RFK, Jr is a walking freak show when it comes to health. BUT… he has gotten a few things right. And one is the full-fledged understanding that consuming sugary drinks like Coke and Pepsi— along with their so-called "diet" counterparts— is profoundly unhealthy. Regular sodas are loaded with high-fructose corn syrup or refined sugars, which cause rapid spikes in blood sugar and insulin, contributing to metabolic disorders like obesity, type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease. These drinks also promote chronic inflammation, which is linked to heart disease, cancer and neurodegenerative conditions. Beyond the metabolic impact, their acidity (from phosphoric acid) erodes tooth enamel and contributes to bone loss by interfering with calcium absorption. Diet sodas, often marketed as a “healthier” alternative, come with their own set of dangers. Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose can disrupt gut microbiota, leading to insulin resistance and weight gain despite their zero-calorie branding. Some studies suggest they may even increase cravings for sugar, leading to greater overall caloric intake. Additionally, certain artificial sweeteners have been linked to headaches, neurological effects and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Whether full-sugar or artificially sweetened, at least RFK Jr understands that these beverages offer no nutritional benefit and actively harm the body, making them a significant contributor to the national and global rise in chronic illness.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the kind of MAGAts with brains rotted out enough to vote for Trump make red states the worst place— with one exception— for this particular death cycle. The top 10 states with the highest per capita sugar-sweetened beverage purchases are:
Missouri: 51.8 gallons per person per year (58.5% Trump)
Iowa: 51.5 gallons (55.7% Trump)
South Dakota: 51.3 gallons (63.4% Trump)
North Dakota: 50.5 gallons (67.0% Trump)
Nebraska: 50.4 gallons (59.3% Trump)
Kansas: 50.3 gallons (57.2% Trump)
Minnesota: 49.0 gallons (46.7% Trump)
West Virginia: 46.8 gallons (70.0% Trump)
Kentucky: 45.8 gallons (64.5% Trump)
Indiana: 44.1 gallons (58.6% Trump)
And 10 states where most voters are smart enough to avoid Trump, are the ones with the lowest per capita consumption:
Hawaii: 23.5 gallons per person per year (37.5% Trump)
New Hampshire: 27.0 gallons (47.9% Trump)
Vermont: 27.2 gallons (32.3% Trump)
Connecticut: 28.9 gallons (41.9% Trump)
Massachusetts: 29.0 gallons (36.0% Trump)
Rhode Island: 29.1 gallons (41.8% Trump)
California: 29.8 gallons (38.3% Trump)
New Jersey: 30.1 gallons (46.1% Trump)
New York: 30.2 gallons (43.3% Trump)
Colorado: 30.4 gallons (43.1% Trump)
Yesterday, Kristina Peterson, Josh Dawsey and Laura Cooper reported that though Señor Trumpanzyy swills down multiple cans of Diet Coke daily, RJK Jr “calls it ‘poison.’” Wouldn’t a true patriot suggest that Trump triple his daily consumption? But that’s not what’s happening. “At both state and federal levels, the Kennedy-led Make America Healthy Again movement is backing efforts to prevent people from spending food-aid benefits on sugary, carbonated beverages. Now, they are gaining momentum with an administration led by a man who enjoys soda so much that he had a red button installed on his desk for a valet to bring him a Diet Coke.”
Beverage companies are nervous about the push and preparing a counterpush of their own.
Liberal-leaning states including New York and Minnesota have tried in the past to strip soda from state food-aid programs, saying it would boost their nutritional impact. But the U.S. Agriculture Department, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has rejected the requests for more than 20 years, saying it would be too complicated to implement. This year, deep-red Arkansas may be the first to get a different answer.
The state is preparing to ask the USDA if it can restrict some less-healthy items, including potentially soda, candy and desserts, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in an interview Friday.
“Nobody is anti-Diet Coke. Nobody is anti-soft drink. I like a soft drink, too. It’s whether or not the government should be paying for it,” said Sanders, who was Trump’s press secretary in his first term.
Currently SNAP recipients can purchase most food with the benefits, but not items such as pet food or alcohol. Sanders said the state is still fine-tuning the language of its waiver request.
Trump’s new agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, has indicated she is inclined to grant such waivers. She sent governors a letter on her first full day in office, urging them to propose pilot programs testing changes to food aid.
“When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children, who perhaps need something more nutritious?” Rollins told reporters recently outside the White House.
Meanwhile in Washington, an alarmed Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and their band of lobbyists are trying to persuade Trump such steps would alienate his core voters. The chief executive of Coca-Cola, James Quincey, spent about an hour with Trump during the transition, presenting him a commemorative inaugural Diet Coke. “Our principal objective is to make sure we offer those consumers options,” Quincey said.
