A lobbyist for the American Heart Association turned heads last week when he asked Texas Republicans not to exclude soda, ultra-processed deserts, and candy from the list of items that can be bought with food stamps, despite the fact that the medical group has for years warned that such foods cause heart disease.
The testimony seemingly prioritized a left-wing opposition to welfare reform over its own mission and expertise — similar to scientists who said during COVID that mass gatherings were dangerous unless they were Black Lives Matter rallies, contributing to a dramatic loss of trust in medical experts. The testimony by Alec Puente, director of government relations for AHA, was so surprising that State Senator Lois W. Kolkhorst (R), chair of the Committee on Health and Human Services, repeatedly wondered if AHA could truly be taking the position.
“I often say I can never be surprised in this building, but for the American Heart Association to be against this bill, that might be the surprise of the session so far,” Sen. Kolkhorst said. “I would encourage you to look at what it restricts. I don’t know if y’all’s board voted on that.”
But now, AHA has retracted the testimony, with spokesman Steve Weiss telling The Daily Wire that, “The Association’s position on Texas Senate Bill 379 was miscommunicated during the TX Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing last week. The Association is not opposed to the bill, which would restrict purchases of sugary drinks and certain other unhealthy foods within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).”
“The miscommunication at the hearing from our representative, who is based in Texas, was unfortunate. We have corrected the record and worked to ensure this will not happen again,” Weiss said via email. “The Association remains committed to increasing the consumption of healthy food and decreasing the consumption of sugary drinks across our mission-critical work in scientific research, public policy and public awareness.”
He would not explain how the organization’s lobbyist managed to inadvertently register in advance specifically to testify against the bill, travel to the state capitol, and provide written and oral testimony that was the exact opposite of the organization’s mission. According to the Texas committee’s list of registered witnesses, Puente was joined by Walmart in opposing the law, while representatives from the Texas Radiological Society, Texas Medical Association, Make Texans Healthy Again, and End Chronic Disease showed up to support it.
Soda is the single most frequently purchased item with food stamps, despite the program’s stated goal of increasing nutrition for Americans. The AHA has lobbied cities to heavily tax soda to disincentivize workers from purchasing it, but Puente told the Texas legislators that tax dollars should continue to buy soda outright for those on welfare.
“While improving Texans’ diet is a shared goal, the heart association is concerned about potential impacts of this bill on participation and population health,” Puente testified. “Policies intended to reduce obesity should be focused on the population as a whole rather than singling out SNAP participants. While we know that SNAP is meant to be a supplement, healthy fruits and vegetables remain out of reach for many, and this will not change until benefit adequacy is addressed.”
He advocated for SNAP benefits to be increased while still permitting them to be spent on junk food, which he said would result in more purchases of fruit.
“I certainly understand why that might be surprising,” Puente responded to rebuttal from Kolkhorst, the bewildered lawmaker. “If we were talking about the issue a bit more generally I think the position might be a bit more nuanced, but I think the basic position is going to be that for something like this, we would need to be confident that it would not have an impact on overall participation in the program.”
Puente did not explain why food stamp recipients would stop participating in the program if they could not buy soda and potato chips with it, why the heart association would have an interest in maintaining welfare participation rates, or how increasing food stamp benefits so participants could buy fruits on top of their existing load of artery-clogging sweets would reduce obesity.
His testimony was preceded by that of Grace Price, a 19-year old food activist, who said “SNAP kids consume 43% more sugary drinks than those not on SNAP.”
“With 72% of SNAP recipients also on Medicaid, we are paying for the problem and the solution,” Price said. “This isn’t complicated, even my six-year old niece knows candy and soda are unhealthy. You don’t need a masters degree to know they have no place in a nutrition program.”
SNAP is a $124 billion-a-year program that allows poor people to buy virtually any edible item with the exception, in most cases, of restaurant meals. Food stamps are even accepted at thousands of liquor or tobacco stores, in case someone wants to pick up a Mountain Dew to chase their vodka or a bag of Skittles to go with their cigarettes.
Politicians from both parties have periodically noted the absurdity of including taxpayer-funded soda and candy in a nutrition program, with states like New York attempting to block soda. But SNAP is a federal program, and the feds have refused to allow states waivers allowing them to do so, even as pilot programs.
Now a coalition is forming between Make America Healthy Again advocates and Department of Government Efficiency proponents. Liberals have said DOGE will fail to balance the budget because such a large portion of federal spending is tied up in Medicare and Medicaid. But reducing obesity by improving diets among the poor could drastically decrease Medicaid spending relating to issues like diabetes.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who is from Texas, is expected to grant waivers to states who ask, and Arkansas has said it will do so. The change could also be nationwide; Marco Rubio introduced such a bill in the Senate in 2023.
Roy Lenardson of the Foundation for Government Accountability testified in support of the bill at the Texas hearing.
“How is it going with our health in this country? If 42% of adults and 20% of kids are obese…and obesity has tripled since the 1960s…it’s not going great.” He told The Daily Wire that even Sonny Purdue, the agriculture secretary during Trump’s first term, blocked Maine’s request to exclude soda from the welfare program, and that special interests fight hard to keep the spigots of taxpayer money flowing for soda and candy.
Antioch Tobacco & Beer in Antioch, Tennessee / Google
He said such funding could explain the American Heart Association testimony, noting that it has received more than a million dollars each from Walmart, Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk — the maker of obesity drug Ozempic — and that PepsiCo pays it to be part of its Industry Nutrition Forum.
“Voters put the MAHA movement’s hands on the levers of power, and the taxpayer-funded junk food cartel is sweating bullets,” Lenardson said.
The American Beverage Association, the industry group for soda manufacturers, is mounting a nationwide media offensive that attempts to persuade Republican lawmakers against reforms to the program. The industry group is attempting to cast the ability to buy taxpayer-funded junk food as an issue of liberty.
The ad campaign, called “Your Cart, Your Choice,” is spearheaded by the soda group in partnership with the National Confectioners Association, which represents candy manufacturers, and the Corn Refiners Association, which profits from high-fructose corn syrup.
“Restricting what one segment of the population can buy at the grocery store just because they need temporary government assistance goes against American values. These proposals treat families and veterans as second-class citizens,” it says on top of an image of an American flag. “REJECT these so-called ‘reforms’ and take action to protect the freedom of food and beverage choice for all Americans.”
Its paid ads on X have been met with uniform derision, with one user responding: “Not your money, not your choice.”
In a statement to The Daily Wire, the group reiterated its liberty-centric argument for not restricting food stamp spending.
“Government meddling in Texans’ grocery carts does nothing to make us healthier and won’t save taxpayers a single dollar, but it will add new layers of red tape and empower government bureaucrats to force their ideas onto your shopping list,” said Americans for Food & Beverage Choice spokeswoman Stacie Rumenap. “The working-class coalition that showed up this past election voted to reject bloated and inefficient government. Politicians should take note.”
Its paid ads on X have been met with uniform derision, with one user responding: “Not your money, not your choice.”
The soda lobby is also promoting unusual op-eds in conservative media that try to convince free-market conservatives to rally around taxpayer-funded junk food.
Newsmax published one such piece, “Keep Bureaucrats’ Hands Out of American’s [sic] Grocery Carts – Please.” It was authored by Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation, which, according to tax records, is funded by PhRMA, whose members profit from treating the unhealthy
