Living healthy doesn’t just come naturally for most people, and it certainly doesn’t seem to come easily.
While it may be uncomfortable to do so, sometimes we all could use a little nudge to change our ways. Turning 40 was a nudge for me to improve my health. Maybe a significant medical event brought you to change your diet or exercise routine. Maybe it was a financial decision.
A political nudge recently came from the USDA and Health and Human Services arms of our federal government. They worked with several states to remove soda from SNAP-eligible purchases.
If I have the money to do so, I am perfectly capable of choosing to buy my own sugar fixes. If I don’t have that money, I would be happy that the benefits I am eligible for are looking out for my health, over my less-than-perfect desires. Everyone deserves a treat from time to time, but soda, nutritionally, doesn’t need a regular place in anyone’s diet.
So far, the only states that have requested this waiver to remove soda from the list of eligible purchases are Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska. It seems a logical decision has once again become political and will perhaps stay that way.
Arkansas’ waiver excludes soda, low and no-calorie soda, fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50% natural juice, other unhealthy drinks, and candy, and it will take effect July 1, 2026. The waiver for Idaho excludes soda and candy, and it will take effect Jan. 1, 2026. The waiver for Utah excludes soft drinks, and it will take effect Jan. 1, 2026.
As someone who once benefited from the financial support of our state’s WIC program, I can attest that getting support to buy healthy food like milk, fruit and vegetables kept my family from experiencing food insecurity. Junk food was not an option under that program and I believe it should have no place there.
Why is soda in the crosshairs? Simply, it offers 0 nutrients and loads of sugar. It’s been known to cause weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other health problems, according to WebMD.
Many of our states, including my home state of Minnesota, continue to allow the use of taxpayer funds to purchase sugary beverages, candy and a multitude of snack foods that are a long way from healthy choices. The reason for allowing those purchases is to be less restrictive, allowing people to make their own decisions. My opinion as a consumer, not a nutritionist, is that we could all do better in making better personal food choices, and our nutrition assistance program should absolutely be doing better.
Even if consumers know the difference between what is healthy and not, they will inherently choose the unhealthy one if it hits certain categories. A recent Purdue University study highlighted that. The study showed that while the average American consumer knows what is healthy, they acknowledge that their diet is unhealthy.
“Our research shows that consumers care about nutrition, but that they prioritize taste first and foremost, and then price and availability,” said Joseph Balagtas, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue.
For example, I realize that an apple would be a great snack and I have a whole bag in the fridge, but there’s a doughnut on the counter that is going to start to dry out if I don’t inhale it soon. The doughnut is going to win almost every time. Why? Because I was able to buy it, it's right there and I want it, not because I should eat it.
The study showed that 76% of consumers agree that their health depends on the foods they eat every day. It’s just hard to make the right choice if the poor choice is cheaper, easier and tastier.
Food insecurity also plays a role among respondents to the survey. About 32% of the surveyed said they were food insecure but had excellent or very good diets. Meanwhile, about 37% were food insecure while having a fair or poor diet.
In the consumer behaviors category, those who rate the health of their diets as being “excellent” or “very good” tend to check food labels more frequently. These consumers also tend to purchase foods more frequently with specialty production attributes, including organic, local and grass fed.
The Food and Drug Administration is working to define a “healthy” label that would be placed on food products to indicate they comply with what is considered healthy by the agency.
“Perhaps this label will help consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing foods at the store,” Balagtas said.
I have my doubts that another label in the sea of labels attached to our foods is going to move consumers to change their eating habits, even if it flat out reads "not healthy," but it might prove more helpful than current nutrition labels, which I think are now largely overlooked by anyone not strictly tracking their calorie intake. I can’t possibly look at a soda nutrition label and convince myself that it’s the healthy choice. I can very easily ignore the label if my comfort is more important than my health.