The American Beverage Association… commissioned polling this year showing that nearly 60% of those who voted for Trump last fall support allowing soda purchases with food aid. “The better populist path is standing with the historic working class coalition that voted for President Trump,” the group’s chief executive, Kevin Keane, said. “There are no wins in pushing for restrictions,” he said.
The trade group launched an advertising campaign highlighting that about 60% of the drinks Americans buy from companies like Coke and PepsiCo have zero sugar.
Many officials in the Trump administration support limiting soda, but Trump himself, who also drinks Diet Coke from a wine glass for toasts, has been skeptical of banning things his supporters like. He has told advisers that bans aren’t popular when others have proposed restrictions on menthol, for example. Given that dynamic, soda companies are planning a lobbying campaign focused on Trump himself, according to people familiar with the effort.
Grocers and food companies have opposed efforts to exclude soda and other sugary drinks from the assistance program, which helps more than 42 million Americans, as have anti-hunger groups and some Democrats.
“This policy could work in a world where everyone has access to fresh, healthy produce where they live,” Arkansas state Sen. Clarke Tucker, a Democrat, said of the push to exclude soda. “That’s not the reality probably anywhere in America,” and certainly not in Arkansas, he said.
State lawmakers in Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, Wyoming and elsewhere have introduced legislation to exclude soda and in some cases other types of sugary desserts in SNAP.
“You see the movement happening with RFK Jr.— finally the topic has come to the front here,” said Arizona state Rep. Leo Biasiucci, a Republican who wrote one such bill. Biasiucci said that he was motivated after watching a family buy soda and junk food at a Circle K convenience store with SNAP benefits.
Republicans have long been divided on the issue, with some uncomfortable over the idea of policing people’s purchases. Sonny Perdue, who served as Agriculture Secretary under Trump’s first administration, said at the time he didn’t want “to become a nanny state of directing how, and what, people feed their families.”
When Congress authorized a permanent food-aid program in 1964, the version passed by the U.S. House of Representatives specifically excluded soda and “luxury foods,” but the Senate removed that provision, arguing it would be too complicated to enforce.
Progressives support government intervention to promote public health, whether through soda taxes, bans on trans fats or— like in this case— restricting certain purchases in food assistance programs. Their rationale is that corporate interests have flooded the market with unhealthy options, and regulation is necessary to protect consumers— especially vulnerable populations— from predatory marketing and harmful products. This is why blue states like New York have previously attempted to restrict sugary drink purchases with SNAP benefits.
However, Democrats also face pushback from their own ranks. Anti-hunger advocates argue that restricting SNAP choices infantilizes low-income people, implying they can’t make their own dietary decisions. Some progressives hesitate to support bans that disproportionately affect communities of color and working-class voters, particularly when access to fresh, healthy food is already limited in many areas by, for example, food deserts.
Meanwhile, conservatives traditionally rail against the “Nanny State” when it comes to regulating corporate behavior— whether it’s soda, tobacco or gun sales. They present government intervention as an attack on individual freedom and personal responsibility, arguing that it’s not the government’s role to dictate people’s diets. But Republicans have no problem embracing the Nanny State when it aligns with their culture war agenda— banning abortion, criminalizing drag shows or censoring school curricula. And now, some in the GOP are selectively supporting restrictions on food aid, not necessarily out of genuine concern for public health but as a way to reinforce conservative narratives about “welfare abuse.” Their argument isn’t that soda is bad for everyone— it’s that government benefits shouldn’t be spent on it. This aligns with their broader push to tighten access to social programs under the guise of fiscal responsibility. There is also the worry that if unhealthy food causes expensive medical care, their rich donors will be forced to pay for it.
Trump himself embodies this contradiction. The self-serving narcissistic billionaire claims to be a populist who stands with the working class, but his administration prioritizes corporate profits over public health. While a few GOP state leaders push soda restrictions, Trump’s coziness with corporate lobbyists— including Coca-Cola’s CEO— shows where his loyalties ultimately lie. Just as he waffled on banning menthol cigarettes to avoid alienating his voters, he’s unlikely to back an outright soda restriction if it risks upsetting his base. RFK Jr. disrupts the partisan divide by bringing an anti-corporate, pseudo-populist energy to the issue. His anti-vaccine conspiracies and general crackpot tendencies make him an unlikely ally for public health initiatives, but his stance on sugary drinks is one of the rare places where he correctly identifies corporate malfeasance. The question is whether his advocacy will actually shift policy or if it’s just another piece of his erratic, contrarian, widely-ignored brand.
Comentários