Should SNAP allow people to purchase candy bars and soda pop ? Opinions ?

Happyflowerlady

Happyflowerlady

Vagabond Flowerchild
Location
Northern Alabama
This is something that has been talked about for some time, and now Health Secretary RFK Jr is trying to make it so that things like soda pop , candy, and other items that barely classify as food, and certainly not as healthy, can no longer be purchased with SNAP benefits.
SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and the idea was to help low income Americans be able to have better quality food and be healthier.

Right now, a major part of the SNAP funds are being spent on things like candy, cookies, soda pop, and other items that really have no nutritional value, and are in fact, very unhealthy.
Kennedy wants to stop this funding, but it is supported by the huge companies that produce these unhealthy foods, and the food industry is fighting back because they do not want to lose the millions of dollars they get from SNAP purchases of snack foods and beverages.

As a person who relies on SNAP benefits for groceries, I completely agree with this, and i would like to see it changed so that these non-healthy foods are off the list of eligible items, and more health foods are allowed on the program.
Right now, I can buy a soda pop, but not a healthy protein drink. I can buy candy bars, but not fiber bars or protein bars.
Even crazier, I can buy a cold rotisserie chicken with EBT, but not a hot one……… tell me why that makes sense ?

People against changing the rules are saying that a person should be able to use their SNAP benefits to buy whatever food items they want to buy, healthy or not, and it is discrimination to not allow pop and candy bars in the program.
If that is the case, then why weren’t these same people complaining that you can only buy a cold chicken and not a hot one ? Obviously, it is not the person’s health they care about, or the discrimination, it is the profit they make from selling the food.
 

This is what I found online:

Here's what the research shows​
  • Overall spending: SNAP households spend the largest portion of their food dollars on basic items like meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread.
  • Sugary drinks: SNAP households spend about 5% of their grocery budget on sugary beverages, which is slightly higher than non-SNAP households, according to The New York Times.
  • Candy: Candy accounts for a very small portion of SNAP purchases, about 2 cents of every dollar.
  • Similar spending patterns: In general, SNAP participants and other households have similar food purchasing patterns.
My opinion is that nobody should be buying sugary drinks. Also breakfast cereal is horrible sugary non-nutrition (IMO), also most of the 'healthy food bars' are basically candy bars. Cake, ice cream, various types of chips -- all poor choices.

So, it seems silly to just pick on soda pop (especially if it is the diet type) and candy bars (many times in my life my 'meal' was a Snickers bar out of a machine at work, I have a strong favorable opinion of Snickers).

I guess SNAP could be restricted to a list of healthy foods (like fruit, veggies, rice, beans, lentils, meat, milk products, soy products, etc.) but I'd think it might be a big hassle, for the small portion of SNAP used for unhealthy choices I would rather support that than get held in the grocery checkout line while someone has to remove a bunch of non-qualifying items.
 
I’m ok with SNAP benefits being used for any form of food, groceries, snacks, prepared food, fast food, etc…as long as people qualify for the program.

The days of surviving on oatmeal and beans are over.

If a person needs/wants to use SNAP benefits to buy their kid a birthday cake or a pizza to make things feel ‘normal’ I’m ok with that.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I’m ok with SNAP benefits being used for any form of food, groceries, snacks, prepared food, fast food, etc…as long as people qualify for the program.

The days of surviving on oatmeal and beans are over.

If a person needs/wants to use SNAP benefits to buy their kid a birthday cake or a pizza to make things feel ‘normal’ I’m ok with that.
Click to expand...
Agreed, or buy the ingredients and bake the cake.
 
I'm of the opinion that the loss of freedom of choice by any group of people in a free and democratic country due to Government intervention is more dangerous than whether a parent buys themselves or their kid a sugary drink or a chocolate bar or whatever as a treat.
 
Being poor in America is definitely a patchwork or hodgepodge of programs and benefits designed to help people with low or no income.

None of it is one size fits all, some people don’t have access to kitchen facilities or to a full service grocery store.

Sadly, some folks are also dealing with a good deal of chaos in their lives that hinder them from making the best choices.

IMO if people qualify for a program the benefits should be given freely with an open hand and if the eligibility requirements need to be changed we should do that and not micromanage the recipients.
 
Scroll to about 3.15, wait. This is what welfare fraud costs us taxpayers. This gem was buying soda at Walmart, emptying the cans, not drinking the soda, saving the cans to sell for metal scrap.

 
Last edited:
Jules said:
I agree with your explanation. To me the name says it all. I don’t live in the US, so my thoughts don’t matter.
Click to expand...
I'm the same, no dog in this fight... but I agree with HFL... we don't have this type of thing here.. no food stamps etc.... but I tend to agree given HFL's explanation of that system
 
This is one of the few times the government has the right to control your food choices. If they decide to give you free benefits to buy food, then they should have the right to put restrictions on it.

Not the same as telling you what is healthy or correct to buy and consume with your own money.

It's their buck and if they want to control rules, qualifications, and products, then that's they way it is. If people think that's unfair then they can find their own way to purchase food.

I don't view this as government control. If people can't afford food, then they should be grateful for whatever they get that helps.

As the saying goes, "beggars can't be choosers".
 
It depends upon how far they go. Many recipients live in “food deserts” where they shop at gas stations and dollar stores. If you are poor and do not have a car you might have no good choices. Now it just so happens that I shop fairly frequently at dollar tree. I have never spotted any produce, rarely bread. Vast majority of selections are ultra processed. I have money and a car…so choices.
 
They already have a lot of controls on what people can and can’t buy with EBT, which is why you can buy a cold rotisserie chicken, but not a hot one. I do not see any reason why a person should not be able to have their food hot, and it is still coming from a grocery store and not eating out at a restaurant.
The minute the grocery store puts that label that it is “cold”, the chicken is fine to buy, and some stores will do that for you if there is no cold rotisserie chicken available.
So, as i see it, the idea is not to make controls, but to modify what already is and is not allowed, to include more of the healthy foods and less of what we call “junk food“.
I do not know what they will do about the sugar-free soda, or all of the sparkling water products, and I am curious to find out.

Here is what Sec. Kennedy said about it, and I pretty much agree with this.

“The U.S. Taxpayer should NOT be paying to feed the poorest kids in the country food that will give them diabetes."

"We are spending $405 MILLION a day on SNAP.. 10% is going to sugary drinks. If you add candies to that, it's about 13 to 17%'s."

"We all believe in free choice. We live in a democracy. People can make their own choice about what they are going to buy and what they are not going to buy. If you want to buy a sugary soda, you should be able to do that, but the U.S. Taxpayer should not pay for it.”
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top