Texas Senate Bill 379 would ban using SNAP benefits (food stamps) to purchase sodas, sugary drinks, candy, desserts, snacks like potato chips, etc. “According to USDA statistics cited during the hearing, up to 20% of SNAP benefits are spent on foods targeted by this legislation, including sodas, sugary drinks, candy, desserts, snacks like potato chips, and sugar. Of that percentage, 9% of SNAP benefits are specifically used for sweetened beverages.” (See https://lonestarstandard.com/stories/670464646-kolkhorst-on-aha-s-opposition-to-snap-reform-bill-might-be-the-surprise-of-the-session-so-far)
The American Heart Association showed up to speak against the bill: “The American Heart Association is concerned about the potential impacts of this bill on participation and population health. Imposing nutritional restrictions will interfere with the primary function of SNAP reducing hunger without reducing root causes of chronic disease.”
Given that obesity is a major root cause of chronic disease and linked to all kinds of heart-related conditions, it’s stunning that the AHA would oppose the bill. The best arguments against the bill:
1. Personal choice. Government assistance shouldn’t come with excessive restrictions.
2. Enforcement challenges: It might slow down checkout lines or make it harder for retailers.
3. Nutritional access: Some people don’t have access to many healthier options.
4. Caloric necessity: If you’re homeless or hungry, access to any food—even crappy junk food—is better than no food at all.
I don’t find any of these arguments compelling myself, but crucially, these are not the arguments that the American Heart Association made.
The AHA is funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies who make money from people having health conditions. Is the AHA so negatively incentivized by this that they oppose legislation that should be a big win for heart health? I don’t know, but I’m sure wondering.