Imagine needing to spend nearly three-quarters of your disposable income just to feed your family a healthy diet—only to watch food prices rise faster for nutritious options than for processed, less healthy ones. This is not a distant reality but a daily struggle for millions of people living in poverty across the United States and around the world.
In the U.S., SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) provides a lifeline for over 41 million Americans, but the program’s effectiveness is under scrutiny as ultra-processed foods dominate the options available to recipients.
While the intentions behind such proposals may seem noble, the reality of eating healthy on a limited budget is far more complicated than policymakers often realize.
Healthy Food Costs More Than Twice as Much as Unhealthy Food
According to a 2025 analysis by the Food Foundation, 1,000 calories of healthy food like fruits and vegetables cost £8.80, while the same caloric intake from less healthy options like ready-made meals and processed meats costs only £4.30.
But wait, it gets worse. The poorest families would need to spend 45% of their disposable income just to afford a government-recommended healthy diet. And if you’ve got kids? That jumps to a whopping 70%.
Julie, a 59-year-old who relies on affordable food pantries due to illness, captures this reality perfectly: “I would love to go to a shop and not worry about money. I’ve had panic attacks at the till, worrying that I’ve not got enough money.”
Global Access to Healthy Diets Is Limited by Cost
This isn’t just a problem in one country—it’s a global crisis. The World Bank reports that the global average cost of a healthy diet was $3.96 per person per day in 2022, significantly higher than food poverty lines in most countries. This cost far exceeds what many families can realistically afford.
Save the Children’s analysis reveals that nearly half of the world’s children—1.12 billion kids—cannot afford a balanced diet due to rising food prices and cost-of-living pressures. In low-income and lower-middle-income countries, more than two out of every three children face this challenge.
“When income is limited, families tend to prioritize the frequency of feeding and fuller stomachs over the quality of foods for young children,” explains Save the Children. It’s not that parents don’t care about nutrition—they just need to make sure their kids don’t go hungry. Can you blame them?
Banning Processed Foods in SNAP Would Not Address Root Causes
Despite these economic realities, some policymakers continue to push for restrictions on what SNAP participants can purchase. However, nutrition experts argue this approach misses the mark entirely.
“The issue isn’t junk food,” explains Alicia “Chacha” Miller, RDN. “If we want to improve public health outcomes, we need to address cost, convenience, and accessibility—the real factors that drive purchasing decisions—not shame or restriction of which food options are available for lower-income families.”
The problems run deeper than individual food choices. SNAP participants often live in “food deserts” with limited access to affordable, healthy foods. About 39 million Americans live without convenient access to grocery stores that offer nutritious options. Restricting purchases doesn’t create new supermarkets or make fresh produce more affordable—it simply reduces options for families already facing significant barriers.
Research supports this perspective. Randomized controlled trials show that restricting SNAP purchases does little to change overall dietary intake or improve health outcomes. The barriers to healthy eating are structural, not behavioral.
Ultra-processed foods are the Default for Low-Income Families
Current food systems make processed foods the most accessible option for SNAP recipients. Studies show that SNAP participation is associated with higher intakes of ultra-processed foods—54.7% of total energy intake compared to 53.0% for income-eligible non-participants.
This isn’t because SNAP recipients prefer processed foods. It’s because the vast majority of SNAP-eligible products in major retailers are ultra-processed. The system inadvertently supports the ultra-processed food industry while making healthier options less accessible and affordable.
When healthier foods are both more expensive and less available, families have little choice but to rely on processed options. Restricting these purchases without addressing underlying accessibility issues would leave many families with even fewer options.
Restrictions Are Difficult to Implement and Enforce
Even if restrictions seemed beneficial, implementing them would create enormous practical challenges. There are over 650,000 food and beverage products on the market, with 20,000 new ones introduced annually.
Who’s going to decide what’s “healthy” and what’s not? The food industry can’t even agree on basic nutritional standards. Creating and maintaining a banned foods list would require massive administrative resources and cost taxpayers a fortune.
“The additional bureaucracy needed to support such an undertaking is not likely to save taxpayer money,” notes the Brookings Institution. The complexity of modern food systems makes simple categorizations nearly impossible to implement fairly and effectively.
Incentives Work Better Than Restrictions
Rather than restricting choices, research consistently shows that incentive-based programs produce better results. Programs offering discounts on fruits and vegetables have demonstrated success in encouraging healthier purchases among low-income consumers.
“Research consistently shows that the primary barrier to healthier food is affordability, and incentive-based options are more successful at encouraging nutritious food purchases,” says Crystal FitzSimons, FRAC interim president.
States and organizations increasingly focus on positive incentives rather than restrictions. These programs respect individual choice while making healthy options more accessible and affordable. By reducing the cost barrier rather than limiting options, incentive programs address the root cause of the problem.
SNAP Cuts and Restrictions Risk Deepening Poverty
Restricting food choices without addressing affordability could worsen existing problems. Data shows that revoking recent increases to SNAP benefits could raise poverty rates among recipients by 11%, among children by over 13%, and among seniors by 10%.
Further limiting what families can purchase with SNAP benefits—without making healthy foods more affordable—risks deepening food insecurity and health disparities. Families might have access to assistance but find themselves unable to purchase enough food to meet their basic needs.
The goal should be to reduce hunger and improve nutrition, not to create additional barriers for families already struggling to put food on the table.
Industry and Advocacy Responses Are Mixed
The complexity of food restriction proposals has led to mixed reactions across sectors. Food and beverage companies argue that bans are arbitrary and difficult to implement, especially when definitions of prohibited foods vary by state.
Anti-hunger advocacy groups oppose restrictions as both patronizing and ineffective. They advocate instead for policies that address the real barriers to healthy eating: cost and accessibility.
“Just because you are low-income, it doesn’t mean that you should be told what to buy,” explains one advocacy representative. “We are more in favor of increasing the cost of unhealthy foods and decreasing the price of healthy foods.”
This perspective recognizes that lasting change requires systemic solutions, not individual restrictions. Making healthy foods more affordable and accessible benefits everyone, not just those receiving government assistance.
Building a Food System That Actually Works
We need to address the fundamental economics of food access.
- Subsidizing healthy food production instead of just corn and soy
- Supporting farmers’ markets in underserved areas
- Investing in food distribution systems that prioritize nutrition over profit
- Making healthy foods affordable for everyone, not just the wealthy
These approaches would benefit all consumers while avoiding the stigma and practical nightmares of food restrictions.
The Bottom Line: Economics, Not Willpower
The barrier to healthy eating isn’t lack of willpower or information—it’s affordability and accessibility. Until we address these fundamental issues, restricting food purchases will do more harm than good.
Nutrition education is great, but it’s useless if people can’t afford to put what they learn into practice. Until we create a food system that actually supports health and nutrition for everyone—not just those who can afford it—we’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And frankly, families struggling to put food on the table deserve better than that.
