Comparing a soda ban to COVID authoritarianism might make for a catchy tweet, but it’s intellectually dishonest — and dangerously misleading.  That’s the line that some right-wing influencers pushed recently to stir outrage over the commonsense proposal of removing sugary drinks from SNA P, the government’s food assistance program. They equated it to vaccine coercion, calling it “government overreach.”  But according to right-leaning journalist Nick Sortor, it appears that this wasn’t a grassroots outcry at all, but a manufactured backlash, apparently bankrolled by a shady public relations campaign. Thankfully, people like conservative activist and former swimmer Riley Gaines saw through it.  Let’s be clear: No one is banning soda. Anyone can still buy it. The issue is whether taxpayers should have to subsidize it. Right now, they are doing so — heavily.  SNAP, which helps over 42 million Americans afford groceries, costs more than $100 billion a year. According to USDA and independent research, soft drinks consistently rank among the top individual items purchased with SNAP benefits.  While estimates vary, sugary drinks are believed to account for up to 10 percent of all SNAP beverage purchases. That’s billions in taxpayer dollars funneling to Big Soda.  No wonder they’re panicking.  The exclusion of sugary drinks from SNAP — alcohol and tobacco are already excluded — implies a financial hit. So it seems suspicious that a shadowy influencer campaign suddenly materialized, allegedly offering content creators up to $1,000 to post anti-reform talking points. Pictures of Donald Trump sipping Diet Coke suddenly spread on X like sacred scrolls.  Luckily, some refused to be played.  Gaines, the NCAA athlete-turned-advocate, said she was approached and declined. Instead of parroting the script, she asked questions. Who was behind this? Why the secrecy?  “Sad to see people sell out for really not that much money,” she wrote.  Her integrity earned her a public thank-you from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is spearheading the soda reform effort.  And Eric Daugherty, a director with Florida’s Voice who was also approached, publicly acknowledged the veracity of Sortor’s theory. To his credit, he apologized for his participation in the campaign, a move that took courage.  As Gaines and Daugherty understand, this isn’t about party lines. It’s about principle, and it’s about protecting children’s health, which should be bipartisan.  After all, in an era of skyrocketing obesity and chronic illness — not to mention government waste — why should taxpayers fund sugar addiction?  And even setting the addictive nature aside, regular consumption of soda is linked to several negative health effects, including an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease due to its high added sugar content. It can also contribute to tooth decay and metabolic issues, even in individuals who are not overweight.  Emerging research also suggests soda may impair fertility, which could play a small but meaningful role in the nation’s ongoing birth rate decline.  Some lawmakers like Sen. Katie Britt, the Republican from Alabama behind the Healthy SNAP Act, are starting to ask important questions about these negative effects.  Indeed, Kennedy’s federal push is part of a broader, state-level movement to combat obesity, and Britt’s not alone in that fight.  In Florida, State Sen. Jonathan Martin is pushing a bill to ban ultra-processed foods from school lunches. In Texas, the state Senate unanimously passed a health bill promoting nutrition and physical education. Another bill would restrict junk food in SNAP.  And Utah just became the first state to pass a bill banning soda in SNAP. A companion bill would ban harmful food additives in school meals. Gov. Spencer Cox (R) has until March 27 to act.  But just as Big Soda targeted public figures with national followings, they’re fighting back on the state level, too.  According to the Miami Herald, lobbyists for the Florida Beverage Association — an affiliate of the American Beverage Association — are working hard to kill Martin’s bill. If their efforts succeed, it could mean that synthetic dyes and carcinogens remain on cafeteria trays.  At the hearing for the bill this week, lawmakers raised objections that sounded suspicious, such as the idea that victories for Make America Healthy Again are better executed by the federal government rather than the state.  Are they worried that Kennedy wants all the credit for himself? That can’t be the case. The secretary’s been clear that wins for children are his top priority, not padding his own ego. Besides, this objection conflicts with the success that the movement is seeing in states like Texas and Utah.  We also saw this type of industry pushback firsthand in Arizona. When a bill to restrict sugary drinks in SNAP came up for a vote, a lobbyist testified against it. (One of us also testified.) The lobbyist downplayed the correlation between soda and obesity, a testament to just how far these companies will go to deny reality and block reforms that could help low-income families escape chronic diseases like diabetes. He showed up again to oppose the bill in the Senate. Two trips, two attempts to protect profits over public health.  Reforms like Martin’s challenge powerful corporate interests. But don’t expect Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to come swooping in. Most of the states leading this charge, at least for now, are red. This new health movement is being led by conservatives willing to call out corporate overreach, even when it costs money. Hopefully, Florida — typically known for leading the way on common sense — will follow suit. And let’s address the broader smear campaign. Calling this reform “tyranny” is an insult to real overreach like pandemic-era restrictions that kept people from visiting sick relatives or attending church. This isn’t about food police. It’s a line in the sand between corporate manipulation and public responsibility.  Let’s not forget what SNAP stands for: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The “N” is for nutrition. Soda contains no nutrients — just sugar and chemicals. A program meant to nourish struggling families shouldn’t bankroll the opposite.  Gaines and others stood tall when Big Soda tried to buy their sentiment. They defended the health of vulnerable Americans — and the dignity of a new health-focused movement that cuts across party lines, slaughtering sacred cows on both sides: namely corporate idealization on the right, and fear of fat-shaming on the left.  That’s integrity. And it’s worth more than a thousand bucks and a bottle of Coke.  Grace Price is an investigative reporter focused on the interaction between nutrition and disease. Nora Kenney is director of communications at End Chronic Disease.  ...read more read less