Reforms are needed to fix a broken federal program that harms the health of millions of Americans and costs taxpayers billions of dollars.
Trump officials want to ban junk food from SNAP
Newly confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has urged the government to ban SNAP from being used towards processed foods.
Fox – Seattle
One of the earliest, most effective reforms that the Trump administration can make to improve Americans’ health is to end the federal subsidy for eating candy bars and drinking soda.
At least 10 states are moving to ask Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to let them end federal subsidies of unhealthy foods via food stamps. That should be a top priority for the Trump administration, which is well-positioned to start solving a federally created health and spending crisis.
These states are acting out of medical and fiscal necessity. Food stamps − the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) − are a major way Americans buy junk food, such as soda and candy.
These foods are proven to contribute to obesity and a slew of related health problems in children and adults. That means diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions are all on the menu. Because most food stamp beneficiaries also are on Medicaid or other government-funded health programs, taxpayers pick up the tab when their health deteriorates.
Soda is the item most often purchased with SNAP benefits
And what a tab it is. In 2015 and 2016, obesity-related treatment cost Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded health programs about $60 billion annually, with both state and federal governments footing the bill.
Given the dramatic growth of Medicaid since then, along with rising obesity rates, that figure is sure to be even higher today. Treatments for other medical conditions linked to junk food and soda consumption likely increase the total by billions of dollars.
These enormous expenditures to taxpayer-funded health care programs are connected to food stamps. About 23% of food stamp dollars go toward foods like sweetened beverages, candy, desserts and salty snacks − for an annual total of about $25 billion.
Over the next decade, more than $60 billion in taxpayer dollars are expected to pay for soda alone. Soft drinks are the most popular item purchased with food stamps, according to the Department of Agriculture.
One part of the problem is that food stamps create a moral hazard, encouraging people to buy junk food in quantities that they otherwise wouldn’t. Research shows that the typical food stamp recipient consumes far more sugary drinks than people with similar incomes who aren’t on the program. As a result, adults on food stamps also have a higher obesity rate than non-recipients with similar incomes.
States are on the front lines of this worsening crisis. In December, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced that her state would become the first to ask the incoming Trump administration for a waiver to ban junk food purchases on food stamps.
In a letter, the governor wrote: “One-third of our state has diabetes or pre-diabetes. Forty percent of our state struggles with obesity. Sadly, these health conditions disproportionately affect lower-income families − the same people who rely on SNAP for food.”
Soda and candy ban would reduce diabetes and obesity rates
Would letting states limit SNAP purchases work?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health, says yes. He and his colleagues at Stanford University estimate that eliminating soda and sugary drinks from food stamp purchases would save 141,000 kids from obesity and 240,000 adults from Type 2 diabetes. Restricting purchases of other unhealthy foods like candy would multiply those health benefits.
Despite the obvious upsides for Americans’ health, the federal bureaucracy has fought calls for reform for more than a decade, perhaps reflecting the influence of food lobbyists. A 2007 report that’s still featured on the Department of Agriculture website laughably claimed that “no clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.” It also bemoaned that “implementation of food restrictions would increase program complexity and costs.”
Maybe, but any potential costs pale in comparison with what taxpayers spend on medical care for people who consume federally funded junk food.
The best solution to this crisis would be a federal law that ends federal subsidies for unhealthy food. In January, Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., introduced the Healthy SNAP Act, which would end food stamp purchases of sugary drinks, candy, ice cream and desserts.
There is precedent for excluding certain foods from SNAP. Healthy foods like roasted chickens and fresh soup aren’t eligible because they’re prepared for immediate consumption. Because the government already bans these nutritious items, excluding unhealthy foods should be a no-brainer.
While passing a federal law takes time, the Department of Agriculture can take swifter action by granting waivers to states.
There is a bipartisan consensus that SNAP should incentivize nutrition for Americans, not junk food. The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets − leaving taxpayers and millions of low-income Americans to suffer.
Calley Means is cofounder of Truemed and End Chronic Disease. Tarren Bragdon is president and chief executive officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability.