By: Dr. Ellen Glickman

April 28, 2025

If you've spent any time watching a grocery store checkout line lately, you've seen it. Bottles of soda, those bright, bubbly containers brimming with sugar rolling down the conveyor belt, often paid for with a SNAP card. It's easy not to notice. It's even easier not to care. But recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made us look a little closer.
 
His proposal? Restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds for purchasing soda. Not food. Not nutrition. Just soda.
 
Predictably, the country split in two. Some are cheering what they see as a step toward restoring health and dignity to our food system, others are decrying it as another instance of government overreach. And while it's tempting to throw up our hands and chalk it up to another fight in the culture wars, maybe we should all take a moment to ask ourselves - What kind of country do we want to be?
 
SNAP is a safety net, our collective promises that no one in America should go hungry. But it's more than just a handout. It's a hand up. A bridge. An investment in our society when times are hard. And like any good investment, we should be thinking long-term.
 
So why soda? Because soda isn’t food. Not really. It’s sugar water. It is cheap to make but expensive to endure. Study after study has shown us that sugary drinks are linked to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other conditions that send health care costs soaring and shorten lives, especially in low-income communities. 
 
The USDA reports that SNAP dollars funnel billions of taxpayer dollars each year into the pockets of soda companies. Yes, billions—with a B. That’s not a safety net. That’s a subsidy. And it’s one we can no longer afford.
 
This isn’t about demonizing poor people or pretending those on assistance shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy life. It’s not about “nanny states” or moral superiority. I love a cold Coke at a summer barbecue as much as the next person. But there's a difference between allowing personal freedom and asking taxpayers to fund choices that actively work against public health.
 
Secretary Kennedy is asking a hard question: Should we continue paying for products that are making people sick?
 
And maybe he’s on to something. Maybe it’s time we shifted the conversation. Instead of fighting over what people can’t buy, why not talk about what they can? Real food. Fresh produce. Nutritious staples. Maybe SNAP should be a pathway to wellness and not just survival. We don’t need to take away dignity to offer direction.
 
Change is never easy. And this proposal, like so many good ideas, is imperfect. What about candy? Or sugary cereals? Where do we draw the line? And how do we avoid shaming people already facing economic hardship?
 
These are fair questions. But if we want to build a healthier America—not just for some, but for all—we have to start somewhere. And saying “no” to soda, at least when taxpayers are footing the bill, feels like a step worth taking.
We’ve tried letting the market decide. We’ve tried assuming education alone is enough. And still, chronic diseases are climbing, costs are skyrocketing, and far too many of our neighbors are trapped in cycles of poor health and poverty.
 
So maybe this is the moment to get bold. To stop pretending that freedom means ignoring the consequences. To remember that real compassion isn’t letting people make harmful choices, it is helping them make better ones.
 
Let’s invest in health. In wholeness. In a future where government support doesn’t just keep people afloat, but instead, helps them rise.
 
Soda’s fine now and then. But it’s not medicine. And it’s not nourishment.
 
Let’s Make America Healthy Again, one thoughtful choice at a time.