A marriage of convenience

Flanked by two of her children, Katie Lewis guided her large shopping cart down the aisle in Bedford, Va.’s, Walmart Supercenter. A conglomeration of chips and snacks lined one side of the walkway, rack upon rack of sodas towered on the other. Customers brushed by the group as Lewis reminded her two shoppers-in-training to stick close to her cart. Her daughter scampered away for a moment and returned holding a dead cricket. Lewis gave me a look that said: Grocery shopping is always an adventure.

There were two large packs of canned tuna in Lewis’ cart. A box of diced onions. A Styrofoam carton of 18 eggs. On the sweeter side, she’d selected a box of mini Dr. Pepper cans, sour fruit candy, and some cream-filled packaged cakes. Together, it’s what she calls the “basics.” Lewis planned to purchase the foodstuffs with her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dollars, formerly known as food stamps. Every month, she receives about $740 through the program for her family of four. But things still get tight at the end of the month, she told me.

“As a single parent, with a single job, it’s rough,” Lewis said. “Everything’s sky high.”

Lewis is one of roughly 42 million Americans who receive SNAP benefits. While the program is entirely federally funded, individual states manage its day-to-day workings. In most states, including Virginia, SNAP participants are free to purchase almost any grocery store food item with their benefits. But that’s starting to change.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, 13 states have requested, and, for the first time, 12 of them have received federal approval to remove soda, candy, or other sugary foods from the list of eligible items. Proponents of the restrictions point out that American taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize items they contend are at cross-purposes with SNAP’s stated purpose: to “increase food security and ensure low-income households have access to nutritious food.” Nutritious being the key word, they argue.

Their reform efforts are meeting fierce opposition. Major food and beverage companies, along with anti-hunger advocacy groups, are fighting tooth and nail against efforts to take junk food off the program, using similar talking points to argue that restrictions will hurt program recipients and could end up shrinking SNAP. But reform proponents point to an obvious conflict of interest: Will reform efforts actually hurt the hungry—or opponents’ bottom line?

HAIR-RAISING IMAGES of wailing babies, little more than skin and bones, admitted to the hospital due to severe malnutrition, filled American TV screens on May 21, 1968. That evening, CBS News aired “Hunger in America,” an hourlong special report that depicted in graphic detail regions of the country where ordinary men and women struggled to feed themselves and their children.

The documentary succeeded in drawing the public’s—and the future president’s—attention to the lingering problem of hunger and malnutrition in the United States. President Richard Nixon urged Congress to address the “embarrassing and intolerable” problem of malnutrition and convened the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health in December 1969. The gathering produced dozens of recommendations and, most significantly, fueled the expansion of the national food stamp program, first approved as part of the New Deal in 1939.

Participation skyrocketed, going from 2 million in October 1967 to 15 million by October 1974.

Congress stopped requiring recipients to purchase booklets of the orange and blue stamps in 1977 and, in 1996, directed states to switch to electronic benefit transfer cards to reduce the stigma of using them. Congress dubbed the system the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 12 years later, with the aim of refocusing on nutrition.

By that time, acute hunger had all but disappeared. Advances in industrial agriculture spurred a precipitous drop in food prices, and programs such as SNAP, additional benefits for mothers and children, and free school lunches ensured every American had access to essentials. The U.S. Department of Agriculture swapped “hunger” for the term “food insecurity,” a much more subjective measure that’s gauged by Americans’ responses to a range of questions, including whether they often worry about food running out before they can buy more.

NO LONGER DO AMERICANS  suffer due to a calorie shortage, but Harvard University nutrition expert and former USDA official Jerold Mande says “food is still a problem.”

In a study published in January, researchers at the Network Science Institute at Northeastern University found that roughly 70% of the abundance ladening America’s supermarket shelves falls into the category of ultra-processed. “If you went into those factories, there’s very little you’d see in there that you would recognize as food,” said Mande, who used to perform inspections on the processing plants producing what he calls “industrial formulations.” Powders and sludges are combined into something that “looks really unappetizing,” he added. “Then they lean heavily into cosmetics, colors, and flavors to make the food not only edible but actually craveable.”

As a result, Americans are suffering from chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity at record rates, Mande noted. A 2016 USDA study analyzing grocery store purchase data from 2011 revealed SNAP recipients spent more money on soft drinks than any other item. Purchases of sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, and candy exceeded combined fruit and vegetable sales by $9.4 billion.

The data showed that individuals receiving SNAP benefits tend to have even worse diets compared to people with similar incomes who aren’t on the program. Program participants also reported a higher prevalence of obesity and abnormal blood pressure.

