Why Banning Junk Food from SNAP Won’t Make America Healthier

Discover why banning junk food from SNAP won't improve health outcomes and may overlook deeper challenges.

Advertisement
Why Banning Junk Food from SNAP Won’t Make America Healthier

The proposal to restrict certain foods purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits has ignited a fierce debate. Advocates, including figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., argue that removing “junk food” from SNAP-eligible purchases will help combat America’s health crises, particularly rising obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates. However, research and public health experts, including the authors of this article, argue that restricting SNAP benefits won’t improve America’s health outcomes and could actually exacerbate the challenges that low-income families face.

What Is SNAP?

SNAP, often referred to as food stamps, is one of the largest government programs designed to combat food insecurity. With over 42 million participants, it provides monthly assistance to families who struggle to meet basic nutritional needs. It is primarily targeted toward individuals with low incomes, including those with disabilities, children, and elderly individuals. On average, recipients receive $195 per person each month, a sum that is often not enough to cover the full cost of groceries. Although there are restrictions—such as not being able to buy alcohol, tobacco, or prepared meals—SNAP provides recipients the flexibility to purchase a variety of foods.

The majority of families using SNAP benefits still struggle to meet basic needs, and in many cases, they are forced to rely on low-cost, unhealthy options like fast food and processed items. While the goal of SNAP is to alleviate hunger, the program does not go far enough to address other factors that influence health, such as access to healthcare, education, and clean environments.

Proposals to Restrict SNAP Purchases

Over the years, numerous proposals have been made to limit what can be bought with SNAP benefits. These proposals often target what are perceived as luxury or unhealthy foods, such as sugary drinks, snacks, and high-fat foods. Recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal supporter of limiting SNAP purchases, has echoed these concerns. He argues that removing “junk food” from SNAP purchases will help curb the nation’s obesity epidemic and improve public health.

Despite Kennedy’s prominence in promoting these ideas, such restrictions face significant hurdles. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers SNAP, and to date, the agency has rejected calls to allow states to impose these food bans. Additionally, while Congress could introduce these measures as part of the Farm Bill, it is unlikely that these restrictions would lead to meaningful improvements in the nation’s health.

Why These Restrictions Won’t Improve Public Health

While improving diets is a noble goal, studies have shown that food restrictions within SNAP will do little to solve the problem. The fact is that unhealthy eating habits are prevalent across all income levels. Wealthier Americans, too, consume large quantities of junk food, often spending more money on fast food and processed snacks. This widespread dietary issue extends beyond low-income families and reflects a broader cultural problem of poor food choices.

Moreover, the factors that contribute to chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes are multifaceted. Diet is just one element of the equation. Genetics, environmental factors, access to healthcare, physical activity, and mental health all play significant roles in determining health outcomes. By focusing only on food choices within SNAP, policymakers risk ignoring these broader, systemic issues.

Additionally, the logistical challenges of enforcing food restrictions within SNAP would be significant. Low-income individuals already face challenges accessing healthy food due to geographic and economic barriers. In many poor communities, fast food chains and convenience stores are more prevalent than supermarkets with fresh produce. SNAP recipients are often left with few affordable, nutritious options and are forced to make do with what is available.

Furthermore, studies have shown that SNAP participants already face significant financial constraints, making it difficult to afford healthy food. Even with the assistance provided by SNAP, families may still struggle to buy the full range of food they need for a healthy diet. Limiting their choices further could exacerbate food insecurity rather than alleviate it.

The Flexibility of SNAP

One of the primary advantages of SNAP is its flexibility. Unlike other government assistance programs that impose strict eligibility requirements or a narrow range of approved products, SNAP allows participants to purchase a wide array of foods that suit their dietary needs and preferences. This flexibility is especially important for individuals with health conditions such as diabetes, celiac disease, or food allergies, as it allows them to buy foods that cater to their specific needs.

In addition, SNAP benefits allow participants to purchase food from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds, supporting diversity and inclusivity in the nation’s food system. This flexibility is vital for ensuring that people of all backgrounds have access to the nutrition they need, regardless of their location or dietary restrictions.

However, despite this flexibility, SNAP is not without its limitations. While it covers most food needs, the average benefit is insufficient to meet the full dietary requirements of many families. SNAP was never designed to cover all of a family’s food expenses; it is intended as a supplemental assistance program. As a result, many participants rely on other forms of assistance, such as food banks and charitable organizations, to make up the shortfall.

Alternatives to Restricting SNAP Purchases

Rather than imposing additional restrictions on SNAP benefits, public health experts argue that more targeted and positive interventions would be more effective. One suggestion is to create incentive programs that encourage recipients to purchase healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables, by providing matching funds for healthy purchases. Such programs, which have been piloted in several states, have shown promise in increasing the purchase and consumption of nutritious foods.

In addition, improving access to healthy food in low-income areas is essential. Expanding the availability of grocery stores with fresh produce, offering subsidies for farmers’ markets, and providing nutrition education can help address the underlying issues that make it difficult for low-income individuals to eat healthily.

Other interventions might include public health campaigns that focus on promoting healthy eating habits, increasing physical activity, and improving access to healthcare. These measures, in conjunction with improved SNAP benefits and incentives for healthy eating, could have a far greater impact on public health than simply restricting food choices.

While it is understandable that policymakers want to address the nation’s growing health problems, restricting SNAP benefits will not lead to a healthier America. Diet is just one piece of the puzzle, and many low-income Americans face barriers that go beyond food choices. Instead of adding to the restrictions of SNAP, policymakers should focus on strategies that improve access to healthy foods, promote physical activity, and address the broader social determinants of health. By doing so, we can create a healthier and more equitable society for all Americans.