“Almost half of added sugars consumed by the U.S. population come from sweetened beverages,” said Angela Rachidi, research fellow in poverty studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, during testimony at the House committee hearing. “This is why it is so alarming that such a notable percentage of food/beverage purchases in American households are for sweetened beverages.”
She added, “Supporting such purchases, especially at levels suggested in the data, directly contradicts the stated goals of the program,” which say the money should be used for “improved levels of nutrition among low-income households.”
Yet some policy experts point out that banning purchases of sugary drinks and foods doesn’t really solve the problem. First, it’s not as if SNAP families rely on the food program for their entire grocery budget. As the program’s name suggests, food stamps provide supplementary aid. The average benefit is $1.39 per person per meal, or about $126 per month for the typical recipient, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Banning soda purchases would likely have no impact on what recipients buy at the grocery store, because they would likely shift their budgets and use their own money to buy soda, while relying on food-stamps for their other purchases. On top of that, the burden of restricting soda and candy purchases would fall on retailers, adding to their costs, The Hamilton Project director Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach told the committee.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member