system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People should not be able to purchase soda with SNAP benefits

The idea of SNAP is to supplement nutrition, but soda has no nutritional value. A candy bar would at least offer satiation for a short period of time, soda won't even do that. Soda barely, if at all, can even be defined as a food. Google definition for food: \*" any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth. "\*

&#x200B;

Some people living in a "food desert" isn't relevant when it comes to soda. It'd be better for them to have nothing at all rather than soda. There is no practical scenario in which a person would need soda (every day) because there isn't any water around.

&#x200B;

If one thinks the government shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot purchase with money provided by the government, then why restrict cigarettes or tobacco?

&#x200B;

I don't believe this is a matter of offering people dignity. But even if it were, drinking multiple sodas a day isn't going to help a person be more dignified in the long term.

&#x200B;

If there are "some sodas" which may offer nutritional value isn't enough reason to me to just allow all types of sodas to be purchased. Also if energy drinks and sports drinks are just as bad isn't relevant either.

&#x200B;

I don't see a slippery slope issue here either. The line is just "it needs to offer nutritional value"; which soda does not, therefore it should not be eligible for SNAP purchases.
gpt
The problem is with how items are restricted/categorized by the government.

Soda has a nutrition facts label. It is considered a food by the FDA. If it is considered a food (has nutrition facts), it is eligible to be purchased with SNAP benefits. End of story, no debate to be had. 

The other side of this is that things which are far more healthy than many of these things considered 'foods' (meal replacements shakes/bars, protein powders that could hell fill out breakfasts, Ensure type shakes, etc) don't have a nutrition facts label. They have a supplement label. Are these things actually healthy/good use of money? Debatable, but they are a far sight better than soda and chips.

The way the US government defines 'food' is what needs fixed, and it's just not going to happen.




Past that:

If you go the route of excluding things more specifically, every existing product has to be reviewed. Every new flavor stemming from these existing products has to be reviewed. Every new brand, every minor formula change. 


You can't just say 'no soda' because then why are sunny d, Hawaiian punch, and kool aid ok? You have to find the breaking point of 'does this meet the cut?' If none of those do, what about fruit juice cocktails? Probably not. Well then, what about fruit juice with additional sweetener? Also probably not. But fruit juice itself isn't great either. So ok, no, nix all sugary beverages.

Oh. Coffee only has minimal nutritional value too. No coffee or coffee drinks. And tea. Why would tea be okay? 

Let's just... Only water and milk then! Those are the only beverages that are SNAP eligible! Waittttt! Hold up! Soy milk? Chocolate milk? What about coconut cream for cooking? Sweetened condensed milk in the baking aisle?

It is just not possible to actually limit by item without massive issues and debate that will never actually end long enough for such a reform to happen. Recategorizing is more feasible, but also, lobbyists and debate.