Connect with us

The Center Square

Some governors fight to end ‘taxpayer-funded junk food,’ critics push back | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Casey Harper – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-20 08:43:00

(The Center Square) – A battle is brewing nationwide over whether recipients of SNAP benefits, also known as “food stamps,” should be allowed to purchase soda and candy with their government food assistance. 

Critics of the new push to ban soda and candy purchases under SNAP say it unfairly targets lower income families, limits consumer choice and won’t result in better health outcomes. 

Governors in four states are asking the federal government for waivers allowing them to prevent SNAP recipients from using their benefits to purchase what one governor calls “taxpayer-funded junk food.”

SNAP overall costs the federal government about $115 billion per year. A wide array of products are currently disallowed for SNAP users, from alcohol to tobacco products to pet food to vitamins. 

Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has publicly said she would approve the waivers.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also said in a recent speech he welcomes the effort from state leaders.

The scope of the bans vary by state. In West Virginia, the ban would restrict soda purchases. In Idaho and Indiana, the limits apply to soda and candy. 

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders submitted a waiver to the Trump administration last week asking permission to enact the ban in her state blocking SNAP purchases of soda and candy, as The Center Square previously reported. Notably, Sanders’ waiver “will extend to confectionary products with flour…” which is a more broad definition of candy than in some other states. 

Sanders’ waiver also requests SNAP recipients be allowed to purchase rotisserie chickens with their benefits, which are currently blocked under the “hot food” purchase ban at the federal level.  

Sanders raised the issue with the Trump administration in December, sending a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins before they were confirmed by the Senate.

“As Secretaries, I ask that you work collaboratively across the Administration to prohibit the sale of junk food in SNAP and end taxpayer-funded junk food,” the letter said. “I also wish to notify you of my intent to pursue a SNAP Waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service that would support fresh fruits, vegetables, eggs, and protein and prohibit using SNAP for junk food.”

Lower-income Americans who receive the benefits could still purchase those snacks and beverages, just with their own cash, not the government assistance.

“In fact, soda, unhealthy snacks, candy, and dessert account for nearly 23 percent, or $25 billion, of all SNAP purchases,” Sanders said. “Given the relationship between junk food and poor health, our federal food assistance policies are fueling obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and a wide range of chronic health conditions across America.”

Critics of the new push to ban soda purchases under SNAP say it unfairly targets lower income families and limits consumer choice. 

States efforts vary in their approach. Efforts to ban soda and candy are simpler, but language from Huckabee-Sanders and others about “unhealthy snacks” would be much more complicated to regulate. 

Determining which foods are “healthy” or not could be tricky. Does trail mix count as candy if it includes some? Does gum count as candy? Generally, definitions are required to make a distinction between sodas and whether certain “juices” are acceptable.  

“This policy approach is misguided and not needed when it comes to chocolate and candy,” Chris Gindlesperger, senior vice president of Public Affairs and Communications at the the National Confectioners Association, said in a statement. “SNAP participants and non-SNAP participants alike understand that chocolate and candy are treats – not meal replacements. In fact, candy purchasing patterns are basically equivalent between SNAP and non-SNAP families – with only about 2% of SNAP purchases being candy. Consumers have a unique mindset when they enjoy chocolate and candy that is not present when interacting with other foods – whether or not they are using SNAP benefits for food purchases.”

Besides the four states whose governors have said they are moving forward with some version of restrictions on SNAP purchases, other states have seen similar efforts. 

In some cases, only soda is in the crosshairs.

In Ohio, a measure making its way through the legislature would result in blocking SNAP purchases of sugary drinks, efforts the beverage industry says is unfair and won’t improve individuals’ health. 

“Make no mistake, this waiver won’t make an ounce of difference on health,” the trade organization American Beverage said. “Obesity has skyrocketed in the last two decades while beverage calories per serving have dropped by 42% – thanks to our industry’s efforts to empower Americans with more choice and information. In fact, 60% of beverages Americans buy today have zero sugar due to our innovation.”

In Michigan, State Rep. Brad Paquette, R-Niles, introduced a bill to prevent SNAP benefits from being used for soda. State leaders are facing opposition from critics as they get the initiative approved at the state level, but so far the Trump administration has said it is happy to approve the waivers when they are submitted.

“Michigan taxpayers should not be required to fund poor food consumption,” Paquette said. “This legislation is in no way calling for low-income individuals to be stripped of the assistance they currently receive to feed themselves and their families, but we have to recognize that this assistance is a privilege and comes at the expense of taxpaying workers. 

“We should ensure that SNAP beneficiaries are not using this program in a way that is both exorbitant and palpably harmful to themselves,” Paquette added. 

The post Some governors fight to end ‘taxpayer-funded junk food,’ critics push back | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

News from the South - North Carolina News Feed

NIL legislation advances, has exemption for public records laws | North Carolina

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00

(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.

Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.

Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.



Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance




“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”

SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.

“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”

The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.

“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”

Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.

The post NIL legislation advances, has exemption for public records laws | North Carolina appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The article primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.

Continue Reading

News from the South - Louisiana News Feed

Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:37:00

The Make America Healthy Again movement has gained significant attention throughout the nation and many of the top initiatives highlighted have found their way into state legislatures this session.

Louisiana is no exception and Senator Patrick McMath, R-Covington, has, via Senate Bill 14, proposed a significant cleanup of our food supply, especially focused on kids. Backed by the popular support of the MAHA Moms, this bill has three major parts that are worth examining separately for their merits.

First is a ban of several “ultra processed” foods in school meals. In this case the term ultra processed is defined as products that contain any one of 13 specifically referenced compounds. Of these the first 7 are artificial dyes, like red dye No. 40, derived from petroleum byproducts that serve a singular role to make food more visually appealing.

