A bipartisan group in the House, including dozens of Republicans, joined Democrats to defeat a proposal that would have prevented recipients of federal food assistance from using benefits to buy sugary drinks, prompting criticism from fiscal conservatives and public health advocates.

The measure, introduced by Rep. Keith Self, sought to disqualify soda and other sweetened beverages from eligibility under SNAP, the federal nutrition assistance program serving more than 40 million Americans. In a 238-186 vote, the amendment failed, with 183 Democrats and 55 Republicans opposing it.

SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program, currently allows recipients to use benefits for a wide range of food items, including sugary beverages. Critics of the program’s current structure note that roughly $9 billion is spent annually on soda purchases, accounting for about 10% of total SNAP expenditures and making it the most commonly purchased item.

Opponents of the House vote argue that subsidizing soda consumption places a financial burden on taxpayers while contributing little to nutritional needs and potentially worsening health outcomes tied to diet-related diseases.

Reaction to the vote was swift, with several lawmakers voicing frustration over the outcome.

“The House just voted against banning soda from SNAP,” Rep. Nancy Mace wrote on social media. “Why should the government fund your soda purchases?”

She added, “If SNAP recipients want to buy sugary drinks, they can do it on their own dime, not on the backs of a taxpayer-funded nutrition program.”

Some Republicans also questioned why members of their own party broke ranks on the issue.

“It’s so disappointing that 55 Republicans can’t take the first step in stopping something so obviously wrong and that hurts the moral fiber of the country,” Rep. Glenn Grothman told Newsmax.

Policy analysts and nutrition researchers have pointed to studies suggesting that consumption patterns among SNAP participants may be linked to higher rates of chronic illness, increasing long-term healthcare costs.

One frequently cited study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California examined data from more than 19,000 SNAP participants and concluded that restricting purchases of sugary beverages could lead to measurable improvements in public health.

The study found that removing sugary drinks from SNAP eligibility would reduce calorie intake and lower rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes among recipients.

Researchers estimated that such a policy could cut obesity prevalence by nearly one percentage point and reduce diabetes incidence by approximately 1.7%, translating to about 240,000 fewer cases nationwide.

“The logic behind SNAP policy changes is that taxpayers are potentially subsidizing unhealthy food consumption and paying for its downstream health consequences,” the study noted.

Public health advocates argue that the broader impact extends beyond individual choice, emphasizing the cost burden on government healthcare programs.

“This is not just about personal choice — it’s about public cost,” one nutrition policy analyst said.

“When the government subsidizes unhealthy consumption, taxpayers ultimately pay twice: once at the grocery store, and again through healthcare.”

The research also found that SNAP recipients consume more calories from sugary beverages than from fruits and vegetables.

Despite these findings, critics of the proposed restriction—including some lawmakers and anti-hunger organizations—argued that implementing such a ban could complicate program administration and limit consumer autonomy.

Industry groups representing beverage manufacturers and bottling companies were also reported to have lobbied lawmakers heavily in opposition to the amendment.

“It makes me very worried about the country’s future when an anti-family program like this is backed by so many Republicans,” Grothman said.

{Matzav.com}