Why is 10% of all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits spent on soda?
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the federal government’s food assistance program. It began in 1964 with the Food Stamp Act. In the early days, recipients received ‘stamps’ to use in lieu of money to make food purchases with the goal of eliminating food hunger. In the early aughts, states abandoned the stamps and adopted use of electronic benefits transfer (EBT) cards. SNAP participation more than doubled from about 15-17 million in the late 1990s to more than 40 million today. Spending also doubled during the same time span.
In FY2023, nearly $113 billion went to 42 million participants, or about one of 8 US residents. About 62% of participants are families with children. To qualify, recipients must earn at or below 130% of the poverty line. There is additional qualification criteria.
While the program is titled the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program the reality is nutrition is not included. This is because there are few restrictions on how the benefits may be spent. According to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, eligible purchases include any product available for home consumption, and plants and seeds that produce food for home consumption. Even food items that have minimal nutritional value may be purchased whether at a supermarket, convenience store, bodega, or gas station kiosk.
This broad category with few restrictions matters because of burgeoning obesity-related issues such as diabetes, high-blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke among other health challenges facing America. The medical treatment costs for these ailments among the poorest Americans are invariably borne by the public with Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded medical programs. Overall, obesity costs the US $173 billion annually in just healthcare expenses, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obesity costs another $280 billion each year in lost productivity.
When the food stamp program began in 1964, the obesity rate was 13.4%. By 2023, obesity rate tripled to 40.3%. Among the food items eligible for purchase include sugar sweetened beverages, a beverage category that includes soda. Soda and similar beverages are not considered nutritious.
A 2016 study was conducted by the US Department of Agriculture, which administers the SNAP program. Nearly 1.5 billion unique SNAP transactions over the course of one year were examined to identify spending patterns. The study found 20% of SNAP purchases were spent on “sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.” Rep Andy Harris (R-MD-1), a physician who advocates for healthier options, told this correspondent that ten percent of SNAP is spent on soda. “Recipients are welcome to buy soda, but the taxpayer shouldn’t be subsidizing unhealthy choices,” he said.
It's not just soda. About 40% of SNAP is spent on packaged and frozen foods, cereals and high starch items such as rice. There is growing recognition that high starch, high calorie foods and ultra-processed foods are major contributors to the nation’s obesity epidemic. Overall, about 60% of SNAP expenditures are made on unhealthy options.
In 2008, the state of New York petitioned the USDA for permission to launch a pilot program to exclude beverages containing more than 10 calories per cup. Exceptions were made for fruit juices without added sugar and milk products. The dollar amount of the SNAP benefits would remain unchanged. It appeared to be a common-sense approach to exploring options to reducing obesity.
There was broad support for such an approach. A 2012 survey of more than 3,000 people, including 418 SNAP participants found 69% supported excluding sugar sweetened beverages from SNAP benefits. This included a majority (54%) of SNAP beneficiaries who were in favor of excluding soda and similar drinks.
Despite widespread support to removing soda from SNAP benefits, the New York petition unleashed hell. There was a groundswell of opposition. If health advocates, the general public and SNAP participants were in favor of removing soda from SNAP benefits then who was against it?
It was an army of Washington, DC heavyweights ranging from advocacy groups, academic institutions, think tanks, and trade associations. The Brookings Institution curiously argued restricting soda purchases “will undermine the effectiveness and the efficiency of the program.” It defies logic that eligible participants would boycott the program because their EBT card could not be used to purchase a two-liter bottle of Coke.
Groups such as the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation argued then and since that such proposals were racist. Interestingly, both organizations have received millions of dollars in contributions from Coca-Cola. Others have claimed eliminating soda purchases would attach a stigma to SNAP recipients. (How much more of a stigma could beneficiaries have as they already get free groceries courtesy of the taxpayers?)
Even USDA was steadfastly opposed to excluding soda from SNAP benefits. It claimed “there are no widely accepted standards to judge the ‘healthfulness’ of individual foods.” It added that identifying sodas as a product to be excluded from SNAP purchases would be too burdensome for the agency to manage.
Undoubtedly, the most influential opponent was the American Beverage Association. According to Open Secrets, the ABA is among the top 5% of lobbying organizations in America, having spent nearly $3 million in lobbying in 2023-24. During the 2008 election cycle (when the New York proposal was made), members of the House and Senate agriculture committees received more political contributions than any other committee members. The agriculture committees have oversight of the USDA.
In 2024, the ABA emphasized its opposition to excluding soda purchases from SNAP benefits stating, “Limiting choice by restricting SNAP purchases is a slippery slope that won’t make Americans healthier.” It argues soda cannot possibly be contributing to the obesity epidemic because there are sugar-free options. Noticeably absent from their arguments are any claims that sugar sweetened beverages or even the sugar-free alternatives offer any nutritional value.
Mark Hyman is a 35-year military veteran and an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist. Follow him on Twitter, Gettr, Parler, and Mastodon.world at @markhyman, and on Truth Social at @markhyman81.
His books Washington Babylon: From George Washington to Donald Trump, Scandals That Rocked the Nation and Pardongate: How Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Brothers Profited from Pardons are on sale now (here and here).
We should offer humane welfare to the deserving needy. Those who pay get to define terms.
BUT there is a hard limit to how far we can go to "fix" personal faults.
We must have a consolidated program to help, coordinated across all needs: food, shelter, transport, job training...
Plus work requirements.
Because the root cause is dependency culture based on resentment. And THAT is what must be corrected.
Details on request.