Restricting SNAP benefits by banning items like soda and snacks might sound like a way to promote health, but evidence shows it could backfire. Texas Tech economist Alexander Salter argues these rules would create red tape, hurt small businesses, and fail to change what people eat. Here’s why.
The program covers over 650,000 food products, and new items hit shelves every year. Trying to sort “healthy” from “unhealthy” would be a nightmare for stores and the government. Small grocery stores, especially in rural areas, might struggle to track banned items, leading to higher costs or even dropping out of SNAP entirely.
SNAP benefits average $4.50 per person daily, so most families use their own money to cover extra groceries. If soda is banned from SNAP, families can still buy it with cash. Studies show this “substitution effect” means bans don’t reduce soda consumption—they just shuffle how it’s paid for.
SNAP exists because low-income families can’t afford enough food. Restricting purchases doesn’t fix that. Research shows incentives for fruits and vegetables work better than bans. For example, giving extra benefits for healthy foods increased veggie purchases by 30% in some trials.
SNAP users already face stigma at checkout counters. Adding more rules would embarrass families trying to feed their kids. Meanwhile, middle-class shoppers buying soda with cash face no restrictions. Critics argue this double standard unfairly targets the poor instead of addressing root issues like food deserts or low wages.
Free-market supporters like Salter stress that SNAP’s strength lies in letting families choose foods that fit their needs. Government overreach into grocery carts wastes time and money—and misses the chance to tackle real barriers to healthy eating, like high food prices or limited store access. Until those issues are fixed, policing snacks won’t make Americans healthier.
