This op-ed was written by Linn-Benton Community College’s Civil Discourse Program. To learn more about the program, you can visit its website here and its guidebook here.
One of the early targets of the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign has been the United States’ SNAP benefits program, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides financial assistance for buying food for low- and no-income people. Per the U.S. Department of Agriculture, roughly 12.6% of the U.S. population received monthly SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2023 – around 42.1 million individuals.
New Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly argued that SNAP should exclude soda and “processed foods” from being eligible to purchase with the program’s benefits, and USDA head Brooke Rollins has voiced support.
The movement is gaining traction. Idaho’s House Bill 109, signed by Gov. Brad Little on April 15, requires the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to request the federal government to exclude candy and soda from SNAP eligibility in the state.
“We need to take better care of ourselves and each other,” said Little, citing Kennedy, via the Idaho Capital Sun. “He said it is an act of patriotism, and the future of our nation depends on it.”
Would such a ban be the right move for Oregon?
YES
By Travis Overvig, Garrett Merchant, and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program
SNAP was designed to do two things: reduce hunger and improve public health. When over 20% of benefits are spent on junk food, including soda, candy, salty snacks, and desserts, it’s time to ask a hard question: Are we reducing hunger or silently funding a health crisis?
I, Travis, grew up in poverty and later raised my own children in a food desert in Siletz, Oregon. Our only store in town had limited produce and meat, while the shelves overflowed with soda and processed snacks. The nearest full grocery store was nearly a 30-minute drive away, hard to make when your gas tank is empty and your work shift ends after dark.
I’ve seen how junk food becomes the fallback, not by choice, but by circumstance. And that’s exactly why SNAP must do better, not by turning its back on families, but by lifting them toward better health.
Let’s be honest: no other government program spends billions subsidizing illness. In 2023 alone, federal spending on SNAP reached $112.8 billion, an enormous increase from just a few years earlier. In 2023, the program served about 12.6% of the U.S. population each month. That scale is staggering, and it reflects a mix of expanded benefits during the pandemic, inflation-driven cost increases, and long-term growth in participation.
According to the USDA’s own research, a significant portion of SNAP purchases are spent on less nutritious items like sugar-sweetened beverages, salty snacks, and desserts. These aren’t fringe purchases – they’re a regular part of the SNAP shopping cart.
That means billions of taxpayer dollars are going toward foods that actively fuel chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and heart conditions, health issues that hit low-income communities hardest. SNAP was meant to fight hunger and support health, not silently bankroll a public health crisis.
This isn’t about judgment or control. It’s about responsibility. SNAP already excludes alcohol and tobacco. Why? Because taxpayer dollars shouldn’t fund products proven to cause harm. Soda and candy offer no nutritional value and actively worsen public health. That’s not dignity; that’s a disservice.
Individuals can still buy sugary drinks and other junk food with their own money. SNAP, however, should be a springboard toward better health, not a trapdoor into chronic disease.
And change is possible. If SNAP benefits were restructured to exclude junk food, small markets in rural towns would follow the demand and stock healthier options. Better policy leads to better shelves, better health, and better futures.
If we truly care about the well-being of low-income families, we should stop pretending that nutritional neglect is compassion. It’s not. It’s avoidance. Reforming SNAP to ban soda and junk food isn’t cruel, it’s courageous. It means we believe people deserve better than cheap sugar and empty calories. It means we’re serious about turning SNAP into a tool for empowerment, not just survival.
It should be Oregon, not Idaho, leading the way, because every dollar SNAP spends should be a down payment on health, not hardship.
NO
By Alleyah Forrister, Krystal Overvig, and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program
There’s a growing push to ban soda and processed snacks from SNAP, often framed as a well-meaning public health effort. But beneath the surface, this conversation isn’t about nutrition. It’s about control.
Let’s call it what it is: a policy of punishment, not progress. And if we’re honest, it punishes people for one thing, being poor.
I, Krystal, am a full-time working mom of four, a college student, and someone who’s depended on SNAP throughout most of my childhood and adult life. It’s not something I’m proud of, but it’s something I’m deeply grateful for. Like millions of others, I’ve fought to stretch every penny, balance work and parenting, and feed my family during times when it felt like the world was caving in. We mapped out every meal, calculated every can, and still had to make impossible choices.
When you’re standing in line at a discount store trying to make $100 last a week, the last thing you need is someone judging what’s in your cart. And yet, that’s exactly what these proposed SNAP restrictions do. They send the message that people living in poverty can’t be trusted to make their own choices.
This kind of policy brings up serious concerns about fairness and autonomy. Many people who use SNAP maintain healthy diets, occasionally enjoying treats like anyone else. It’s unfair to assume that low-income individuals do not know how to make nutritional decisions or that they deserve less autonomy over their food choices. Everyone, regardless of income, should be allowed a degree of flexibility and enjoyment in their diet.
And let’s be clear, SNAP recipients aren’t loading up their carts with soda and candy. A comprehensive 2016 study by the USDA found that SNAP and non-SNAP households have nearly identical food purchasing habits. Sweetened beverages made up 9.25% of expenditures in SNAP households and 7.1% in non-SNAP households, a marginal difference of just over 2%. Both groups had nearly the same top 10 purchases: milk, ground beef, bread, and eggs.
It’s also important to recognize the restrictions SNAP users already face. You can’t buy hot foods with SNAP, even from grocery stores. That means no fast food, no warm meals like rotisserie chicken, and no hot deli items. These existing limitations already make it harder to access convenient or nutritious foods on a tight schedule or with limited cooking access.
It’s not about recklessness. It’s about access, affordability, and survival.
Rather than implementing more restrictions, there are more effective ways to promote healthy eating. Many farmers’ markets in Oregon offer a SNAP matching program; individuals who spend SNAP dollars at the market receive additional funds to use on fresh produce. Initiatives like these promote healthy eating while uplifting the community.
We all want to support healthier lifestyles, but banning access to sugary foods for SNAP users isn’t the way to do it. There are more thoughtful, inclusive, and effective ways to encourage good nutrition without stripping away the already limited choices available to those in need.
