Monday, August 11, 2025

Red States Push for Soda Ban Legislation

Red States Push for Soda Ban Legislation

Featured Image

The Rise of Soda and Candy Bans in SNAP Programs

Republican-led states are taking a bold step by pushing to ban soda and candy from their food stamp programs, aligning with the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement. This initiative has shifted traditional political lines, as both parties have shown interest in restricting sugary drinks within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, it is the Trump administration that has taken the lead in encouraging states to implement such changes.

Colorado stands out as the only blue state to receive approval for a soda ban waiver. It also proposed expanding SNAP benefits alongside limiting their scope. While previous attempts at regulating soda have largely focused on blue cities, such as New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the current push under MAHA has seen a shift in support toward Republican states.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the face of MAHA, has been working closely with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to promote these bans. Although he does not run SNAP, which is managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), his influence has been significant. In just six months, 12 state waivers have been approved by USDA to restrict SNAP recipients from purchasing certain items like soft drinks, sugary beverages, energy drinks, and candy.

Kennedy has emphasized the importance of free choice, stating that while individuals should be able to buy sugary drinks, the U.S. taxpayer should not bear the cost. The states that have claimed these waivers include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

However, the idea of policing the shopping carts of low-income Americans has raised concerns among anti-hunger advocates. They argue that such restrictions are paternalistic and stigmatizing. Additionally, nutrition experts point out that there is limited evidence showing that these bans lead to better health outcomes. Joelle Johnson, deputy director for Healthy Food Access at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, noted that there is no solid evidence to support claims that these restrictions will reduce diet-related diseases.

The SNAP waivers are part of pilot programs, allowing states to conduct research on the impact of these restrictions. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, believes these waivers are more about showing support for MAHA than making meaningful changes. He argues that they do little more than allow states to claim they can’t buy junk food.

Historically, some Republicans have supported soda bans as a way to cut spending on SNAP. Advocates remain skeptical about the latest push, especially given the broader efforts to reduce SNAP funding. The Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank, has been actively promoting these waivers, aiming to reshape public assistance programs and cut spending.

Experts warn of a potential slippery slope, where restricting eligible items could lead to reduced benefits for SNAP participants. Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the George Washington University’s Global Food Institute, suggests that any moves to restrict purchases should be paired with efforts to improve access to healthy food. So far, none of the red state waivers have addressed this issue.

Governor Jared Polis of Colorado praised the waiver as a step toward improving health outcomes and reducing obesity rates. However, the Trump administration has not yet approved a separate waiver for hot foods like rotisserie chicken or soup. Democratic governors Laura Kelly of Kansas and Katie Hobbs of Arizona have vetoed bills that would have allowed their states to submit similar waivers.

Kennedy has expressed hope that more blue states will follow suit, citing commitments from Democratic governors. However, he acknowledges that some may not want to be associated with the MAHA branding due to its partisan connotations. Rollins emphasized that healthy eating should be bipartisan, stating that the USDA is working with every state to promote healthier choices.

As the debate continues, the focus remains on whether these bans are truly about promoting health or if they are part of a larger effort to shrink SNAP. The distinction between these goals is crucial, as the future of the program and its impact on low-income families hangs in the balance.