Nebraska Bans Soda, Energy Drinks with SNAP Benefits
LINCOLN – May 1, 2024 – Nebraska is making headlines as the first state to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase soda and energy drinks. The groundbreaking move, led by the Governor and backed by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, aims to improve nutrition for SNAP recipients.Under this initiative, the state is set on a path to improve the diets of the roughly 152,000 Nebraskans currently in the program. Experts weigh in on the long-term nutritional implications.
Nebraska Pioneers SNAP Restrictions: Soda and Energy Drinks Banned
Nebraska has become the first state in the nation to receive a federal waiver allowing it to ban the purchase of soda and energy drinks using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as food stamps. This groundbreaking move aims to reshape the nutritional landscape for low-income residents.
The Impact on Nebraskans
The ban,spearheaded by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, is set to affect approximately 152,000 Nebraskans currently enrolled in SNAP. The program, a cornerstone of federal assistance, helps families afford groceries.
Governor Pillen’s Stance
Nebraska Gov.Jim Pillen voiced strong support for the waiver, emphasizing taxpayer duty and nutritional value:
There’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there’s nothing nutritious about the junk we’re removing with today’s waiver.
Nebraska Gov.Jim Pillen
Did You Know?
SNAP is a roughly $100 billion program serving about 42 million Americans. It is administered by the U.S.Agriculture Department through individual states.
A Growing Trend?
Nebraska is not alone in seeking changes to SNAP. Six other states-Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia-have also submitted waiver requests. These requests range from banning specific foods and drinks to expanding access to hot foods for SNAP recipients, according to the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Rollins’ Vision for a Healthier America
Brooke Rollins has been a key advocate for restricting sugary drinks and other less nutritious items within the SNAP program. She hailed the Nebraska waiver as:
a historic step to Make America Healthy again.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins
Implementation and Concerns
Nebraska’s waiver is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1. However, anti-hunger advocates have voiced concerns, arguing that such restrictions add costs, increase administrative burdens, and further stigmatize individuals already struggling with food insecurity.
Advocates’ Viewpoint
Gina Plata-nino, a deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, criticized the waiver’s approach:
The waiver ignores decades of evidence showing that incentive-based approaches – not punitive restrictions – are the most effective, dignified path to improving nutrition and reducing hunger.
Gina Plata-Nino, Food Research & Action Center
Pro Tip:
Consider exploring local food banks and community gardens for additional resources to supplement your grocery needs. Many offer fresh, healthy options at no cost.
SNAP’s Core Principles
The SNAP program is authorized by the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which stipulates that benefits can be used for any food or food product intended for human consumption,
with the exception of alcohol, tobacco, and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption.
Ancient Context
Over the past two decades, numerous state lawmakers have proposed restrictions on SNAP purchases, targeting items ranging from bottled water and soda to chips, ice cream, and even “luxury meats” like steak.
USDA’s Previous Stance
Prior to this waiver, the USDA had consistently rejected such proposals, citing the lack of clear standards for defining “good” versus “bad” foods. The agency also expressed concerns about the implementation challenges,costs,and potential ineffectiveness of such restrictions in changing recipients’ food choices or improving health outcomes.
