Anti-hunger and food industry groups are pushing back on efforts to restrict some foods in USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the face of "Make America Healthy Again" rhetoric in Congress and from the incoming Trump administration.
In one of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s first moves to tie President-elect Donald Trump to the MAHA movement, he penned an op-ed laying out policy ideas to improve health outcomes. One was to prevent SNAP participants from using benefits to buy soda or heavily processed foods. It's an idea also pushed relentlessly by prominent MAHA ally Calley Means.
“It’s nonsensical for U.S. taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars subsidizing junk that harms the health of low-income Americans,” Kennedy wrote in the op-ed.
Restricting those foods under the SNAP program is not a new proposal, but it appears to be gaining momentum with Kennedy’s increased political stature as a Cabinet nominee.
Last month, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders sent a letter to Kennedy and Trump’s nominee for USDA, Brooke Rollins, asking them to limit junk food purchases with SNAP benefits. Prohibiting sugary beverages gets at Trump’s goals of addressing chronic illness, she said.
“President Trump has a unifying vision to save taxpayer dollars and make America healthy again,” Sanders said in a social media video. “Mr. President, SNAP is a great place to start.”
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders speaks during the Republican National Convention Tuesday, July 16, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) | APRep. Andy Harris, R-Md., who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, has been a vocal advocate for SNAP restrictions and appears to be making it a goal of the group. As chair of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, he has pushed unsuccessfully for pilot programs that would restrict SNAP purchases in successive spending bills.
Shortly after House Speaker Mike Johnson was re-elected, HFC members released a letter with their expectations for Johnson’s tenure, including reversal of the “massive subsidization of unhealthy foods” in SNAP to save taxpayer dollars and address public health.
The fate of SNAP restrictions will is unclear because many Republicans are not on board.
“What’s important to always highlight with restricting choices is that no administration in the past, whether Republican or Democrat, has ever approved the restriction of SNAP choice,” said Salaam Bhatti, SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center. “It’s just a highly inefficient way to get the results that are being sought of having people have a healthier diet.”
Bhatti and anti-hunger advocates oppose these restrictions because they say SNAP participants are limited enough in what they can access with the current benefit allotment. The current daily benefit is about $6.20 a day, which leaves many healthier, fresher foods out of reach. With increased benefits during the pandemic, he said, recipients bought more fresh foods.
He said debate about SNAP restrictions has demonstrated lack of consensus among proponents, with some arguing about which foods would be prohibited and some suggesting that the added SNAP guardrails would increase the size of government.
“I’m pretty confident in knowing that this is something that once it continues in the public discourse, people are going to not be in agreement,” Bhatti said.
Salaam Bhatti, SNAP director at FRACAngela Rachidi, senior fellow and Rowe scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said there’s been slight movement over the years with more policymakers and the general public growing more comfortable with SNAP restrictions. However, she said such proposals still face a major uphill battle given opposition from industry groups.
“It does put policymakers in a challenging position, and that, in my view, is why we've not seen any movement towards even testing restrictions,” she said.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, lobbyists for Coca-Cola and other soda companies want Congress and the administration to oppose restrictions.
Beverage companies have taken steps to introduce more no- and low-calorie beverages, as well as smaller package sizes, according to the American Beverage Association. Cans and bottles of soda also have clear calorie information on the front-of-pack labeling, they contend.
As a result, the group cites reduced sales in full-calorie carbonated beverages and a drop in average calories per serving in soft drinks.
“Limiting choice by restricting SNAP purchases won’t make Americans healthier or save taxpayers money," ABA spokesperson William Dermody said in a statement. "Rather, these proposals would effectively create a two-tiered system in which the right to personal autonomy around diet is conditioned on income and means.”
Some in the food industry note that many Republicans oppose the idea of SNAP restrictions because of impacts to business and the overall economy. They observe that the idea of restrictions sounds simple and easy, but are realistically difficult and costly to implement.
Some members have also raised the idea of government efficiency and spending as a reason to pursue SNAP restrictions. However, these policies would not technically lower spending in SNAP and could actually raise costs due to new administrative burdens, says one industry official.
There is uncertainty about the incoming administration. Food industry groups are trying to understand the MAHA movement goals and how they my align with the new administration.
Even if Kennedy is confirmed as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, he is unlikely to have direct oversight on SNAP. The program is run by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, and it’s unclear if Ag Secretary-designate Brooke Rollins shares Kennedy's views.
AEI's Rachidi said that, assuming Rollins is confirmed, her initial focus will likely be on farm and agriculture policy rather than nutrition programs. “I think it’s still a little bit unclear how much of that health agenda will make it into that ag policy arena,” Rachidi said.
One potentially long-shot way Kennedy could exert authority over SNAP would be to move the program from USDA to HHS. During the first Trump administration, a plan was floated to restructure the agencies and move SNAP under HHS but it failed to get traction.
Rachidi said the restructuring plan received some support because it was advertised as a way to increase efficiency. However, she said, future such efforts would be difficult because of reluctance to yield jurisdiction over these programs in House and Senate committees.
FRAC's Bhatti noted that Project 2025, a blueprint from the Heritage Foundation on how a new administration could remake the government, also suggests moving SNAP to HHS. Bhatti said it’s not clear whether the Trump administration would pursue it.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
