The U.S. government has intensified its policy to eliminate 'junk food' from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for low-income households. Tensions appear to be escalating between the government, which cites 'public health' as justification, and critics who claim it infringes on 'personal freedom.'
On the 7th (local time), U.S. media outlets like ABC reported that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins officially signed an exemption measure for SNAP food selection for six states. In a statement, Rollins noted, "We will further advance President Trump's 'Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)' policy." The signing ceremony was attended by Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and several governors.
Under the new measure, six states, including Texas, Florida, Louisiana, West Virginia, Colorado, and Oklahoma, will also participate in purchasing restrictions. These, along with the existing six states of Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah, will collectively comprise 12 states in the U.S. where, starting next year, low-income households will not be able to use food assistance funds to purchase carbonated beverages, candy, energy drinks, and other items.
SNAP is the largest food assistance program for low-income households in the United States. It operates 100% on federal funds without local government burden. Often referred to as 'food stamps,' it is considered one of the two pillars that make up the social safety net in the U.S., along with the low-income medical assistance program, Medicaid. The program is available to households earning less than 130% of the federal poverty line, which, as of 2020, is for a family of four with a monthly income of less than $2,790 (about 3.9 million won).
In 2023, the number of individuals receiving food assistance under this program reached 42.1 million, accounting for more than 12.5% of the total U.S. population. The federal government provides these beneficiaries with an average of $6.16 (about 8,530 won) per person per day as of this year. Most beneficiaries are among the extremely poor, who would face immediate concerns about daily meals without this $6.
The assistance, which used to be provided through paper coupons, is now distributed via electronic cards (EBT). With this card, most groceries can be purchased at regular supermarkets. However, purchases of alcohol, tobacco, vitamins, and similar items are prohibited. Legally, SNAP is designed to allow households to buy food intended for home consumption. It's also not permissible to buy pre-cooked meals from supermarkets or directly from restaurants. Additionally, the new measure adds items like carbonated beverages, candy, and energy drinks to the list of prohibited junk food in 12 states.
The Trump administration holds the position that 'we cannot allow the purchase of unhealthy food with taxpayer money.' Secretary Brooke Rollins clarified the policy's purpose by stating it is "an initiative to encourage healthier choices for families in need."
Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is also resolute. He stated, "For years, taxpayer money has been funneled into carbonated beverages and candy that incite diabetes and chronic diseases in the United States." He added, "This measure will redirect the focus of the program back to real food," aiming to break the vicious cycle that results from purchasing cheap processed foods that lead to obesity and diabetes, which in turn requires reallocation of funds to the low-income health insurance program, Medicaid.
However, academic circles and civic groups raise questions about the policy's effectiveness, emphasizing that it infringes on personal freedom. Craig Gundersen, an economics professor at Baylor University, criticized it in an interview with the U.S. WUSF, labeling it as "an act that humiliates vulnerable groups and robs them of autonomy." Cindy Huddleston of the Florida Policy Institute also contested it, stating it is "a very intrusive idea to look into others' shopping carts."
Skepticism about the policy's effectiveness itself is also emerging. ABC reported that experts say, "There is no clear evidence that restricting access to carbonated drinks will prevent chronic diseases." There is also a practical limitation that recipients could simply purchase prohibited items with personal cash instead of using their assistance funds.
Particularly in 'the land of the free' America, there are rising voices pointing out the paradox of the government controlling the dietary habits of the poor. In the U.S. distribution structure, carbonated drinks are often cheaper than bottled water. Low-income areas often qualify as 'food deserts,' where fresh produce is already hard to come by. Critics argue that it is inappropriate to impose healthy choices solely on individuals while ignoring these structural issues.
For example, Arkansas' recent prohibition measure regarding 'juices with less than 50% natural fruit juice' is deemed unrealistic. To avoid this regulation, individuals would have to purchase significantly more expensive 100% non-concentrated (NFC) juices, which is near impossible for those with a daily food budget of just over $6.
A report previously released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) also supports these criticisms. According to the 2016 report titled 'Foods typically purchased by SNAP households,' the top expenditure category for SNAP recipients was 'meat,' followed closely by 'sugar-sweetened beverages.' This is nearly identical to the consumption patterns of other low-income households that do not receive SNAP benefits, indicating that SNAP assistance does not particularly encourage junk food consumption.
The 2018 report titled 'Nutritional quality of foods acquired by Americans,' published by the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS), also concluded that 'the majority of Americans' diets fall short of federal recommendations, regardless of their participation in SNAP.' This implies that the entire American society struggles with maintaining a healthy diet, yet strict standards are being applied solely to the impoverished.
Experts argue that alternatives such as 'health incentives' may be more effective than全面 prohibitions, suggesting that a method in which cash-back is provided for purchasing healthy foods like vegetables and fruits, similar to the 'health incentive pilot program' previously operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, would be more efficient for maintaining the health of low-income individuals.