Nebraska’s Great Soda Standoff

Nebraska’s SNAP Ban Is a MAHA-Flavored Distraction from Taxes, Deficits, and Toxic Wells

On May 19, 2025, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen wielded his veto pen, killing a bill that would’ve loosened the state’s lifetime SNAP ban for citizens with drug-related convictions. But Pillen, ever the health crusader, hitched his wagon to the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, proposing to ban SNAP benefits for sugary drinks and candy. In principle, it’s a fine idea—nobody wants taxpayer dollars fizzing away in soda cans. But let’s not kid ourselves: this is less about health and more about political posturing, especially when Pillen’s backyard is swimming in nitrates. Oh, and by the way, Nebraska’s got bigger fish to fry than policing pop purchases.

The Case Against Funding Sugary Drinks and Supporting Able-Bodied Adults

In principle, restricting SNAP benefits from being used to purchase sugary drinks and candy is reasonable. Nebraska’s obesity rate is a significant concern, with 47.6% of adults classified as obese in 2021 based on electronic medical record (EMR) data, far exceeding earlier survey-based projections of 35.5%. This high prevalence contributes to serious health issues like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, which increase healthcare costs. The CDC reports that sugary beverages account for 39% of added sugar in American diets, and low-income populations, who often rely on SNAP, are disproportionately affected by these health issues. The MAHA movement, championed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., highlights that ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks drive chronic diseases, with over 40% of American children now suffering from at least one chronic condition. Using taxpayer funds to support unhealthy food choices contradicts the purpose of a program designed to ensure nutritional security. SNAP should prioritize healthier options like fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins.

Similarly, there is a logical argument for limiting SNAP eligibility to those needing it. Able-bodied adults who are capable of working should, in theory, support themselves. Nebraska’s unemployment rate is low at 2.5% (as of April 2025), with job opportunities available in agriculture, manufacturing, and services. Providing benefits to individuals who could work risks diverting resources from those who cannot, such as children, the elderly, and the disabled. In a state that values hard work, it’s reasonable to expect capable individuals to contribute rather than rely on public assistance.

Not a Priority for Nebraska

However, this issue is not a major concern for Nebraskans. The debate over sugary drinks and SNAP eligibility is overshadowed by more pressing challenges. The state faces a projected $433 million revenue shortfall for 2025-2027, which impacts critical areas like education and tax policy. Property taxes remain a significant burden, with 60% of Nebraskans citing them as a major issue in recent polls. Rural communities are dealing with population decline and aging infrastructure, while urban areas like Omaha face housing affordability problems. Compared to these, restricting SNAP purchases is a minor issue, especially when obesity rates—37% for Hispanic adults and higher among Black and Native American populations—require broader, systemic solutions beyond SNAP restrictions.

Additionally, the evidence supporting such bans is weak. Studies, such as New York’s failed 2010 soda ban proposal, indicate that these restrictions have little impact on obesity rates. They often create administrative burdens and stigmatize SNAP recipients without addressing the root causes of food insecurity. In 2023, 12.1% of Nebraska households experienced food insecurity, and SNAP is a critical resource. Focusing on what people can buy distracts from ensuring access to sufficient food and addressing environmental factors like access to healthy food options, which the MAHA movement also advocates for through community-level interventions.

Pillen’s Inconsistent Health Advocacy

Governor Pillen’s support for the MAHA movement and his proposal to ban sugary drinks in SNAP would carry more weight if not for his administration’s failure to address water quality issues. Nebraska’s groundwater is increasingly contaminated with nitrates, largely from agricultural runoff tied to the state’s farming industry, in which Pillen has deep ties. Nitrates in drinking water are linked to serious health risks, including cancer and “blue baby syndrome.” A 2024 University of Nebraska study found that 20% of tested wells in eastern Nebraska exceeded safe nitrate levels, yet the state has been slow to implement stricter regulations on fertilizer use or runoff control. The MAHA Commission’s report emphasizes the role of environmental toxins in chronic disease, making Pillen’s inaction on water quality particularly contradictory. Advocating for healthy eating through SNAP restrictions while ignoring contaminated water undermines his credibility on public health.

Political Motives Over Policy Solutions

Pillen’s veto of LB319 and his proposal to ban sugary drinks in SNAP appear more about political appeal than effective policy. The veto, which maintained the lifetime SNAP ban for drug offenders, was justified with vague claims of “loopholes” that lack substance. As Senator Victor Rountree pointed out, LB319 would have supported rehabilitated individuals by providing food assistance, reducing hunger, and reducing recidivism. The veto, combined with the sugary drink ban proposal, seems designed to appeal to conservative voters who favor strict welfare policies, rather than addressing systemic issues like taxes or water quality. The MAHA movement’s call for “rigorous transparency” in health policy, as supported by advocates like Hilda Labrada Gore, contrasts with Pillen’s selective focus on SNAP restrictions while ignoring broader health challenges. This suggests political signaling rather than a comprehensive approach to improving Nebraskans’ health.

Conclusion: Focus on Nebraska’s Real Challenges

In principle, preventing SNAP funds from being used for sugary drinks and limiting benefits to those who cannot work is reasonable, especially given Nebraska’s alarming obesity rates, which are projected to reach 51.3% by 2030 if trends continue. However, Nebraska faces more urgent issues, including budget shortfalls, property taxes, and nitrate contamination in water. Pillen’s sugary drink ban proposal, while aligned with the MAHA movement’s goals, is a distraction, prioritizing political appeal over substantive solutions. If the governor is serious about improving Nebraskans’ health, he should address the water quality crisis before focusing on what SNAP recipients buy. Until then, this MAHA-driven initiative is more about appearances than meaningful change.

Sources

• Khandalavala, B. N. (2024). Temporal Trends of Obesity Among Nebraska Adults: EMR Data Shows a More Rapid Increase Than Projected. PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [web:0]

• KFF. (2024). Obesity rates for adults in Nebraska in 2023, by race/ethnicity. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/207406/overweight-and-obesity-rates-for-adults-in-nebraska-by-ethnicity/ [web:1]

• Fox News. (2025). MAHA moms call for 'rigorous transparency' into health concerns. https://www.foxnews.com [web:2]

• Fox News. (2025). Doctors warn of rising chronic diseases as MAHA Commission releases its findings. https://www.foxnews.com [web:3]

• I Stand for Freedom. (2025). In Historic Move, RFK Jr. Takes Aim at Taxpayer-Funded Junk Food. https://istandforfreedom.com [web:4]

• Nebraska Examiner. (2025). Nebraska first in nation to ban soda, energy drinks from public grocery aid benefits. https://nebraskaexaminer.com [web:5]

• Ward, Z. J., et al. (2019). Projected U.S. State-Level Prevalence of Adult Obesity and Severe Obesity. New England Journal of Medicine. https://choicesproject.org [web:6]

• Unicameral Update. (2025). SNAP eligibility expansion amended, advanced. http://update.legislature.ne.gov

• University of Nebraska. (2024). [Study on nitrate contamination in Nebraska groundwater]. [No direct link provided in original context].