Healthy or Heartless: Food Stamp Reform in the United States

Blog Post | 113 KY. L. J. ONLINE | March 13, 2025

Healthy or Heartless: Food Stamp Reform in the United States

By: Matthew Chaney, Staff Editor, Vol. 113 

Nearly two years ago, Oliver Anthony made waves throughout society in a song critiquing the welfare system.[1] Today, Anthony’s critiques have entered mainstream politics. During the current legislative session, a representative in Kentucky’s General Assembly proposed to limit junk food purchases for individuals using Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.[2] SNAP benefits—more commonly known as food stamps—help impoverished families afford “nutritious food essential to health and well–being.”[3] Kentucky, however, is not the only state interested in limiting the purchase of innutritious grocery items. Representatives from Oklahoma and Idaho, as well as the Governor of Arkansas, have advocated for curbing the scope of permissible foods allowed under SNAP.[4]

Proponents of SNAP reform claim that it is unfair for taxpayers to fund poor dietary choices which, in turn, require taxpayers to pay for the associated healthcare issues.[5] Moreover, it appears that this line of thought stems from the growing Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement advanced by the newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.[6]

The sentiment behind SNAP reform is noble. Recent reports indicate that around forty percent of Americans are obese.[7] This is concerning considering obesity is often a precursor for other chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.[8] In terms of economic ramifications, obesity treatment accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars.[9] Clearly, focusing on these concerns are essential, yet the effects of implementing this change will likely be detrimental.

First and foremost, the vast number of foods available in the market would make the administration of this change difficult.[10] For reference, around 20,000 items are introduced annually alongside the 650,000 products already on the market.[11] Another barrier for SNAP reform resides in the difficulty in categorizing which foods are healthy and which are not.[12] Despite this critique, it is imperative to note that the foods that were under attack in Kentucky were sodas, prepared deserts, and energy drinks.[13] Undoubtedly, these are commonly known as innutritious food options thus the foreseeable administration costs would be limited, so these arguments seem to fail in the context of Kentucky’s proposed law.

While these administrative arguments carry some weight, the most compelling arguments against SNAP restrictions are those that focus on individual autonomy and food insecurity. Advocates for food security have found that recipients of SNAP are not more likely to purchase unhealthy foods than other low-income citizens.[14] Therefore, promulgating legislation on their shopping habits only leads to increased stigmatization of recipients.[15]

Food insecurity, on the other hand, is defined as “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods . . . .”[16] Alarmingly, in recent years, the number of individuals facing food insecurity raised from seventeen million to eighteen million in the United States.[17] Crucially, research indicates the financial restrictions placed on individuals suffering from food insecurity can contribute to innutritious diets due to the higher costs of healthier foods.[18] Thus, it becomes readily apparent that restricting the use of SNAP benefits could exacerbate the problem legislatures across the nation are seeking to address.

Regardless of the virtues of “healthy” SNAP reform, research indicates that these changes may cause more harm than good.[19] Therefore, it is haphazard to make sweeping changes to the program in the way envisioned by policymakers in the country thus far. Interestingly, however, researchers have posited hope in other alternatives. Some experts support a transition to “cash transfers” as many nations have found these programs more successful in promoting dietary health.[20] Importantly, this type of program can still be contingent if policymakers are interested in advancing other social policies as well.[21] By being able to have flexibilities in their finances, individuals are able to make better choices based on their unique situations.[22] By permitting this freedom, the government would avoid abridging the individual autonomy of individuals via restrictive policies while also accomplishing their policy goal: making America healthier.

In sum, while it is honorable that policymakers are focused on improving the health of our citizenry, the means in which they intend to achieve their ends is flawed. Individuals facing food insecurity are struggling immensely to ensure their basic nutritional needs are met, and it is haphazard to worsen their predicament.

[1] See Jay Caspian Kang, A Close Listen to “Rich Men North of Richmond”, New Yorker (Aug. 15, 2023), https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-close-listen-to-rich-men-north-of-richmond.

[2] Jessica Umbro, Kentucky Bill Would Restrict Select ‘Junk Food’ From SNAP Benefits, WKYT (Feb. 12, 2025, 6:29 PM), https://www.wkyt.com/2025/02/12/kentucky-bill-would-restrict-select-junk-food-snap-benefits/.

[3] 7 Ky. Admin. Regs. 271.1 (2025); Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), U.S. Dep’t Agric., https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program (last visited Feb. 20, 2025.

[4] Aliss Higham, States Target Use of SNAP Benefits for Junk Food, Newsweek (Feb. 23, 2025, 4:00 AM), https://www.newsweek.com/states-target-use-snap-benefits-junk-food-2032687.

[5] Id.

[6] See Make America Healthy Again, https://www.maha.vote/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).

[7] Adult Obesity Facts, Ctr. Disease Control & Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult-obesity-facts/index.html (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Lara Salahi, Food Fight: The Case for and Against Nutrition–Based SNAP Restrictions, Ass’n Health Care Journalist (Oct. 10, 2024), https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2024/10/food-fight-the-case-for-and-against-nutrition-based-snap-restrictions/.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.; see also JoNel Aleccia, Trump Officials Want to Ban Junk Food from SNAP but Past Efforts Show It’s Not Easy, PBS News (Feb. 19, 2025, 2:51 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/trump-officials-want-to-ban-junk-food-from-snap-but-past-efforts-show-its-not-easy (noting that items such as Kit Kats and certain juices would not be limited under legislation proposed in states like Kansas).

[13] Umbro, supra note 2.

[14] Aleccia, supra note 12.

[15] See id.

[16] Food Security in the U.S.– Measurement, U.S. Dep’t Agric., (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement.

[17] Food Security in the U.S.– Key Statistics & Graphics, U.S. Dep’t Agric., (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.

[18] Laura A van der Velde, Femke MP Zitman, Joreintje D Mackenbach, Mattijs E Numans & Jessica C Kiefte–de Jong, The Interplay Between Fast–Food Outlet Exposure, Household Food Insecurity and Diet Quality in Disadvantaged Districts, 25 Pub. Health Nutrition 105, 106 (2022).

[19] See id.

[20] Benjamin W. Chrisinger, Keeping SNAP in Line with Global Evidence on Food Security, 391 New Eng. J. Med. 873, 874 (2024).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.