Forty-three million Americans depend on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, to help provide the foods they need for good health. SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) is a critically important part of the government's safety net and has become even more vital to low-income families since the economic downturn.
The program distributes benefits via an Electronic Benefits Card that can be swiped at participating supermarkets and, increasingly, farmer's markets. But the benefits cannot be used to purchase tobacco, alcoholic beverages, supplement pills, hot prepared foods, and non-food items. For those products, SNAP recipients must use their own money.
Unfortunately, huge amounts of SNAP dollars are used to purchase carbonated soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages. Already among the least expensive foods in the supermarket, these drinks are nutritionally worthless and promote obesity, diabetes and other diseases that have a disproportionate impact on low-income Americans.
One supermarket executive shared with me confidentially that carbonated soft drinks accounted for 6.2 percent of the grocery bills of SNAP recipients. Considering that recipients will spend $65 billion of SNAP benefits on groceries in 2010, that works out to around $4 billion taxpayer dollars that go toward the purchase of soda pop. And that sum doesn't include non-carbonated soft drinks, which are just as nutritionally poor, such as Gatorade, fruit-flavored drinks with little or no juice, and so on.
Though excluding sugar-sweetened beverages from SNAP would be controversial, setting nutrition standards for government food programs is hardly new. The school lunch and breakfast programs administered by USDA comply with strict nutrition standards that exclude soda and junk food, as does the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which is limited to foods that have specific health benefits for pregnant and breastfeeding women and young children.
The federal government should be doing everything it can to reduce soda consumption, not encouraging it. In fact, the government's 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee bluntly stated, "avoid sugar-sweetened beverages." There would be stiff opposition to eliminating soda from SNAP from several quarters, and the soft drink industry would certainly pull out all the stops. That's what happened when the idea of a penny-per-ounce excise tax on soda was floated in Congress and in the New York State legislature. And Coca-Cola in particular has a long track record of using its "philanthropy" as a way of buying new friends and silencing critics.
A less controversial way to use the SNAP program to promote healthier diets would be to provide recipients with a financial incentive to purchase fruits, vegetables and whole grains. One easy way would be to provide a credit of say, 30 extra cents, for every dollar spent on healthy foods.
The SNAP program also funds a good chunk of the nutrition education that goes on in the United States, in the form of nearly $400 million in matching grants for state and local governments. But incredibly, during the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ruled that SNAP education funds could NOT be spent to mount community-wide campaigns to discourage the consumption of specific foods, such as soda, and the Obama administration has retained that policy. As a result, health officials in the city of California, Maine, Wyoming, and San Francisco have been effectively gagged when they've tried to run campaigns about the health effects of soft drink consumption. We've called on the administration to reverse this gag rule, and let SNAP-Ed funds be spent in this most-cost-effective way. (New York City has been running an ad campaign that should be emulated all over the country.)
I suspect that most people would agree that it makes sense not to allow federal nutrition assistance funds to purchase Budweiser and Marlboros, and reasonable people could disagree on where exactly to draw the line. But Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and other soft drinks make no positive contribution to the diet, promote expensive and debilitating diseases, and make our already stark health disparities worse. I would draw the line at soda. This is a product--and an industry--that needs to be taxed, not subsidized.
David Kirby: White House Will Not Say Where It Gets Its Meat (And I Don't Blame Them)
Michelle Obama is on a laudable food crusade, promoting the health benefits of fresh and sustainably grown nutrition. But her office doesn't want you to know what the Obamas had for dinner last night.
Susan Yager: Are Food Labels Really Necessary?
There is much to be said for knowledge and the ability to make educated choices. But the bottom line is that we are better off respecting our food than analyzing it.
Darya Pino: Shocking: Sugar Content of Common Food Products
Obviously sugar content is not the only factor in a food's nutritional value (and not all of these have added sugar), but it can be illuminating to see the relative amounts in the foods we consume.
Health: Diabetes And Soda: Drawing A Connection - TIME
Type 2 Diabetes Linked to Diet Soda
Soda Warning? High-fructose Corn Syrup Linked To Diabetes, New ...
Diabetes - The Trouble with Diet Soda
Losing weight key to reducing risk of type 2 diabetes
Study: NY Soda Tax Would Curb Obesity, Diabetes
Low Fat, and High Sugar And Sweeteners Contribute To Obesity And Diabetes
Loading comments…
Share your Comment:
That said, just because soda is, in truth, more of a luxury than food, doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be taxed. That, and progressives really need to give up on taxes as an enforcer of their idea of moral virtue. It serves nothing more than to make them look self-righteous, and alienate the rest of us.
However, programs like WIC and school meals are targeted at children, for whom there is both an established consensus on what constitutes good nutrition and a parental duty to enforce these standards on little people who can't be trusted with their own choices. Neither assumption holds for SNAP.
The SNAP prohibition against tobacco is because it is not a food, and alcohol because it contributes to the much more damaging disease of alcoholism.
Prohibiting the purchase of "sugary" beverages would be *A DE FACTO CUT* in SNAP benefit levels for hungry American families unless offset by a healthy foods subsidy as Dr. Jacobson describes. This is because, as Dr. Jacobson rightly points out, these beverages are extremely cheap, which is likely why they are favored by families with few pennies to spare.
We can talk about the health benefits of limiting soda consumption, but let's be honest about the fact that this policy change would amount to a paternalistic and regressive new tax on low-income families.
I'm sorry, but sprite and skittles aren't "food" any more than beer is. Quite frankly, they're luxuries. Nobody is going to go hungry because the government didn't give them free soda.
You say you want dining evolution. Well you know, many options are around.
But when you want to tax up my soda.
That is when you all have gone too far.
http://hea
I don't want to go back to alcohol and I really need this to wake up in the morning.
Raise the price and I will pay - oh lords of sweet carbonation.
BTW - please bring back the original coke with the "cane" in it.