Commentary
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are a government grant—just like any other grant. And like any other grant, it comes with rules. Or at least, it should.
Right now, 15 states are attempting to pass legislation banning soda, candy, and cookies from being purchased with SNAP. That’s right—there’s currently no restriction on using taxpayer-funded food assistance to buy junk food.
Some argue that banning these purchases under the program is controlling or tyrannical. That it takes away autonomy. But no one is saying we should control what people eat. We’re saying we should control how tax dollars are being spent. Those are two very different things.
SNAP is part of the Farm Bill. Its sole purpose is to provide nutrition to vulnerable Americans. Not autonomy. Not indulgence. Not pleasure. Nutrition.
We don’t allow people to buy alcohol with food stamps. Most people would agree that makes sense. Yet somehow, soda—which now leads to fatty liver disease in children, a condition that used to only exist in alcoholics—is considered acceptable? How does that make sense?
There’s no legitimate argument that soda, candy, or cookies are essential to health. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. There’s abundant research showing that sugar is deeply damaging to metabolic health. If it were up to me, I’d go even further and say that anything with more than four ingredients shouldn’t be eligible for purchase under SNAP. If our goal is truly nutrition—as the program claims—then we need to fund foods that actually contribute to that outcome. This would also force large corporations to make more nutritious products with fewer ingredients.
There are local food grants, environmental grants, housing grants—each with specific parameters designed to support a specific outcome. If I get a greenhouse grant, I can’t use it for a greenhouse I already started building. That doesn’t make sense to me, but it’s just how the grant works. I didn’t cry about it or call it tyrannical. Those were the rules of the grant.
So why is it considered tyrannical when we try to apply the same logic to SNAP?
I’ve been attacked on social media, accused of being controlling or elitist. People say it’s “tiny” or that I’m punching down. But I think it’s sad that we’ve reached a point in America where asking that a nutrition program actually fund nutrition is considered controversial. Imagine going back to George Washington and explaining that people were upset they couldn’t buy candy and soda with their food stamps. He’d be dumbfounded. This isn’t tyranny. This is clarity.
Yes, this would require a redesign. But I would love to redesign the entire system into something that actually supports vulnerable children and farmers. This is just one step in the right direction.
Oatman Flats Ranch in Arizona is a perfect example. They’re a regenerative grain operation doing extraordinary things—bringing back the small water cycle, integrating livestock, growing nutrient-dense food in a desert climate without synthetic inputs. They invested in a stone mill to grind their own flour, secured a grant to get their food into public schools, and were set to make a huge impact. Then the funding was pulled. They had already spent money they were told would be reimbursed. Meanwhile, soda companies are raking in millions in taxpayer dollars.
I understand what President Trump and Elon Musk are trying to do by cutting wasteful government spending, and I actually agree with much of it. But I don’t think investing in the health of our children is ever wasteful—so long as it’s truly about health, not pharmaceutical dependence or corporate profit.
I don’t believe in big government. But as long as we’re printing money we can’t even afford the interest on, it should at least go toward something worthwhile. Nourishment. Healing. True resilience.
SNAP is a nutrition grant. Let’s treat it like one.
This is one small step toward real nutrition. Let’s take it.