Ultra-processed foods are often some of the cheapest in the grocery store, Mande observed, but not quite as affordable as in-season produce and dry goods like beans and rice. But ultra-processed foods are much more convenient to prepare. SNAP’s extra boost of cash allows beneficiaries to purchase these foods to save time in the kitchen, he argued. Mande believes individuals with similar incomes who don’t receive SNAP dollars have organized their lives in a way that allows them to prepare healthier food from scratch.

Paige Terryberry, a senior research fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, argued SNAP is failing in its mission to provide enrollees with a more nutritious diet, and American taxpayers shouldn’t be contributing to the nation’s growing health crisis. “The government should not be a major funder of junk foods that are driving diet-related chronic diseases among the most vulnerable,” she added.

The federal government spent $113 billion on SNAP in 2023. Terryberry pointed out that American taxpayers often end up paying for ultra-processed food twice. Once at the grocery store and once in the doctor’s office. Roughly 78% of SNAP recipients are also on Medicaid.

A woman who depends on SNAP benefits shops for groceries at a supermarket in Bellflower, Calif. Associated Press / Photo by Allison Dinner

WHEN TEXAS STATE SEN. LOIS KOLKHORST and her husband operated 14 convenience stores in and around Brenham, Texas, the couple refused to accept SNAP. “We did not sell fresh vegetables and fresh fruits and meats and things that were what I believe should be purchased with taxpayer dollars,” Kolkhorst explained.

As chair of the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, Kolkhorst advocated fiercely for Senate Bill 379, which prohibits the purchase of sweetened drinks and candy with SNAP dollars. Versions of the bill had been floating around for a while, Kolkhorst told me, but the legislation received renewed interest with the rise of the Make America Healthy Again movement.

The law defines a sweetened drink as any nonalcoholic beverage that contains 5 grams or more of added sugar or any amount of artificial sweetener. Drinks that contain milk, milk substitutes, or 50% fruit juice are still eligible for SNAP. Candy includes “any confection made with natural or artificial sweeteners,” but does not include products used for cooking, such as chocolate bits or cake sprinkles, the waiver clarifies.

Kolkhorst said she wasn’t surprised when the bill attracted opposition from food manufacturers and grocery chains. Walmart, which netted more than a quarter of total SNAP dollars in the 12 months ending April 30, 2025, registered against the bill. The grocer spent $7.2 million lobbying the federal government in 2024. Groups like the American Beverage Association and Coca-Cola also spent millions.

“What did surprise me is that groups that should be very interested in the health of the general population, children and adults, were against the bill,” Kolkhorst said. These included Feeding Texas, the Texas branch of Feeding America—one of the nation’s largest nonprofits responsible for providing food to a network of food banks and pantries across the country. Aside from the federal government, Feeding America is the largest provider of SNAP application assistance.

Feeding America’s CEO, Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, told me that while her organization supports making nutritious foods more available to SNAP participants, so-called junk-food bans aren’t the way forward. She argued that the restrictions focus on removing unhealthy items from the program without making it easier for participants to purchase healthy alternatives. “The reality is that not every calorie is created equally,” Babineaux-Fontenot said. “But when you’re experiencing hunger, every calorie counts.”

Babineaux-Fontenot argued that item restrictions strip participants of the dignity of choice instead of enabling them to make more nutritious selections. Opponents of the restrictions also raise concerns about the administrative burden they could place on grocery stores.

But Kolkhorst pointed out that businesses already have the systems in place to exclude certain federally prohibited items such as alcohol, supplements, and hot food. She predicted that market forces will quickly motivate stores to adapt to the junk-food bans and find new ways to cater to SNAP recipients, especially in areas where they compose a large percentage of their customer base.

Gov. Greg Abbott signed Texas’ new restrictions into law this summer, and they will take effect on April 1, 2026, now that the state has received federal approval. So far, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah also have received federal approval to eliminate sugary items from the program.

Meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a bill that would have required her state to request federal approval to restrict the purchase of candy and soft drinks. Her veto remarks echoed the concerns of many anti-hunger advocacy groups and large food and beverage companies.

“This bill is simply wrong,” Kelly wrote in her terse explanation. “Not only would it make it more difficult for Kansans to access the food they need to feed their families, it would also harm Kansas businesses.”

