OPINION:
What began as a well-intentioned program to distribute farm surpluses to the genuinely needy during the Great Depression has morphed into a taxpayer-funded junk-food slush fund.
That must end.
On June 22, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that the Department of Agriculture lacks the authority to allow states to undertake pilot programs barring Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients from using their food stamps to buy unhealthy items such as soda, energy drinks and candy.
The five states — Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and Nebraska — are among 23 that have requested and received USDA permission to implement SNAP restriction waivers.
The judge’s reasoning for scrapping the pilots: In allowing them, the government was failing to abide by its own definition of “food.” According to the U.S. Code, “food” is defined as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.”
This obviously circular definition clarifies nothing. It is a logical fallacy, and it should not be used to justify states’ attempts to right a long-standing wrong: allowing federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize people’s lousy habits.
Elsewhere, “food” is widely defined as nutritious substances consumed by animals and plants to maintain growth and life. No medical professional will say that processed sugar does either of these things.
After Judge Jackson’s ruling, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins wrote on X: “An activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk.” She added that “this administration will keep fighting to Make America Healthy Again.”
Keeping taxpayer cash from funding consumables that offer no nutritional benefit is indeed common sense and rightly forms a core part of the administration’s MAHA agenda.
In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that obesity rates among children and teenagers — the biggest consumers of sugar-sweetened drinks — had reached record highs.
Adolescents are more likely to consume sugar-sweetened drinks when they can get them at home, according to a 2018 paper published in the Journal of Pediatrics.
Because 62% of SNAP participants are in families with children, if we stop giving them this junk for free, their youngsters will be less likely to consume it.
Some will argue that these pilot programs impinge on personal freedoms and constitute nanny state controls, but they do not. Those who wish to use their own hard-earned money on junk food are still free to do so.
What they are not free to do under the programs is buy the stuff using the political left’s favorite kind of money: other people’s.
Critics of the pilots also say they would effectively starve children. This is nonsense not only because sugary soft drinks and desserts provide no nutritional value, but also because the programs do not prevent recipients from purchasing foods that do.
If a program participant chooses, as a peculiar form of self-harming protest, not to buy any groceries at all in the event they cannot buy candy and soda, then they — not the state government or USDA — are the ones starving their offspring. That is a matter for Child Protective Services.
SNAP recipients make less healthy food choices overall. They “spend about 27% less on fruits and vegetables than non-SNAP households,” according to the Foundation for Economic Education. “This difference cannot be attributed to a lack of access because around 85% of SNAP purchases are made at large chain grocery stores with vast produce selections.”
When an item stops being free, it often loses much of its appeal. Waiver programs that require SNAP recipients to pay for their own candy and energy drinks are likely to encourage them to choose healthier food options.
Judge Jackson’s ruling is absurd, and we hope the administration appeals it.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.