Researchers used computer models to study what would happen if the government stopped letting people use food stamps (SNAP benefits) to buy sugary drinks like soda and juice. They found that over ten years, this policy could prevent nearly 280,000 cases of obesity, help people live healthier lives, and save the healthcare system $2.75 billion. The benefits would be especially big for lower-income families and Black and Hispanic communities. The study suggests this change could actually save money overall while improving health fairness across different groups in America.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether removing sugary drinks from the list of foods people can buy with food stamps would improve health and save money
  • Who participated: This wasn’t a study of real people—researchers used computer models to predict what would happen to millions of Americans who receive SNAP benefits over a ten-year period
  • Key finding: The policy could prevent about 279,000 obesity cases and save $2.75 billion in healthcare costs, with the biggest benefits for lower-income families and communities of color
  • What it means for you: If this policy were adopted, it might help reduce obesity-related health problems and healthcare costs, especially for families with lower incomes. However, this is a prediction based on computer models, not proven real-world results yet

The Research Details

Researchers didn’t study actual people. Instead, they used a computer program called CHOICES that simulates what would happen to health and costs if policies change. They looked at information from many previous studies about how sugary drinks affect weight and health. The computer model predicted outcomes for SNAP participants from 2023 to 2032—a ten-year period. They estimated how many people would develop obesity, how many healthy years people would gain, and how much money the healthcare system would save. They also looked at whether the benefits would be different for people with different incomes and different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Computer simulations help researchers predict the effects of big policy changes before they’re actually put into place. This approach is useful because testing a real policy change would take many years and cost a lot of money. By using computer models based on solid research, scientists can give policymakers good information to help them make decisions.

This study used established research methods and combined information from many previous studies. The researchers provided ranges for their predictions (showing uncertainty), which is good scientific practice. However, computer predictions aren’t perfect—real-world results could be different. The study would be stronger if it included results from actual pilot programs testing this policy.

What the Results Show

The computer model predicted that excluding sugary drinks from SNAP would prevent about 279,000 obesity cases over ten years. This means roughly 279,000 people would maintain a healthier weight who otherwise wouldn’t have. The model also predicted that people would gain about 115,000 quality-adjusted life years—a measure that combines how long people live with how healthy they feel during those years. In money terms, the healthcare system would save $2.75 billion over ten years from treating fewer weight-related health problems like diabetes and heart disease. For every dollar spent implementing this policy, the healthcare system would save $3.35—making it cost-effective.

The most important secondary finding is about fairness. The benefits weren’t equal across all groups. People living in poverty (earning 130% or less of the federal poverty level) would see 3.5 times more obesity prevention than the average person. Black and Hispanic individuals would see 3 to 3.5 times more obesity prevention than white individuals. This means the policy could help reduce health inequalities between different income and racial groups in America.

Previous research has shown that sugary drinks contribute significantly to obesity and weight-related diseases. This study builds on that knowledge by estimating the specific impact of a policy change. Other studies have looked at similar food policy changes, and this research adds to evidence that changing what foods people can buy with government assistance programs can improve health outcomes.

The biggest limitation is that this is a computer prediction, not real-world evidence. The model makes assumptions about how people would behave if the policy changed, and real behavior might be different. People might buy sugary drinks with their own money instead of SNAP benefits, which would reduce the health benefits. The study didn’t account for potential challenges in implementation, like how stores would enforce the rule or how people would react to the change. The study also didn’t include all possible costs, like the cost of enforcing the policy or helping people adjust to the change.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, policymakers should consider testing this policy through pilot programs in specific areas before making it nationwide. The evidence suggests it could improve health and save money, especially for lower-income families and communities of color. However, real-world testing is needed to confirm these predictions. Confidence level: Moderate—the research is solid, but computer predictions need real-world verification.

This research matters most to policymakers, government officials, and people who care about public health and fairness. It’s relevant to anyone who uses SNAP benefits or cares about reducing obesity and health inequalities. Healthcare providers and public health professionals should also pay attention. People who believe sugary drinks shouldn’t be restricted might disagree with this policy direction.

If this policy were implemented, the biggest health benefits would likely appear over several years as people gradually change their purchasing habits and their health improves. The full benefits predicted in this study would take the full ten years to appear. Some benefits might appear faster (like weight loss in the first year or two), while others would take longer (like reduced rates of diabetes or heart disease).

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track daily sugary drink consumption in ounces or number of servings. Users could set a goal to reduce intake by 10-20% each week and monitor progress with a simple counter or log.
  • Users could use the app to find and save recipes for healthier drink alternatives (water with fruit, unsweetened tea, milk). The app could send reminders to drink water instead of sugary beverages and track money saved by reducing sugary drink purchases.
  • Weekly tracking of sugary drink intake with monthly reviews of progress. Users could also log weight changes and energy levels to see personal health improvements. The app could compare individual progress to the predicted population benefits to show how personal choices contribute to bigger health goals.

This research is based on computer predictions, not actual real-world results. The findings suggest potential benefits of a policy change, but real-world outcomes may differ. This information is for educational purposes and should not be considered medical advice. Anyone with questions about nutrition, weight management, or health should consult with a healthcare provider. Policy decisions should be made by appropriate government agencies after considering all available evidence, including pilot study results.