019s proposed ban.\u201d<\/p>\n

New York\u2019s request was rejected. As New York City Commissioner of Health Thomas Farley\u00a0put it<\/a>\u00a0at the time, this decision \u201creally calls into question how serious the U.S.D.A. is about addressing the nation\u2019s most serious nutritional problem.\u201d<\/p>\n

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack\u00a0countered<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cincentive-based solutions\u2026 are better-suited for the working families, elderly and other low-income individuals\u201d than restrictions are. He then added: \u201cWe are confident that we can solve the problem of obesity and promote good nutrition and health for all Americans and stand ready to work with New York City to achieve these goals.\u201d Turns out, his confidence was deeply misplaced. During the Obama administration, obesity rates went from\u00a033.7% to 39.6%<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Vilsack was right about one thing \u2014 that incentives do work. From 2014 to 2018, the USDA sponsored the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program<\/a>, which funded projects that incentivized the purchase of fruits and vegetables through SNAP. One such pilot in Massachusetts was found<\/a> to have increased fruit and vegetable purchases by 11% and consumption by one-quarter cup per day. So, yes, incentives work, but given the scale of the crisis, why not use every tool at our disposal \u2014 including ending the ability for states to use taxpayer dollars toward soda and candy?<\/p>\n

In December 2024, Colorado\u2019s Democratic Governor Jared Polis, who asked for a waiver in this latest round of requests,\u00a0posted on X<\/a>\u00a0: \u201cGiving states the opportunity to focus on having healthier foods in SNAP should be our priority. Prioritizing healthy, fresh foods over junk food and soda will reduce the risk of having future health issues such as diabetes and cavities\u2026Removing candy and soda and prioritizing fresh food will in turn lead to more healthy and fresh food on the shelves of stores in underserved areas.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Kansas, Democratic Governor Laura Kelly asked for a waiver in April, with the\u00a0request<\/a>\u00a0noting that Kansas has seen a rise in obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, which are \u201clinked to the consumption of soft drinks and candy.\u201d Two days later, Kelly vetoed the Kansas legislature bill asking for a waiver, suddenly\u00a0claiming<\/a>\u00a0\u201cit would make it more difficult for Kansans to access the food they need to feed their families,\u201d and would \u201charm Kansas businesses.\u201d She considered that \u201cKansans should eat healthier\u201d but argued that \u201cchanges to the SNAP food assistance program should be made at the federal level, not on a patchwork, state-by-state basis.\u201d And yet it was the health of her own state\u2019s constituents that she had wanted to protect just a few days before.<\/p>\n

As Mark Joslyn, professor of political science at the University of Kansas,\u00a0wrote<\/a>, \u201cIn a rational world, Kelly backs the bill. Kansas\u2019s troubling health outcomes should not be ignored.\u201d But \u201ctribal politics\u201d prevailed, Joslyn concluded, and \u201cKelly \u2014 fair or not \u2014 comes across as a champion for Coca-Cola and Mars bars.\u201d<\/p>\n

In April, Arizona\u2019s Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill requesting a waiver,\u00a0saying<\/a>\u00a0that it would \u201cunnecessarily deprive\u201d SNAP recipients of their purchasing power and \u201crelegates them to a new underclass of grocery shoppers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Currently, the\u00a0Healthy Snap Act of 2025<\/a>, which would make the prohibition on purchasing soda and unhealthy ultraprocessed foods national, is pending in the Houseand\u00a0Senate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But the fact of the matter is: it\u2019s possible to both argue against cuts in benefits and changes to those benefits that help people improve their health. If anything, ending the massive subsidies to soda and ultraprocessed food companies could increase public support for SNAP.<\/p>\n

We know that SNAP restrictions work, and we know that incentives to buy healthier foods also work. We now have momentum for fundamental change that could improve the health of millions of people. We need to do everything we can to keep the momentum going.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On May 19th, Nebraska was granted the first waiver allowing a state to prohibit purchases of soda and…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":14759,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[998,210,1182,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-14758","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-nutrition","8":"tag-freelance","9":"tag-health","10":"tag-nutrition","11":"tag-united-states","12":"tag-unitedstates","13":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114746594592749680","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14758\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14759"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}