America has an obsession with policing poor people—from how they dress, how they parent, and even what they eat. Now, a growing movement is targeting SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients, proposing restrictions on what foods they can buy with their benefits.
While politicians frame this as a public health initiative, let’s be honest: this isn’t about health—it’s about control. It’s another thinly veiled attempt to shame and punish low-income people, especially Black and Brown communities, without addressing the real root causes of food insecurity and nutrition disparities.
Who Decides What’s “Junk Food”?
One of the biggest issues with this push is who gets to define “junk food”:
- Are we talking about chips and soda?
- What about sugary yogurts marketed as healthy?
- Are processed granola bars “junk” even when labeled “natural”?
Many of these so-called “unhealthy” foods are also the most affordable and accessible options for people living in food deserts—areas with limited access to grocery stores but plenty of gas stations and fast-food chains.
For millions of SNAP recipients, food choices aren’t about indulgence—they’re about survival.
Reality Check: If fresh produce is too expensive, unavailable, or requires multiple bus rides to access, families are going to buy what’s affordable and nearby—even if that means a bag of chips over a $6 organic apple.
The Real Issue Isn’t Junk Food—It’s Food Access
If lawmakers truly cared about nutrition, they wouldn’t be micromanaging grocery carts—they’d be fixing the system that makes unhealthy food the only viable option for many low-income families.
- Invest in grocery stores in underserved areas so families don’t have to rely on corner stores and gas stations for food.
- Expand urban farming programs to increase local access to fresh produce.
- Make healthier foods affordable by subsidizing fresh produce instead of policing what low-income people eat.
Instead of helping communities afford and access better food, lawmakers are focusing on shaming people for their choices.
Rich People Eat “Junk Food” Too—But They Aren’t Judged for It
Let’s not pretend junk food is only a poor people’s problem. Wealthy people buy $10 artisanal chocolates, overpriced fast food from Shake Shack, and $7 iced lattes—but no one is trying to restrict their choices.
- A hedge fund manager can grab Haagen-Dazs at Whole Foods without scrutiny.
- A single mom using SNAP buys Doritos, and suddenly it’s a national crisis.
This isn’t about health—it’s about who has the “right” to make choices.
The “Taxpayer Money” Argument Is a Distraction
For those arguing that SNAP recipients shouldn’t be able to buy “junk food” with taxpayer money, let’s get one thing straight:
The real drain on taxpayer dollars isn’t a Mountain Dew bought with EBT—it’s:
- Corporate subsidies
- Bloated defense spending
- Billionaire tax loopholes
If people actually cared about “wasteful spending”, they’d be talking about corporate welfare—not a struggling family buying a box of cookies.
