Being on food stamps is already tough. California shouldn’t add a junk food ban | Opinion
The Trump administration wants to Make America Healthy Again and to help make that happen, it’s empowering states to declare junk food like candy and soda off-limits to SNAP beneficiaries. (They can, of course, still use their own money to buy whatever they like.)
So far, six states — Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas and Indiana — have been granted two-year Food Restriction Waivers by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. More states are expected to follow. (A spokesperson with California’s Department of Social Services said to check back to find out whether our state will participate.)
The waiver program is just one of the new restrictions the Trump administration is imposing on SNAP recipients. There are now more stringent work requirements for enrollees — for example, adults 55 through 64 must now work at least 20 hours per week to qualify — and funding for the program has been reduced.
Bans on junk food may be well-intentioned, but targeting low-income recipients by bullying them into making healthy choices, rather than offering them incentives for doing so, comes across as punishment for being poor.
Also, it’s confusing.
Iowa, for example, bans all taxable food items. That means SNAP can still be used to buy ice cream and potato chips, but not granola bars, trail mix or breath mints. Can you imagine the scenes in the checkout lines?
And can we please talk about the hypocrisy here?
The Trump administration does not trust SNAP recipients to make good dietary choices, yet it is perfectly OK with allowing families to decide whether children should be vaccinated against potentially deadly communicable diseases.
‘Pink Starbursts and Tootsie Rolls’
This might be easier to swallow if the chief executive made the slightest effort to lead by example.
Instead, the president flaunts his fondness for hamburgers, French fries, Diet Coke and pink Starbursts. His binges have been well-documented in photos and videos, including a recording of a “presser” conducted during a take-your-child-to-work day, where kids got to pepper White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt with questions.
One little girl asked how much candy the president eats.
“A good amount, a good amount of candy, yes,” Leavitt responded. “He likes pink Starbursts and Tootsie Rolls.”
Think of the message that sends to SNAP families: “Starbursts for me, but not for thee.”
Not with my money, you don’t!
In his defense, Donald Trump isn’t relying on taxpayers to support his junk food habit, since presidents are required to pay for their own groceries.
Who pays is a big deal: Supporters of the waivers argue that taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for foods that can lead to a host of medical problems, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart problems, certain cancers and tooth decay.
When she introduced the waiver program, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pointed out that SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and there is nothing nutritious about junk food.
Never mind that for years, taxpayers have been paying billions of dollars to subsidize corn, which is used in the production of high-fructose corn syrup — one of the leading culprits in our country’s obesity epidemic.
Those subsidies dramatically reduce the cost of the syrup, making it considerably less expensive than sugar. And since high-fructose corn syrup is a common ingredient in soft drinks, as well as treats like candy and cookies, that means taxpayers are indirectly supporting the junk food industry.
Remove the subsidies and the price of corn syrup will increase, as will the cost of sodas and other sugary foods.
That would be a disincentive for all consumers, not just SNAP recipients — a big win for the MAHA movement. After all, if junk food truly is “poisoning” us, as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. warns, why target only one segment of the population? Maybe we all need a little financial nudge to convince us to consider healthier alternatives.
What about a soda tax?
Reducing subsidies isn’t the only option. Taxing junk food — especially soda, since that seems to be the biggest concern — would work, just as it has for cigarettes.
Sure, it would be a heavy lift. For years, former California state Sen. Bill Monning tried (unsuccessfully) to pass a soda tax but was thwarted by the soft drink industry which spent nearly $12 million lobbying against the tax over a two-year period, according to a 2019 article on the California HealthLine website.
But taxing soft drinks remains legally possible, at least in some areas. Several cities have passed soda taxes, including Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco.
If he really cared about our health, President Trump could sign one of those executive orders he loves so much. Maybe the soda tax revenue could restore some of those health benefits eviscerated by the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Never going to happen? You’re probably right.
Still, the waiver program is a cringe-inducing PR move that assumes low-income families are incapable of making intelligent decisions.
California doesn’t need to be a nanny state to its SNAP recipients. Let’s pass on the waiver.
This story was originally published July 16, 2025 at 12:48 PM with the headline "Being on food stamps is already tough. California shouldn’t add a junk food ban | Opinion."
