In a surprising turn of events, a Republican-led state is pushing to ban sugary sodas and candies from the food stamp program, coinciding with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s initiative, the “Make America Healthy” (Maha) Movement, which seems to blur traditional political lines.
Interestingly, Colorado stands out as the only blue state that has approved an exemption to ban soda, aiming to expand the scope and benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
While there have been previous discussions about removing soda from SNAP, it was actually the Trump administration that first pushed for this nationwide change.
Most recent regulatory efforts regarding soda have largely originated in blue cities. For example, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on large sugary drinks back in 2013, which had Republicans criticizing his “nanny state” approach.
The healthy eating initiative under the MAHA branding has caught the attention of this GOP-led state.
Although Kennedy himself doesn’t manage SNAP—that’s under the USDA—he’s been an advocate for the soda and candy ban alongside Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins.
In the first half of the new administration, the USDA approved 12 state exemptions that limit what SNAP recipients can buy, including soft drinks and candies.
“We cherish free choice in a democracy… If you want to purchase sugary soda, you should be allowed to. Taxpayer money shouldn’t fund that,” Kennedy remarked during a recent press conference.
The states promoting this exemption include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
SNAP benefits can currently be used to purchase a variety of groceries, excluding alcohol and hot foods. Critics argue that monitoring what low-income individuals can buy feels paternalistic and judgmental.
Moreover, although federal data indicates that soda is a significant sugar source, experts suggest there’s scant evidence supporting the idea that banning it from SNAP would greatly improve health outcomes.
Similarly, there’s little proof that excluding candy and desserts from SNAP would have a positive impact on diets.
“I can’t confidently claim that enforcing these restrictions will absolutely reduce diet-related diseases. There’s no strong evidence backing that up,” said Joel Johnson, deputy director of health food access at a notable nutrition regulations center.
These SNAP exemptions serve as pilot programs and don’t lead to immediate policy changes; instead, they provide a chance for necessary research.
Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina, labeled this exemption as a token gesture, adding that it doesn’t actually promote meaningful changes.
“These states are more about placating the Maha than implementing substantial changes. They could achieve this without political intervention,” Popkin said. “The exemption doesn’t accomplish anything meaningful other than signaling that junk food isn’t accepted.”
Some Republicans have historically viewed the soda ban as a method to reduce SNAP program costs. There’s ongoing skepticism regarding this new push.
A conservative think tank based in Florida has been pushing hard for the State SNAP Waiver, aiming to reshape public assistance programs and cut spending significantly.
Johnson expressed concern about potential pitfalls. Fewer eligible items for SNAP might give GOP leaders an excuse to reduce the benefits individuals receive.
Priya Fielding-Singh, from George Washington University’s Global Food Institute, noted that while there are benefits to focusing SNAP on healthier foods, the ban on soda and candy alone lacks depth.
Additionally, the Agriculture Department has slashed its budget by roughly $1 billion, affecting schools and food banks directly purchasing local produce, and reducing WIC benefits for fruits and vegetables.
The GOP’s latest tax cuts are expected to decrease SNAP funding by $186 billion over the next ten years, potentially disqualifying millions.
“It’s tough to separate the soda ban from broader political trends aimed at reducing SNAP overall. Are these restrictions truly about promoting health or simply about cutting the program? This distinction matters,” she insisted.
Fielding-Singh added that efforts to limit SNAP purchases should be coupled with initiatives that provide means, access, and resources for healthier eating.
However, the current exemption in Red States doesn’t seem to address that need.
In reference to Colorado’s exemption, Governor Jared Polis remarked that it represents a significant stride toward improving the health of Coloradans and combating obesity, diabetes, and dental issues.
The previous administration did not extend exemptions to cover hot groceries like rotisserie chicken or soups.
Democratic governors, including Laura Kelly from Kansas and Katie Hobbs from Arizona, have rejected similar bills proposing to ban soda and candy in their states.
Kelly noted her support for healthier eating, but emphasized that changes to SNAP should be managed at the federal level rather than through a disjointed, state-by-state approach.
She also criticized the bill’s stipulations that would restrict the acceptance of benefits for so-called “healthy” items while still allowing candy bars like Twix and Kit Kat.
This week, Kennedy expressed hope that more blue states would consider submitting exemptions.
“I was at a meeting with governors in Colorado last week and spoke with several Democratic governors,” he said.
Kennedy also mentioned plans to introduce other “Maha Acts,” though he admitted that he might prefer to distance himself from the term as it carries partisan connotations.
Upon signing the Colorado exemption, Rollins reiterated that healthy eating should transcend political divides.
“This isn’t about red or blue; it’s not strictly Republican or Democrat,” Rollins stated. “We’re collaborating with all states and are eager to continue working closely with Governor Polis.”
