Getting Serious About Obesity

SNAP is authorized through the farm bill, usually every five years. This is the most likely time for any significant changes to be made to the program. While deliberating the 2008 farm bill, members of Congress considered a proposal to ban the purchase of soda and other soft drinks with SNAP benefits. The proposal was ultimately rejected, but those who supported a ban pledged to try again during the next reauthorization.¹ Such restrictions are only one battle that defenders of SNAP will have to fight. There will also be fierce political pressure to reduce benefit levels in order to protect funding for farm programs.

SNAP doesn’t have restrictions on food purchases, with the exception of prepared foods. Also banned are alcohol and cigarettes. What has led some legislators to consider soft drinks on a par with alcohol and cigarettes is an obesity epidemic that now claims more than a third of U.S. adults and 17 percent of children.² U.S. healthcare costs related to obesity are estimated to be $147 billion per year,³ and there is no disagreement among public health specialists that overconsumption of soft drinks is a factor in soaring obesity rates.⁴

The farm bill is not the only time the subject of banning the purchase of soft drinks has arisen. States and municipalities that administer SNAP can seek a waiver from USDA to operate outside federally mandated rules. In 2010, New York City asked USDA for a waiver to ban purchases of soft drinks with SNAP benefits for two years in order to study the effects. As early as 2004, Minnesota sought a similar waiver to restrict purchase of soft drinks and other junk foods with food stamp benefits.⁵ In both cases, USDA rejected the waiver request.

The New York and Minnesota decisions were the right ones. When the farm bill is reauthorized, Congress should resist public pressure to limit choices in SNAP. SNAP participants are an easy group to single out, because government benefits help them buy food, but changing SNAP rules is an ill-targeted way to try to reduce obesity. The obesity epidemic affects all income groups. In the last 20 years, obesity rates have risen among all demographic groups—except SNAP/food stamp recipients.⁶

Singling out SNAP participants for restrictions on purchases implies that SNAP contributes to obesity, but there is no such causal relationship. It’s a logical leap to assume that SNAP contributes to obesity simply because many low-income households participate—on the contrary, research suggests that female SNAP participants have lower obesity rates than women who are eligible for SNAP but do not participate.⁷ SNAP may in fact help fight obesity in low-income households.

Daily Calories from Various Beverages

We know that not all neighborhoods contain equally accessible amounts of healthy foods. We know that in low-income households, the quality of food too often must be sacrificed for quantity. Professor Christine Olson of Cornell University has spent much of her career studying food insecure families. She reports, “I can’t tell you how many women say, ‘I buy a 2-liter bottle of sugared soda for 99 cents, and that’s what I consume for the day when things really get tight.’”⁸ Angela Sutton, a volunteer for Witnesses to Hunger, puts her own situation in simple, stark terms: “I’m fat so I can make sure my kids have healthy foods.”⁹

The nation is rightfully concerned about obesity, especially childhood obesity. Presently, children ages 2 to 5—from all income groups—get most of their beverage calories from calorically sweetened beverages (CSBs), as do all other age groups.¹⁰ (See Figure 2.5) Soda and other CSBs are the most popular beverages in all age groups, and Americans from all walks of life drink soda and other CSBs. They are considered normal beverage selections. Singling out SNAP participants as the only people soda is “bad” for would stigmatize them without confronting the nation’s obesity epidemic. It could add to the number of eligible households who choose not to participate in SNAP—ironic since for years, USDA has worked to boost participation and reduce the stigma associated with food stamps/SNAP.

The soft drink industry spends more than a billion dollars a year marketing its products to Americans—with much of the advertising aimed at children.¹¹ The Federal Trade Commission said in a 2008 report to Congress that nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the money spent marketing foods to children is used to sell soft drinks.¹² So far, Congress has allowed the soft drink industry to regulate itself. The industry has responded to public pressure by removing soda from vending machines in schools, but other CSBs, such as Gatorade and similar sports drinks, continue to be sold.

Researchers at Yale’s Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity estimate that a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would generate $79 billion in revenue between 2010 and 2015. It would also reduce soda consumption by about 24 percent and individuals’ calorie consumption from sugar-sweetened beverages by an average of 150-200 calories per day.¹³

A tax on soft drink purchases would reflect the scope of the obesity epidemic—all who choose to consume soft drinks would help pay. Given the large amounts of soft drinks consumed in this country, the tax would also raise significant resources to aid in a national anti-obesity campaign.

Issues