With 42.8 million Americans, or about over 12.6% of the US population relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) each month, RFK Jr.’s push to nix soda and candy from benefits has sparked heated debate. For context, SNAP already forbids alcohol, tobacco, hot foods, vitamins and supplements, live animals, and non-food items like pet food, soap and paper products.
This isn’t a new fight. In 1964, as the Food Stamp Act took shape under President Lyndon Johnson, House members tried to nix soft drinks and luxury foods like steak, arguing benefits should prioritize nutrition. Congress and the USDA have rejected similar bans ever since, citing logistical nightmares and personal freedom. Defining “soda” or “candy” precisely is a persistent snag. Does flavored water count? Granola bars with sugar? The MAHA movement must untangle this snarl if they hope to succeed where others have failed.
In February, Rep. Josh Breechan (R-OK) sponsored the Healthy SNAP Act, aiming to restrict funding for “junk food” like soda and candy. Breechan said, “If someone wants to buy junk food on their own dime, that’s up to them. But what we’re saying is, ‘Don’t ask the taxpayer to pay for it and then also expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the resulting health consequences.’”
So, will it pass? GovTrack.us estimates are grim, with a 1% chance of getting past committee and a 0% chance of enactment... Ouch. But, those stats don’t account for RFK Jr.’s MAHA momentum. Personally I'm a bit more bullish, pegging the odds at about 1 in 5.
Recent posts on X suggest that soda giants like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are paying influencers up to $1,000 per post to fight the ban. If true, it’s a hell of a risky play. In the social media age, controlling the narrative is tricky, and this could backfire big time, heaping more momentum on the initiative.