By BRIANNE HEIDBREDER
Associate Professor of Political Science
Kansas State University.
This legislative session, Kansas legislators are considering whether to restrict what low-income households can buy with their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Specifically, Senate Bill 79 requests authorization from the federal government to prohibit the use of those funds to buy candy and soda.
Even if the bill passes, the federal government will still have the final say on granting a waiver. However, this issue represents a broader debate in U.S. politics about the proper purpose and scope of government involvement in our day-to-day lives.
In other words, is this something that the Kansas Legislature should do, or is the government meddling too much in people's private decisions?
Proponents of these restrictions contend that excluding sugar-filled beverages and snacks aligns with the SNAP program's initial objective of assisting low-income families in purchasing nutritious food. They argue that limiting unhealthy purchases would help ensure those taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
They also suggest that these restrictions could even lead to lower healthcare costs down the line.
In contrast, critics argue that this kind of policy unfairly targets low-income people. Restricting their purchases implies they can’t or shouldn’t make their own food choices. SNAP recipients already face the stigma of using government assistance. Under these rules, they might face even more frustration when they face growing restrictions on what they can and cannot buy.
Furthermore, there isn’t universal consensus on what counts as “unhealthy.” Many processed foods have sugar in them, but they’re also a staple for families who don’t have easy access to fresh produce.
Enforcing these rules would also be complicated and not just for government agencies. Stores would have to keep track of which products are allowed, and benefit recipients would need to be informed of this change, which could cause confusion at the checkout.
The question is whether the potential health benefits are worth the extra hassle.
This is not the first time a state has tried to restrict SNAP purchases. However, past efforts to impose SNAP purchasing limits have been stopped by strong lobbying efforts from the beverage
and food retail sectors, bureaucratic resistance within the USDA and congressional agricultural committees, and hesitance from those who prioritize the program’s role in supporting low-income households without added burden or stigma.
It is also important to note that research on whether these types of disincentives actually change purchase and consumption behavior show mixed results.
However, there’s a growing push for policies that limit government aid and what people can do with it. In fact, some wonder if policies like this will see new life under Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s call to “Make America Healthy Again.”
Kansas lawmakers face a choice. While encouraging healthier eating and making better use of public funds sounds good in theory, the practical and ethical issues can’t be ignored. In the end, Kansas must ask: Will restricting SNAP purchases help, or is it just more government interference?
The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media. The editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.