The Alabama Legislature took on a monumental task this session: fixing a taxpayer-funded nutrition program that wasn’t funding nutrition.
In April, the legislature passed and Gov. Kay Ivey signed SB57, directing the state to apply for a federal waiver to restrict food stamp purchases of soda and candy.
To Alabama taxpayers, that may seem like common sense and long overdue. At the state capitol in Montgomery, it was neither. Lobbyists representing the interests of the food and beverage industries roamed the halls with well-funded pressure campaigns to keep the status quo intact. State Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and State Rep. Reed Ingram (R-Pike Road) pushed through that opposition and got the bill across the finish line. They deserve credit for it.
The case for reform was never complicated. The food stamp program was created to fight hunger and improve nutrition for low-income families. Yet sweetened beverages and candy alone account for roughly 11% of all food stamp spending nationwide – more than $8 billion a year on sugary drinks and roughly $2 billion on candy. Food stamp recipients spend more on soda than on fruits or vegetables.
The health consequences are real and measurable. Research shows that food stamp recipients have higher rates of obesity compared to non-recipients with similar incomes. Children on food stamps have a higher prevalence of elevated blood pressure than non-recipients, and drink 43% more soda than non-recipients with similar incomes. One additional sugary drink per day can add 15 pounds over the course of a year. Type 2 diabetes and heart disease follow from there. In Alabama, 64% of food stamp recipients are also enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP – meaning taxpayers are often paying twice: once to subsidize the sugary drinks, and again to treat the diseases to which those drinks contribute.
That math is exactly what SB57 is targeting. By directing Alabama to apply for a federal waiver, Orr and Ingram are aligning the program with its original purpose. No one is cutting benefits. Families will still receive the same food assistance they do today. The only change is that soda and candy won’t be on the list of things taxpayers are asked to fund.
The legislature’s action also puts Alabama on solid footing with a commitment the state already made. As part of its application for funding under the Rural Health Transformation Program – the $50 billion initiative created by President Trump’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill – Alabama committed to pursuing a food stamp waiver to restrict junk food purchases. That commitment matters. Under the program’s structure, states that fail to follow through on their policy commitments risk having federal funds withheld, reduced or recovered. The legislature was wise to back up that commitment with the force of law. SB57 ensures Alabama doesn’t just make a promise to Washington – it keeps one.
Alabama is joining a growing wave of states that have already moved. Twenty-two states have received approved waivers from the Trump administration, and several are already in effect. Concerns about implementation have proven manageable in practice. States like Louisiana and Oklahoma are working with consumer intelligence companies to develop comprehensive lists of restricted items, which retailers can then integrate directly into their existing point-of-sale systems – the same systems already used to block food stamp purchases of alcohol and tobacco. The infrastructure is there. The model works.
Alabama’s path forward is simple. The state submits its waiver, leans on the groundwork already laid by states ahead of it, and puts a nutrition program back on a course that reflects what Alabamians expect, where their tax dollars go to food that helps families, not food that hurts them.
Orr, Ingram and Ivey chose to do the right thing for Alabama families. That took persistence, and it deserves recognition. Now the work moves to implementation – and Alabama has every reason to move quickly.
Allen Cambon is senior director of state affairs at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.