There is a big fuss being made in Idaho over food stamps, as the state wants to prohibit people from spending their SNAP benefits on candy and soda. Yes, as you hear it. And this isn’t just a local thing; It is connected to a national movement that is gaining strength since Trump returned to the White House.
For those unfamiliar, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is a federal program that allows low-income families to purchase food. Basically, they give them an EBT card that works as a debit card, and each month they receive funds to fill the pantry. In Idaho, for example, more than 130,000 people depend on this. Imagine: if the rules change, it would affect a lot of people, that is, approximately 100,000.
What can be purchased with SNAP benefits could be reduced
Now, the state wants to be the first to put a lock on “junk food.” The local House of Representatives approved Bill 109 this week, with 38 votes in favor and 32 against. The curious thing? It was not a party thing: 23 Republicans and all Democrats voted against. That is, even within the same side there is division. The idea is to ask the federal government for permission to eliminate candy and soda from the list of purchases allowed with SNAP.
But here’s the thing: what counts as “sweet”? Depending on the project, anything with sugar, honey or sweeteners mixed with chocolate, fruits, nuts, etc., in bar, chunk or gummy form. Ah, but if it has more than 10% flour or needs refrigeration, it’s saved. I mean, one of those packaged cupcakes could sneak in, but a Hershey’s bar couldn’t. Ridiculous? A bit.
Supporters of the bill, like Rep. Jordan Redman, say it’s to promote healthier eating. “It’s a step toward better nutrition,” he says. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But others don’t buy the story. Critics such as Valerie Imbruce, an expert at Washington College, point out that sugar is everywhere: yogurts with 20 grams per container, pasta sauces, granola bars… Why demonize only chocolates and soft drinks?
And here’s another problem: Idaho is full of rural areas where finding fresh fruits or vegetables is like searching for a unicorn. Many depend on little stores or gas stations where the most “nutritious” thing is some dusty Cheetos. If you take away their option to buy, say, a Snickers with its benefits, are you really helping them? Or you just complicate their lives.
The Healthy SNAP Act: the national plan and the role of the federal government
And this isn’t just an Idaho thing. In Washington, Republican Josh Brecheen proposed the Healthy SNAP Act, which would ban buying soft drinks, ice cream, candy and desserts prepared with benefits. His argument: “If you want to treat yourself, pay for it; taxpayers should not finance your bad decisions.” Does it make sense? For some, yes, but others see it as a disguised attack.
Opponents of the project in Idaho, including moderate Democrats and Republicans, say this is pure paternalism. “Since when does the government know better than you what to put on your plate?” they question. Furthermore, they argue that the real problem is not the candy, but the lack of access to fresh food and nutritional education. In other words, instead of removing options, why don’t they improve access to farmers markets or give healthy cooking classes?
Will banning certain products help? Imbruce doubts it: “People will continue to buy sugar, just in other formats.” And he’s right: if you don’t attack the root (like the food industry that adds sugar to everything), this could be a useless band-aid. Furthermore, isn’t it hypocritical that the poor are criticized for buying Coca-Cola, while large companies continue selling ultra-processed products without restrictions?
