The Republican Governors of Arkansas and Indiana moved Tuesday to ban soft drinks and candiesprogramThis helps people with low income to pay the grocery store, becoming the first states to ask the Trump administration to let them withdraw these articles from the program that has long known as food coupons.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders said her state’s demand was to improve health of nearly 350,000 residents who participate in the additional nutritional aid program, or SNAP.
“Taxpayers are subsidizing bad health,” Sanders said at a press conference on a small rock with American agriculture Brooke Rollins. “We pay for this on the front and the rear.”
In Indianapolis, Governor Mike Braun was joined by the American secretary for health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mehmet Oz, who directs the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to announce radical changes to “put the accent on nutrition – not candy and carbonated drinks”.
The two states are part of several measures to remove the purchase of certain foods which can contribute to poor health through the federal programspent100 billion dollars to serve nearly 42 million Americans in 2024. Restriction was a key goal for Rollins and Kennedy and its “Make America Healthy Again” program.
“They changed our food system in this country so that it is a poison for us,” Kennedy said on Tuesday. “We cannot be a strong nation if we are not a strong people.”
The Arkansas plan, which would take effect in July 2026, would exclude soda, including soda without calories; Fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50% natural juice; “Unhealthy drinks;” Candy, including confectionery made with flour, like Kit Kat Bars; and artificially sweet candies. It would also allow participants to use advantages to buy hot chicken, which is excluded from the program now.
The change in Indiana would exclude candy and carbonated drinks from the list of eligible foods to be paid with benefits. Braun has also issued decrees under writing the work requirements for SNAP participants; reintegrate the rules for verifying income and assets; And launch an examination of “inappropriate payments and other administrative errors” to ensure that Snap achieves federal objectives.
Antihunger groups oppose Snap food restrictions, saying that research shows that program participants are no more likely than other Americans low -income to buy sugary drinks or snacks. And they say that the limitation of food choices undermines the autonomy and dignity of people who receive an advantage of around $ 187 per month – or about $ 6.20 per day.
“They just seem to target a specific population without having data that indicates that they are the problem or that it will improve,” said Gina Plata-Nino, assistant director of the Food Research and Action Center, a non-profit advocacy group.
Commercial groups representing drinks and candies criticized the effort, saying that they are closely targeting the SNAP participants.
The representatives of American Beverage accused state and federal officials of “choosing to be the food police rather than taking really significant measures to withdraw people with well -remunerated jobs”.
Chris Gindlesperger, spokesperson for the National Confoirders Association, described the “erroneous” approach.
“SNAP participants and non -snap participants understand that chocolate and candy are treats – not meal replacements,” said Gindlesperger.
The SNAP program is managed by the USDA and administered via individual states. It is authorized by the 2008 Federal Food and Nutrition Act, which indicates that the SNAP advantages can be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption”, with the exception of alcohol, tobacco and hot food. In general, services are available for households with gross income at 130% or less of the federal poverty level, or about $ 33,500 per year for three people.
The exclusion of food would force the congress to modify the law – or so that the States obtain derogations which would allow them to restrict purchases, said Katie Bergh, analyst of the main policies for the Center on Budget and Political Priorities, a non -partisan research group.
Over the past two decades, legislators from several states and the two political parties have proposed to stop instruction payments for sodas, fries, ice cream and “luxury meats” such as steak, as well as bottled water and decorated birthday cakes. Since 2004, there have been six previous requests for derogation, including four which have not been approved, one which has been withdrawn and an incomplete request.
By rejecting the exemptions, the USDA said that there was no clear standard to define certain foods as unhealthy and that the restrictions would be difficult to implement, complicated, costly and could not change the purchases of food from participants or improve health.
This story was initially presented on Fortune.com
