People on SNAP are no more likely to drink sugary beverages than similar people who are not on SNAP, and restricting what benefits can buy may do little to change how much anyone drinks, according to a 2014 study in the American Journal of Public Health using national dietary intake data.
Key takeaways
- After adjustment, SNAP participants were no more likely to consume sugar-sweetened beverages than nonparticipants.
- Current SNAP participants consumed fewer calories from sugar-sweetened beverages than similar nonparticipants.
- The authors concluded that “purchase restrictions may have little effect on SSB consumption.”
What the study found
The authors used one day of dietary intake data from the 2005-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, covering 4,594 adults aged 20 and older whose household income was at or below 250% of the federal poverty line. The comparison group is other low-income adults, not the general population.
They compared sugar-sweetened beverage intake across SNAP participation groups. After adjustment, “SNAP participants were no more likely to consume SSBs than were nonparticipants,” and current participants consumed fewer calories from those drinks than similar nonparticipants did. The authors concluded that “purchase restrictions may have little effect on SSB consumption.”
Twenty-three states have received USDA waivers to restrict soda, candy, and similar items. The bans are currently suspended in five of them under a federal judge’s order.
Dr. Kumar’s take
Purchase restrictions govern what a benefits card can buy. They do not govern what a person drinks. A household can leave soda off the benefits card and buy the same soda with cash, and the receipt data would still show a win. This study measured what people reported drinking rather than what they bought, and it did not find the excess consumption the restrictions are built to correct.
Substitution is the part these rules tend to miss. Fruit juice is not a health food in this context. It delivers sugar in liquid form with the fiber removed, which is the same problem that makes soda worth worrying about in the first place. Sugary drinks already carry their own metabolic consequences beyond diabetes. A rule that moves sugar from a can to a carton is a relabeling exercise, not a nutrition intervention.
Then there is stigma. This is a population that already skips care, delays appointments, and underuses preventive services. Making the checkout line feel like a moral inspection is not a free side effect. It is a cost, and it lands on the same people the policy claims to help.
One limit worth stating plainly: this is a single day of self-reported diet from 2005 to 2008. It describes who was drinking what before these state restrictions existed. It does not test what happens to intake after a ban.
What it means for you
If you are cutting back on soda, swapping to fruit juice is a lateral move on sugar. Water, unsweetened coffee or tea, and sparkling water are the actual downgrade in sugar load.
If you are reading about this policy, keep purchases and intake separate. What a benefits card buys is not the same as what a household drinks, and only the second one shows up in your metabolism. A broader beverage tax, like Philadelphia’s, has been reported to cut consumption across an entire city rather than one group. That design does not single anyone out at the register.