SNAP and Sugar
Last week I wrote about the cost of food and how, despite rising food costs, the average American only spends 11% of their discretionary income on food. This percentage may have surprised more than a few of you, but it’s important to remember it is only an average. For many Americans struggling to make ends meet, supplemental assistance is needed to feed themselves and their families. SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, was created to provide that assistance to low income families. Given the word “nutrition” is included in its name, there have been many debates on what should and should not be covered. Yesterday, the USDA, who administers the program, announced plans to fast-track state requests to eliminate soda and candy from coverage.
The first iteration of SNAP, or the program formerly known as food stamps, was created in the midst of the Great Depression in 1939 to address both hunger and crop surpluses. In that version of food stamps, eligible people could buy $1 of orange stamps and get $0.50 of blue stamps. Sort of like a stamp buy one get one half off. Orange stamps could be redeemed for any food. Blue stamps could only be redeemed for foods the Department of Agriculture determined to be surplus. Once unemployment and food surpluses declined due to World War II, this program ended in 1943.
Post WW II, members of Congress realized hunger and crop surpluses had not been eradicated. So, after successful pilot programs and government research, a permanent version of food stamps launched in 1964 via the Food Stamp Act. Among the provisions were a division in responsibilities between states, who were responsible for certifying and issuing benefits, and the federal government, who was responsible for funding and authorizing retailers for stamp redemption. Alcoholic beverages and imported foods were prohibited. Interestingly, the House version of the Food Stamp Act also prohibited soda, luxury foods and luxury frozen foods. Do not ask me what a “luxury food” is, but I’m assuming someone in government wanted to make sure no one was hosting champagne and caviar parties with food stamps.
As enrollment soared in the 1970’s questions arose on how to balance program accessibility with accountability, code for reduce fraud and cost. Since then, a number of acts with revisions on income requirements and nutrition education, as later versions started focusing on obesity prevention, have passed. The SNAP name was adopted 2008. Through all of these revisions, no additional changes were made to prohibited foods or beverages.
Over the last few decades rates of obesity have increased. In the United States, 40.3% of adults are obese1. Obesity is associated with increased risk of hypertension, better known as high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and certain cancers. Basically, obesity is linked to the major causes of death in the U.S. Not surprisingly, public health professionals have been researching the leading causes of the worrisome growth of obesity. There’s one culprit, I mean ingredient, that comes up over and over, sugar.
You say sugar, I say sucrose. From a food scientist perspective, there are two main types of sugar, monosaccharides (glucose, AKA dextrose, and fructose) and disaccharides (two sugars). Common disaccharides include sucrose (glucose + fructose), lactose (glucose + galactose) and maltose (two glucose molecules). Besides the obvious of sweetening foods, sugars can also be used to control the freezing point in ice cream or for microbial fermentation in pickles or yeast-fermented bread.
In the grocery store, foods containing sugar abound. From obvious items such as cookies and brownies to less than obvious foods such as lunchmeat (honey ham, anyone?) and flavored yogurt. As I’ve written before fruit naturally contains sugar. What nutritionists want consumers to focus on is nutrient density. Fruits may contain sugar, but they also contain essential vitamins, minerals and fiber. Thus, they pack a powerful nutrient punch in every calorie. I’ll say it again, please do not stop eating fruit because it has sugar.
Most nutritionists want consumers to avoid sugary foods and beverages that do not provide any additional nutritional benefits. These types of foods are often said to contain “empty calories” because an individual consumes calories but no essential nutrients. One of the biggest offenders is sugar-sweetened beverages. According to the Centers for Disease Control, sugar-sweetened beverages are the leading sources of added sugars in the American diet. Sugar-sweetened beverages include soda, fruit juices with added sugar, sports drinks, energy drinks and all of those beloved coffee drinks with mocha or whipped cream on top.
To recap, obesity is rising in the U.S. and associated with increased risk for the top causes of death. Excess sugar consumption is a contributing factor to obesity and thus the development of chronic health conditions. One of the largest sources of sugar in the American diet is sugar-sweetened beverages, which includes soda, or pop, or Coke depending on where you live.
This brings us to yesterday’s announcement by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to move “very, very quickly” to approve requests by Indiana and Arkansas to remove soda and candy, another source of sugar, from food-stamp programs. Arkansas is seeking to remove all types of soda, including diet and low-sugar varieties while Indiana didn’t specify the types of soda included in its restriction. The governors of Utah and West Virginia have indicated they are seeking similar restrictions for their states. Their rationale is taxpayer money shouldn’t pay for junk food. Instead, food stamp benefits should be used to promote healthier lifestyles.
The lobbying groups that represents soda companies, the American Beverage Association, and candy makers, the National Confectioners Association, disagree. Christopher Gindlesperger, a spokesman for the National Confectioners Association said “consumers understand that chocolate and candy are treats-not meal replacements.”
This is where I need to be transparent with you, dear reader. I used to work for PepsiCo and still own shares of their stock. For those of you in the South, Pepsi is the blue can of soda sitting next to all of the red cans of Coca Cola in the supermarket.
This isn’t the first time soda companies and their lobbying organization have pushed back on public health policies aimed to reduce consumption of soda. The cities of Philadelphia, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland and Boulder, Colorado have, at some point, had a tax on soda purchases. New York’s tax was dropped after an intense marketing campaign and lobbying by soda companies. Not that shocking considering PepsiCo’s headquarters are located just north of NYC in Purchase, NY.
Research on the impact of soda tax policies are mixed. In 2022, the University of Georgia released findings after studying the impact of Philadelphia’s soda tax on consumption. That study found that while demand for soda decreased by 31%, consumers replaced soda with other sugar-sweetened beverages and candy, negating the decrease in sugar consumption from lower soda purchases.2 In contrast, a 2024 study of all cities with a soda tax published in JAMA Health Forum, found a one-percentage point decline in sugar-sweetened beverage purchase volume for every one-percentage point increase in price.3
Other arguments against the removal of soda and candy from food stamp programs are from a social justice perspective. SNAP participants may feel embarrassed, or stigmatized when attempting to purchase newly excluded items only to be told they can’t. It could discourage eligible individuals from obtaining benefits. An estimated 12.6% of the American population, or 42.1 million people receive SNAP benefits. Of that amount, almost 40% are estimated to be children. To qualify for benefits in 2023, a family of four’s gross monthly income must be at or below $3,007 (higher in Hawaii and Alaska).4
Part of me feels like we’re punishing low income families. I don’t love taxes, who does, but at least that feels like a more equally distributed approach to curb sugar consumption. Though, lower income families spend a higher percentage of their income on food. So, some have argued taxes punish low income families as well. However, if the proceeds were used to fund nutrition education programs to help consumers make better choices and increase accessibility of nutritious foods in so-called food deserts, then the taxes might have a larger impact on overall health. It’s a tough issue with no easy answers. Would love to hear your thoughts on this one as I clearly don’t have a definitive point of view.
Emmerich SD, Fryar CD, Stierman B, Ogden CL. Obesity and severe obesity prevalence in adults: United States, August 2021–August 2023. NCHS Data Brief, no 508. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2024. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc/159281
Hathaway, L. City-Based Soda Pop Taxes Don’t Effectively Reduce Sugar Consumption. UGA Today. September 6, 2022.
Kaplan S, White JS, Madsen KA, Basu S, Villas-Boas SB, Schillinger D. Evaluation of Changes in Prices and Purchases Following Implementation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes Across the US. JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(1):e234737. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4737
Desilver, D. What the Data Says About Food Stamps in the U.S. Pew Research Center. July 19, 2023. https://pewrsr.ch/43yi480