Soft drinks, candy, and salty snacks are more frequently purchased by SNAP users than healthier options like fruit and vegetables. LEFT: Jeffrey Greenberg / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images; CENTER: JC Milhet / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images; RIGHT: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

ANTI-HUNGER GROUPS’ ALIGNMENT with Big Food to oppose SNAP reform is nothing new, Harvard’s Jerold Mande told me. Nonprofit advocacy groups like the Food Research and Action Center and Feeding America realized they didn’t hold enough political sway on their own to combat efforts to cut SNAP dollars, he said. So, they sought a powerful partner in Big Food.

For decades, Mande said, the partnership functioned like a “marriage made in heaven.” Anti-hunger groups succeeded in boosting low-income Americans’ grocery budgets, and Big Food happily advocated to put more dollars in their customers’ pockets. But as more public health research emerged in the 1990s about the dangers of ultra-processed food, especially for low-income Americans, the relationship should have soured, Mande said. Instead, anti-hunger groups just looked away.

That’s because by then, anti-hunger groups had come to rely on Big Food donations, Mande said. He pointed to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) as just one example.

FRAC hosted its annual benefit breakfast in October, centered around the theme, “Feeding Communities. SNAP Matters.” The organization listed Coca-Cola as one of the event’s top three sponsors. Hersey Company, which owns more than 70 chocolate, sweets, and snack brands, was also listed as a major donor for the event. So were Walmart and the National Association of Convenience Stores.

I asked FRAC via email about whether the donations their organization receives from food and beverage companies have affected their position on cutting sugary drinks and candy from the program. Jordan Baker, senior communications manager, directed me to the donations policy on their website, in which the organization states it will not accept money if it’s conditioned on FRAC adopting or declining to adopt a “substantive policy position.”

In his emailed statement, Baker also pointed to the harms of food restrictions: “increased paperwork, administrative costs, lost benefits due to confusion over eligible foods, and bureaucratic wrangling over what’s ‘in’ or ‘out.’”

Two of Feeding America’s largest donors are Walmart and Sam’s Club. Their investments in the nonprofit total more than $271 million since 2005, according to the company’s website. The duo has also donated more than 9 billion pounds of food. Since 2014, Feeding America has partnered with the chains through the “Fight Hunger. Spark Change.” campaign, which has garnered more than $206 million for the organization since 2014. General Mills, Dollar General, Kraft Heinz, and Albertsons are some of the large grocers and food manufacturers Feeding America lists as visionary partners, recognized for gifts of $4 million or more.

In our interview, Feeding America CEO Babineaux-Fontenot was quick to acknowledge, even celebrate, the fact that SNAP dollars benefit American businesses, farmers, and ranchers, not just program recipients. “Snap has to be about people,” she said. “And it has to be about an ecosystem.”

But Babineaux-Fontenot rebuffed criticisms that her organization opposes restrictions on the use of SNAP dollars to purchase soda and candy because it might hurt the profit margins of its Big Food and Beverage donors. “Whomever it is that says that just doesn’t know who we are and they’re not paying attention,” she argued.

“We advocate for increasing access to nutrition for people experiencing hunger all the time. We advocate for the voice of people experiencing hunger being the most important voice,” Babineaux-Fontenot added. “We don’t have people experiencing hunger clamoring to say, please give us less choice at the grocery store.”

Racial advocacy groups like the NAACP have also pilloried attempted soda bans as racist and condescending, said Marion Nestle, a public health nutritionist and the author of Soda Politics and Food Politics. In 2012, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to prohibit restaurants from serving sodas larger than 16 ounces. The NAACP and Hispanic Federation filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit filed by the American Beverage Association and other business groups challenging the ban.

“But that wasn’t particularly surprising, because the soda industry had been funding them for decades,” Nestle noted. “When you have these funding relationships, it’s very difficult to sort out the politics.”

American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Angela Rachidi witnessed the power of Big Food’s partnership with advocacy groups firsthand. In 2010, two years before his ill-fated restaurant soda ban, Bloomberg requested a waiver from USDA to ban the use of SNAP dollars to purchase soda. Rachidi, who worked in the city’s social services department at the time, drafted the waiver proposal, which USDA denied. Fast-forward to May 2024, and not much had changed. Rachidi testified before the House Appropriations Committee about improving nutrition in SNAP and encountered pushback from both Democrats and Republicans alike.

And while the federal government’s attitude has shifted in favor of the bans for the first time under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again push, the opposition is just as determined.

At the heart of the disagreement is a persistent, fundamental divide over the purpose of SNAP, she said.

Anti-hunger groups and their Big Food supporters cling to the food stamp program’s original intent to relieve acute hunger, Rachidi noted, despite the newer focus on improving nutrition.

“The problem today is not that people don’t have enough to eat,” she said. “They just have too much of the wrong things to eat.”