Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. and 19 states have proposed restricting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by excluding sugary beverages and candy. These steps are insufficient. If our objective is to support vulnerable populations who are food insecure, disproportionately suffer from chronic diseases and rely heavily on taxpayer-funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, then we must address this demographic’s broader dietary problems.

Diet-related chronic illnesses — including diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease — impose substantial public health and economic burdens. Over 70% of the U.S. food supply is unhealthy and ultra-processed, loaded with sugars, saturated fats, and sodium, all scientifically linked to chronic illnesses, according to reports. Allowing SNAP to subsidize unhealthy foods exacerbates healthcare costs borne by taxpayers via Medicaid and Medicare.

Healthy eating requires consuming more nutritious foods — something few Americans achieve — while reducing intake of unhealthy items. CDC data reveals only 12.3% of U.S. adults meet daily fruit recommendations, and just 10% meet vegetable recommendations.

SNAP should integrate proven nutritional guidance systems — such as the Food Compass, FoodHealth Score, grocery-based ratings like Stop & Shop’s Guiding Stars, or Europe’s Nutri-Score — to effectively promote healthier consumer choices. Widespread adoption of Nutri-Score (used in France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, and Switzerland), which rates foods from healthiest (A, green) to least healthy (E, red), significantly improved dietary choices and reduced the consumption of ultra-processed foods. Similarly, Chile’s mandatory front-of-package warnings led to notable reductions in sugar and sodium consumption, positively influencing dietary behaviors and decreasing obesity rates among children. These successful international examples underscore that clear, easy-to-understand nutritional labeling significantly encourages healthier eating habits and measurable public health improvements.

SNAP recipients frequently rely on government-supported healthcare. Dual-eligible individuals — low-income older adults enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare — represent about 14% of Medicaid participants but account for roughly 36% of its expenditures. Similarly, they constitute around 20% of Medicare beneficiaries yet consume approximately 31% of Medicare spending. Improving dietary habits among this population could significantly reduce these expenditures.

SNAP participation itself correlates with improved health outcomes and lower medical costs, if recipients can access nutritious food. Older SNAP participants experience fewer hospitalizations, emergency visits, and long-term care admissions, saving Medicaid around $2,360 annually per participant. Likewise, low-income adults enrolled in SNAP incur nearly 25% less ($1,400) annually in medical expenses compared to non-participants.

Restricting SNAP purchases must be approached ethically. Immediate restrictions without transition strategies may exacerbate food insecurity or psychological distress. Effective implementation requires complementary interventions such as phased introductions, nutrition counseling, and community education programs.

Concerns about negative impacts on small retailers exist. However, evidence shows that convenience stores can successfully adapt. The Healthy Corner Stores Network in Philadelphia has supported small retailers transitioning to healthier foods, leading to increased sales of fresh produce and nutritious items.

The EBT card could be linked to an Approved Product List (APL) or restrictions. Technologies offer practical means for implementing SNAP restrictions. Grocery chains like Stop & Shop (e.g., Guiding Stars), and Kroger (OptUP and FoodHealth Score) already use nutritional rating systems, classifying products by healthfulness. These can be used to create APLs. Incorporating these systems into SNAP would help recipients choose healthier foods.

Real-world examples confirm the viability of SNAP restrictions coupled with education and technological support:

Massachusetts Healthy Incentives Program (HIP): Encourages SNAP recipients to purchase fruits and vegetables by offering financial incentives directly linked to the SNAP card, increasing produce consumption and improving dietary habits.

Double Up Food Bucks (Michigan): Matches SNAP funds spent on fruits and vegetables, boosting produce purchases and consumption among participants, leading to better nutritional outcomes.

These programs showcase effective integration of dietary guidelines, technology, and incentives to improve nutrition for SNAP recipients.

Critics of SNAP restrictions argue that limiting choices infringes upon personal autonomy. However, SNAP already incorporates evidence-based restrictions — for instance, prohibiting the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods — acknowledging the necessity of promoting public health through targeted limitations. Some advocates suggest incentives, such as providing SNAP recipients with additional funds (25% to 100% their spending power) when purchasing healthy foods. Some argue for the additional funds because healthier foods can be more expensive. While incentivizing healthier choices has proven effective in pilot programs, significantly increasing SNAP spending appears politically challenging in the current fiscal climate.

We have to understand that Food is Medicine — integrating nutritional guidance systems into SNAP may represent a more effective strategy for reducing Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Guiding consumers toward healthier food choices addresses diet-related diseases at their root, potentially leading to significant long-term healthcare savings.

Ed Gaskin is Executive Director of Greater Grove Hall Main Streets and founder of Sunday Celebrations