Idaho is in uproar over food stamps, as the state wants to prohibit people from using their SNAP benefits to buy candy and soda. Yes, as you heard it. And this isn’t just a local issue; it’s part of a national movement that has gained traction since Trump’s return to the White House.
SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is a federal program that helps low-income families buy food.
Essentially, they issue them an EBT card that functions as a debit card, and they receive funds each month to replenish the pantry. In Idaho, for example, over 130,000 people rely on this. Consider: if the rules changed, it would affect a large number of people, approximately 100,000.
What can be purchased with SNAP benefits could be reduced
Now, the state wants to be the first to ban “junk food.” This week, the local House of Representatives approved Bill 109 with 38 votes in favor and 32 against. What’s the curious thing? It was not a party issue; 23 Republicans and all Democrats voted no.
That is, even on the same side, there is disagreement. The plan is to ask the federal government for permission to remove candy and soda from the list of items eligible for SNAP benefits.
But here’s the thing: what constitutes “sweet”? Depending on the project, anything containing sugar, honey, or sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruits, nuts, and so on, in bar, chunk, or gummy form.
Ah, but if it contains more than 10% flour or requires refrigeration, it is saved. I mean, a packaged cupcake could get in, but a Hershey’s bar couldn’t. Ridiculous? A bit.
Supporters of the bill, such as Rep. Jordan Redman, claim it is intended to promote healthier eating. “It’s a step toward better nutrition,” says the man. Sounds good, doesn’t it? However, others do not buy the story.
According to Washington College expert Valerie Imbruce, sugar can be found in a variety of products, including yogurt with 20 grams per container, pasta sauces, and granola bars. Why limit the demonization to chocolates and soft drinks?
Another issue is that Idaho is filled with rural areas where finding fresh fruits and vegetables is as difficult as finding a unicorn. Many people rely on small stores or gas stations, where the most “nutritious” item is some dusty Cheetos.
Are you truly helping them if you take away their ability to purchase, say, a Snickers with all of its benefits? Or you simply complicate their lives.
The Healthy SNAP Act: the national plan and the role of the federal government
And this isn’t just an Idaho issue. In Washington, Republican Josh Brecheen introduced the Healthy SNAP Act, which would prohibit purchasing soft drinks, ice cream, candy, and desserts prepared with benefits.
His reason was simple: “If you want to treat yourself, pay for it; taxpayers should not finance your bad decisions.” Does this make sense? Some say yes, but others see it as a disguised attack.
Opponents of the project in Idaho, including moderate Democrats and Republicans, claim it is pure paternalism. “Since when does the government know better than you what to put on your plate?” they’re asking.
They also argue that the real issue is a lack of access to fresh food and nutritional education, rather than the candy. In other words, instead of eliminating options, why not expand access to farmers markets or offer healthy cooking classes?
Will banning specific products help? Imbruce is skeptical: “People will continue to buy sugar, just in other formats.” And he’s correct: if you don’t address the root cause (such as the food industry, which adds sugar to everything), this could be a pointless band-aid.
Furthermore, isn’t it hypocritical to criticize the poor for purchasing Coca-Cola while large corporations continue to sell ultra-processed products with no restrictions?
