How RFK Jr.’s War on Junk Food Could Backfire on Vulnerable Americans

There are arguments that limiting access to ultraprocessed foods could be difficult for low-income households, as they need to have the necessary equipment for cooking—for example, an oven, a refrigerator, and pots and pans. However, if poor Americans do have access to these items, cooking should not be as much of a burden, said Nestle.

“If you know how to cook, you can eat real food and do pretty well at a much lower cost,” she said. Moreover, Nestle noted that states are currently focused on barring access to sugar-sweetened beverages and candy, rather than all ultraprocessed foods—items that are “easy targets,” she said. But there does not appear to be any accompanying research by states into whether these limits will actually lower purchase of sodas and candy by SNAP households, she continued, or whether it will reduce participation in SNAP overall.

Then there is the question of political intent. Previous administrations have worried that limiting access to certain foods through SNAP could be considered “overly paternalistic,” said Parker Wilde, a food economist and professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. SNAP participants have very similar food purchasing patterns to non-SNAP households, but only these low-income families are having their choices limited. Other experts have argued there are logistical challenges in barring certain foods and beverages. In 2010, then–Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack denied a waiver request from New York City to ban access to soda through SNAP. (Vilsack himself has argued that it is preferable to incentivize healthier eating rather than limiting access to certain foods and beverages.)