RFK Jr.'s Junk Food Crackdown: A Risk for the Vulnerable

The Debate Over Ultraprocessed Foods and SNAP Benefits

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made targeting ultraprocessed foods a central part of his “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, calling these items “poison.” However, the Trump administration’s attempts to define and limit access to such foods may face significant challenges and could have broader consequences for low-income families.

In May, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report that identified ultraprocessed foods as a key contributor to the “chronic disease crisis” among children. While some sections of the report contained questionable citations, the parts focusing on ultraprocessed foods were praised by researchers for highlighting the food industry’s role in poor child health.

Ultraprocessed foods, which are industrially produced and often contain processed ingredients, have been linked to various health issues like diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. These foods make up a large portion of the American diet, with over two-thirds of calories consumed by American youth coming from them. According to a recent CDC report, they also constitute the majority of all calories consumed by Americans overall.

Public health experts have long advocated for limiting access to ultraprocessed foods due to their negative health impacts. Low-income Americans may be especially affected, as a recent study found that participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) consume these foods at higher rates than other Americans. Children in these households tend to eat more ultraprocessed foods and experience higher obesity rates, which are associated with poor health outcomes.

Some experts have supported restricting access to ultraprocessed foods within SNAP. This sentiment appears to resonate with the Trump administration, which has approved waivers in 12 states to restrict SNAP benefits from being used to purchase certain ultraprocessed foods and drinks. These restrictions vary by state, with some including soft drinks, energy drinks, candy, and even fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50% natural juice in Arkansas.

Kennedy has praised these efforts, stating that the waivers help bring real food back to the center of the program and empower states to protect public health. He encouraged other governors to follow suit, emphasizing the goal of making America healthier.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration recently submitted a joint Request for Information to establish a federally recognized definition for ultraprocessed foods. This effort aims to create consistency in research and policy related to the health concerns associated with these foods.

Most studies on ultraprocessed foods use the Nova classification system developed in Brazil. However, critics argue that this system focuses on processing levels rather than nutritional value. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary acknowledged that defining ultraprocessed foods might not be perfect and could have implications for programs like free school meals and SNAP.

Creating a unified definition for ultraprocessed foods is challenging. While items like potato chips and frozen meals are clearly ultraprocessed, others such as commercial whole wheat bread and flavored yogurts may be considered healthy at first glance. Marion Nestle, a professor emerita at New York University, questioned how to define these foods without excluding beneficial options.

The USDA has faced personnel challenges, losing roughly 15,000 employees over the past six months. Additionally, there are concerns about censorship, as noted by Kevin Hall, who left the National Institutes of Health after claiming his research was hindered by the Trump administration.

Limiting access to ultraprocessed foods may be difficult for low-income households, particularly if they lack cooking equipment. However, Nestle argued that with proper knowledge, cooking can be manageable and cost-effective.

States currently focus on banning sugar-sweetened beverages and candy, which are seen as easy targets. However, there is no clear research on whether these limits will reduce purchases or participation in SNAP.

Political intent plays a role in these policies. Previous administrations have worried that limiting food choices through SNAP could be seen as overly paternalistic. Parker Wilde, a food economist, noted that SNAP participants have similar purchasing patterns to non-SNAP households, yet only low-income families face restrictions.

There are logistical challenges in banning certain foods and beverages. In 2010, then-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack denied a waiver request to ban soda through SNAP, arguing that incentivizing healthier eating is preferable to limiting access.

While there may be health benefits to restricting certain foods, combining these policies with cuts to SNAP could harm low-income Americans. Since President Trump took office, the USDA has cut programs supporting local food charities and school meals, as well as drastically reducing the Emergency Food Assistance Program. A recent spending law could also remove millions from SNAP.

Wilde argued that current efforts are not paternalistic but rather harmful, given the simultaneous benefit cuts. He noted that most states with approved waivers are led by Republican governors, suggesting a political alignment with anti-safety net themes.