Junk Food Bans Miss the Point

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently floated the idea of banning “junk food” from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps. On paper, the move is pitched as a way to improve the health of low-income Americans. In reality, it’s a sound bite that ignores the structural problems baked into the SNAP system itself.

If Kennedy truly wants healthier diets for SNAP recipients, the solution isn’t more restrictions. It’s more access to real, affordable, and convenient healthy food — something SNAP currently fails to provide.

A Program Built for Calories, Not Nutrition

SNAP traces its origins back to the Great Depression, when it began as a temporary relief measure to help farmers sell surplus goods and feed the unemployed. Over the decades, it evolved into a national program administered by the USDA, transitioning from paper “food stamps” to EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards in the 1990s.

But here’s the key: the program was never designed with nutrition science in mind. Its main purpose was — and to some degree still is — to make sure low-income Americans can consume enough calories to survive. Quality of calories has always been secondary.

That’s why, even today, SNAP rules allow a gallon of soda but not a freshly made rotisserie chicken. A frozen pizza? Fine. A fresh deli salad? Off limits.

The Healthy Food Irony of SNAP

SNAP recipients are barred from purchasing “hot” or “prepared” foods — a category that covers not just fried chicken wings or fast food burgers, but also healthier convenience options like:

• Grocery store rotisserie chickens
• Fresh-made sandwiches and wraps
• Deli soups
• Smoothies made from fresh produce

This restriction, meant to prevent SNAP from covering restaurant meals, ends up steering recipients toward ultra-processed grocery store products simply because they are pre-packaged.

It’s not just about rules — it’s about availability. Many SNAP shoppers live in food deserts, where the local corner store might have three aisles of soda and chips but no fresh greens. Even in larger grocery chains, healthier drink options like seltzer water are often out of stock or overpriced compared to sugar-heavy soda.

The False Narrative About SNAP and Junk Food

Critics love to frame SNAP recipients as making bad dietary choices — the stereotype of loading up on candy, soda, and chips at taxpayer expense. But the truth is more complicated.

USDA data shows that the breakdown of SNAP purchases is remarkably similar to that of non-SNAP households. Low-income or not, Americans tend to buy what’s cheap, available, and filling.

The real problem is the program’s design and the food environment. If you want to stretch limited benefits to cover an entire month’s worth of meals, it’s much easier to rely on boxed pasta and canned sauce than to pay for fresh fish and organic greens — assuming you can even find them nearby.

Why a Junk Food Ban Would Backfire

Banning junk food sounds appealing in a sound bite, but the practical problems are enormous:

1. Defining “Junk Food” Is a Bureaucratic Nightmare

Is peanut butter “junk food” if it has added sugar? What about protein bars loaded with artificial sweeteners? Would granola be banned because of its sugar content, even if it contains whole oats and nuts?

2. Point-of-Sale Chaos

Grocery checkout systems already reject certain prepared items for SNAP purchases. Adding hundreds more banned UPCs would create chaos for shoppers and clerks — and increase the humiliation of having purchases denied in public.

3. No Impact on Access

Removing soda and candy from eligibility doesn’t suddenly make a hot deli chicken or smoothie purchasable. The healthier prepared foods would still be banned.

4. Punishing the Poor, Not Solving the Problem

Junk food bans treat poverty like a behavioral problem, not a systemic one. They send the message that low-income families can’t be trusted to make their own food decisions.

The Economic and Health Case for Expanding Options

If RFK Jr. is serious about improving public health through SNAP, the better path is to expand what benefits can buy — especially when it comes to ready-to-eat healthy options.

• Reducing Healthcare Costs: Better nutrition reduces rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, which are disproportionately high among low-income populations. Fewer ER visits and chronic disease treatments would mean billions in long-term savings for public health systems.
• Supporting Local Economies: Allowing SNAP to cover prepared healthy foods could boost revenue for local grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and small delis — businesses that actually serve the communities in need.
• Increasing Food Security: For many working SNAP recipients — yes, the majority work — time is as much of a barrier as money. Prepared healthy foods save time, making it easier to feed a family without resorting to fast food.

Constructive Alternatives to a Junk Food Ban

If the goal is better nutrition, here’s what Kennedy and policymakers should focus on:

1. Lift the Prepared Food Ban

Allow SNAP to cover rotisserie chicken, deli salads, and other ready-to-eat items that meet basic nutrition standards.

2. Double Up Food Bucks

Expand programs that give recipients double the value for fruits and vegetables, making fresh produce more affordable.

3. Healthy Beverage Incentives

Reward purchases of water, seltzer, and 100% juice with small SNAP credit bonuses to nudge healthier drink choices.

4. Partner With Local Farms

Create state-level SNAP-to-farm box programs that deliver fresh produce directly to neighborhoods with limited grocery access.

5. Nutrition Education Without Judgment

Offer voluntary cooking and meal-planning workshops for SNAP families, but frame them as empowering, not patronizing.

The Politics Behind the Proposal

Kennedy’s junk food ban proposal is politically easy to pitch — it plays well with voters concerned about public health and government spending. But it sidesteps the hard, less flashy work of fixing supply chains, negotiating with retailers, and rewriting outdated SNAP regulations.

Public health groups may cheer the idea, but anti-hunger advocates have warned for years that these bans are ineffective and stigmatizing. The truth is, until lawmakers focus on access, affordability, and convenience, the nutritional gap will remain — ban or no ban.

The Bottom Line

SNAP doesn’t need more restrictions. It needs more real food. Kennedy’s proposed junk food ban won’t make healthy meals more available or affordable. In fact, it risks making life harder for the people the program is meant to help.

If the goal is better health, then policymakers should start by fixing the rules that force SNAP recipients to choose between eating processed junk and going hungry. Ban the barriers, not the food.