https://www.wsaz.com/2025/02/20/trump-officials-want-ban-junk-food-snap-past-efforts-show-its-not-easy-do/?outputType=amp

" AP) - A push to ban sugary drinks, candy and more from the U.S. program that helps low-income families pay for nutritious food has been tried before but it may soon get a boost from new Trump administration officials."

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly confirmed health and human services secretary, and Brooke Rollins, the new agriculture secretary, have both signaled that they favor stripping such treats from SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program."

" The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps and in school lunches," Kennedy told Fox News host Laura Ingraham last week. "There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison."

" The program is run by the USDA, not HHS, and is administered through individual states. It is authorized by the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which says SNAP benefits can be used for "any food or food product intended for human consumption," except alcohol, tobacco and hot foods, including those prepared for immediate consumption.

Excluding any foods would require Congress to change the law or for states to get waivers that would let them restrict purchases, said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group.

Over the past 20 years, lawmakers in several states have proposed stopping SNAP from paying for bottled water, soda, chips, ice cream, decorated cakes and "luxury meats" like steak."

///

Good Trump! Eliminate a lot of diabetes and tell people if they want a sweet treat they can eat an apple! Probably save on Medicaid Ozempic payouts as well.

Good Trump!

Good trump!

Go back to the generic products!

When you are in line at the grocery store and someone in front of you has to make two separate transactions for the stuff in their cart, you know what's happening right?

This has been common sense reform and seen broad bipartisan support in the past.

Then it falls in bipartisan fashion when the lobbies checks clear

This is good stuff and makes perfect sense.

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

Good


Only issue would me being able to eat right now

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

---

The companies with their hands in the cookie jar that pay insane amounts of money to lobbyists that then turn around and provide gifts, bribes, and trips to corrupt elected officials in order to have them vote against the will of the people.

Oh snap

Yes! Every day of his presidency is better than the last.

The fungibility of $ makes it impossible for this type of program to fully stop the subsidization of unhealthy purchases… but it sure as sheet shouldn't allow for direct purchase of junk food.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

---

The convenience store lobbies I'm sure, and the politicians who are bought and paid for by them. Now that things are becoming more transparent, if this is debated as a stand-alone bill or whatever, show the contributions next to those opposed to it and shame the hell out of them.

Man, please make this happen. One of the most blatant 'no-brainers' in the whole welfare scam that WE pay for every damn day in every damn city.

Sorry, but the 'healthy kids' angle (to me) is secondary, and 'STUPID WASTE' is number one. Win win.

I was at Boyds in Texas City once and saw people paying for live crawfish with their Lonestar card. You shouldn't be able to buy crawfish with welfare.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

---

Coke, Pepsi, Frito-Lay and about every other junk food manufacturer. There is a lot of lobby money in junk food.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

---

Every single grocery store and every single junk food company.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

---

Conagra
Monsanto
Nestle
Frito-Lay / Pepsico
Coca-Cola
Eli Lilly (largest insulin producer)

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fungibility of $ makes it impossible for this type of program to fully stop the subsidization of unhealthy purchases…

---

Sure. But just stopping the nonsense that our kids get at school to eat for free would be HUGE. Fruit loops and powdered donuts with chocolate milk EVERY MORNING. RFK is right, we're subsidizing poison. And USDA is the swamp monster.

https://everytexan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/HW_2015_01_NutritionReport_web.pdf

doubledog said:

---

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Who would ever oppose this? Such an easy, common sense idea

---

Coke, Pepsi, Frito-Lay and about every other junk food manufacturer. There is a lot of lobby money in junk food.

---

BIG JUNK!

Where it gets a bit tricky is how to define some of these items. At some point, it boils down to defining which ingredients or levels of ingredients makes it an unhealthy snack. For instance, a basic potato chip like Lays has 3 ingredients - potato, salt, veg oil. Lots of items that aren't seen as junk food have those 3 ingredients. Or how much sugar makes something "candy"? A Snickers bar is easy, but are protein bars now candy?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

This has been common sense reform and seen broad bipartisan support in the past.

Then it falls in bipartisan fashion when the lobbies checks clear

---

Quote:

---

Well, God, if you're 5-foot-3 and you're 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Where it gets a bit tricky is how to define some of these items. At some point, it boils down to defining which ingredients or levels of ingredients makes it an unhealthy snack. For instance, a basic potato chip like Lays has 3 ingredients - potato, salt, veg oil. Lots of items that aren't seen as junk food have those 3 ingredients. Or how much sugar makes something "candy"? A Snickers bar is easy, but are protein bars now candy?

---

I don't have a problem with stove top Mac and cheese


As for protein bars, because I am so sick, I eat kind and Luna bars. They are pretty close to Easter candy in terms of ingredients

On one hand it makes perfect sense and should have been the policy all along.

On the other hand it will not change anyone's habits because cash is fungible. People will buy staples with public assistance and use the cash they save to buy the banned goods.

Coca-Cola Companies, Inc. will strongly object and hand over 100s of thousnds to congressmen to vote against.

When is he going to bring grocery prices down?

Tanya 93 said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Where it gets a bit tricky is how to define some of these items. At some point, it boils down to defining which ingredients or levels of ingredients makes it an unhealthy snack. For instance, a basic potato chip like Lays has 3 ingredients - potato, salt, veg oil. Lots of items that aren't seen as junk food have those 3 ingredients. Or how much sugar makes something "candy"? A Snickers bar is easy, but are protein bars now candy?

---

I don't have a problem with stove top Mac and cheese


As for protein bars, because I am so sick, I eat kind and Luna bars. They are pretty close to Easter candy in terms of ingredients

---

No they're not.

It's sad that we talk about this as if it's some kind of major breakthrough. Our govt is so bad that even something as common sense as this is a surprising change. The problem is that this is a perfect example of using the scalpel when a chainsaw is needed. Slash it all and then slash it some more. The whole thing should be eliminated. I like a lot of what trump is doing, but this sort of approach won't have long term effects. It will all be undone by the next admin. There's no way to fix all these programs that are rotten to the core. It's time to tear it all down and start over.

It should be very very limited to what they can buy. Anything in the center isles at the store can **** off - we have a major health crisis going on if anyone wants to buy cheetos or frosted flakes from the devils that make them then they can do it on their own dime.

The access should be for bland non processed starches, and the outer islands of the super market.

Guarantee this was promoted by JD Vance.

In his book, he talks about seeing this abuse while working in the grocery store as a teenager. Even as a young man he realized how badly it was being abused and how unfair it was that taxes were taken out of his paycheck and paying for this.

My mother was a city employee that ran a senior citizen's center in the 1970s. I remember as a kid going with her to distribute surplus food from the USDA to low income elderly and families with young children. The welfare food that they received at that time was flour, sugar, salt, pepper, butter, milk, eggs (just imagine!), Colby cheese, potatoes, sweet potatoes, turnips, spinach or collard greens, fresh fruit in season, dry rice, and dry beans. We lived in the Mesilla valley so if you add some locally grown green chile to that mix you had a pretty good pantry for subsistence. They even distributed free spiral bound cookbooks printed by the government printing office. Food staples rather than packaged food is a better way to feed the poor, at least those that have a stove and oven. /old Gen X story

Is Yoo-Hoo a soft drink?

We should be banning damn near every packaged and processed food. Humans can thrive on meat, vegetables, beans, lentils, and rice. It's literally how most of the world eats.

Idiotic statements like "I don't have a problem with Mac and cheese" are the root cause of much of this. I don't have a problem with it either if you pay for it yourself. If you are relying on your neighbor to pay for your food, you get staples.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Good Trump!

---

This!