We should all be asking ourselves why we ever allowed this stuff to find its way into our food in the first place. Several of these synthetic dyes have been shown to be associated with various harms ranging from ADHD to allergies and tumors.

Most of the other compounds on the list sound like they should have a skull and cross bones on the label. Take the bread additive azodicarbonamide as an example. If you thought that sounded like something you should not eat, you would be right.

It breaks down into urethane (yes, like the paint), a known carcinogen, and is banned is just about every country but the U.S.

In the case of school lunches, the child has no choice in the matter. They eat what they are provided and we have an obligation to protect them from toxic substances in the cafeteria.

Second is a labeling requirement for foods containing the substances in the school lunch ban portion, plus a few more, known to have a questionable safety profile that are banned in other countries.

It directs manufacturers to place a label on any food or drink containing these chemicals that clearly alerts the consumer of the fact that it contains something that is banned in other countries.

Last, but certainly not least, is a provision to reform of the Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program, once known as food stamps. This program is federally sponsored, and provides food assistance to families with an income below 130% of the federal poverty line. This would be about $31,200 net yearly income for a family of four.

In our inflationary economic environment, every penny counts and when it comes to food and obtaining the maximum calories for minimum dollars is a necessity. Historically, the cheapest foods happen to also be the least healthy in many cases, condemning those dependent on the program to poor health.

Soft drinks containing very high sugar or sugar substitutes are a major contributor to the chronic diseases that plague our health system like obesity and diabetes, especially in children. This bill directs DCFS to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Louisiana to prohibit use of SNAP to purchase soft drinks.

Ultimately, the federal government should go a step further and incentivize healthier alternatives for SNAP beneficiaries, but this bill represents a major step in the right direction that can be accomplished at the state level.

The old saying goes: “You are what you eat.” We should keep this literal and obvious truth in mind when we think about how to turn the tide on chronic disease in our nation.

Let us begin by protecting the children who are too young to choose for themselves and providing better information for adults who can. SB 14 will accomplish both goals and move Louisiana to the forefront of the movement to Make America Healthy Again.

Dr. Ralph L. Abraham, M.D. is the  Louisiana Surgeon General

The post Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article presents a clear ideological stance that aligns with health-conscious, regulatory-focused policy perspectives often associated with center-left viewpoints. It advocates for government intervention to regulate food safety, particularly in school meals and assistance programs like SNAP, emphasizing protection of public health and vulnerable populations such as children and low-income families. The tone is supportive of regulations to restrict harmful substances and promote healthier choices, which suggests a bias favoring increased oversight and reform in food policies rather than a neutral, detached report.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Kenneth Schrupp – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:30:00

(The Center Square) – California Board of Parole Hearings ordered the release of convicted child murderer Herbert David Brown III, making this the second announced early release of a convicted child murderer in recent weeks.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow, whose office convicted Brown for beating his 22-month-old daughter Lily to death, has requested that California Gov. Gavin Newsom use his authority to overturn the parole board’s decision. All current board members are Newsom appointees.

“Brown has done self-help programming but didn’t express responsibility for Lily’s death until Inmate Brown was told that failure to do so was a bar to being paroled,” wrote Dow. “Even then, Inmate Brown’s account lacked credibility.”

“Brown has significant mental health issues that appear to require ongoing monitoring and treatment,” continued Dow. “Inmate Brown’s relapse prevention plans are inadequate and superficial.”

Brown entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the murder. Lily was found dead with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull.

Brown was under the influence of methamphetamine when he killed his daughter. He now identifies as a woman and has served 12 years of his sentence.  

According to the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment on Brown from 2023, he was found to be a “higher moderate” risk for violence. 

Brown was first granted parole in October 2024, after which California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has appointed all current members of the California Board of Parole Hearings, referred the parole decision back to the parole board for review. The board has since reaffirmed its earlier decision, and Dow is seeking residents to write to the governor to use his constitutional authority to override the parole board.

“Precious Lily deserves better. The time is now Governor Newsom, please help ensure that we have Justice for Lily Brown,” said Dow.

“The Governor has authority under California Constitution, Article V, Section 8(b) to reverse a decision to release a convicted murderer on parole, but must do so within 30 calendar days,” continued Dow. “The decision was issued on April 22, 2025.”

There is currently no release date set for Brown.

Two weeks ago, the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to approve the early release of convicted child murderer Josue Herrera, who was found to have beaten his girlfriend’s 2-year-old son to death, sparked national outrage against the state’s apparent leniency toward murders of young children. 

Dow said Brown’s early release is possible due to Proposition 57, passed in 2016. 

Prop. 57 was written to only allow early release of “prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.” 

However, because the state automatically classifies any crimes not specifically classified as violent to be non-violent, such as drive-by shootings and assault with a deadly weapon, many violent crimes are not technically considered “violent” per se.

Dow also noted Prop. 57 allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements, even to those who committed crimes classified as violent.

“This means that even those inmates sentenced for violent offenses, like murder of a child, are eligible to be released much earlier than under the law that was in effect prior to the passage of Proposition 57,” said Dow.

The post Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning

This article presents a narrative that is critical of the California Board of Parole Hearings and Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointments, focusing on the early release of convicted child murderers. The tone and framing emphasize public safety concerns and criticize the perceived leniency of the parole system under progressive policies like Proposition 57. The language used highlights the gravity of the crimes and frames the parole decisions as contentious and problematic, which aligns with a right-leaning viewpoint commonly skeptical of criminal justice reforms associated with more liberal or progressive politics. While the article reports facts, the selection and emphasis on these facts, and the inclusion of the District Attorney’s plea for the governor to intervene, reveal a conservative-leaning perspective.

Continue Reading

Trending