We spend ~5 billion/year giving people free soda. Cutting back on is an extremely easy way to reduce obesity. Maybe it won't solve it. Maybe it won't even make a big difference. But it will certainly help the cause.
I mean, soda might be a weird thing for you, but it's clearly something that's a standard part of the American diet. It's a 100 billion dollar industry. I don't really understand how removing soda for poor people would have a substantial impact on obesity.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-...
edit
"removing soda for poor people" isn't really even the case. it's just not allowing food stamps to pay for soda. I think, effectively, people will just use cash for that, and not change their habits. So $5 less for gas, or rent, or whatever they might actually use the cash for.
Also, sugar is a standard part of the American diet. But Americans are obese. Here is at least one expert who thinks sugar is the problem: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic...
I'd sort of think, that you, as an economist would go for more of a national tax on soda. Basic basic macro, subsidize what you want, and tax what you don't. You seem to not want soda and also want to punish food stamp users. A tax like that would be regressive, and seem to support your (as i understand them) twin goals.
Instead, you're advocating piling on regulation, making both government and commerce more difficult. I kind of think you're just trolling me, but i'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
What exactly is the link between getting food stamps and being obese, and how dose resolving that alleged connection solve obesity in the united states?
edit
I see, after a careful reading, you're not asserting it would solve obesity. You're asserting that soda, if not subsidized would be consumed less, thus improving the situation.
I think you're underestimating people's willingness to use food stamps for other things and cash for soda. I think you're not really evaluating soda vs sugar and are sort of arbitrarily picking that one thing.
I think the costs of the regulations you're proposing would overshadow any effect on the 5% of 5% who's behavior actually changes.
But, ok, now i see, you're not trolling. You're moving the goalposts from soda to sugar - but ok, you're not crazy.
FWIW, I'm pushing 50 and besides the occasional party, I've never had soda in the house from birth to present, and I probably only treat myself to a soda a 1-2 times a month.
It's worse than that, because SNAP isn't intended to, and generally doesn't, provide 100% of your food budget. So removing unwanted things from the list of what you can buy with it is completely ineffective because yesterday people were buying soda with SNAP and meats with cash and tomorrow they just buy soda with cash and meats with SNAP.
This is one of the reasons why replacing things like SNAP with a UBI gives an efficiency gain. Because of that substitution effect, the entire bureaucracy dedicated to making sure people buy "the right things" with SNAP doesn't actually restrict what people buy and is a pure dead-weight economic loss.
Compare education subsidies, which actually do restrict what people buy, and are therefore worse than a UBI because they do this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...
And if you actually want people to drink less soda, stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup.
Eliminate all sugar subsidies would have better health outcomes. Big Sugar is a real lobbying force to reckon with in US politics. Considering how damaging sugar is to the US healthcare system's overall affordability that all US citizens pay for, I'm not opposed to an instantaneous elimination of the subsidies, and let the chips of the attendant unemployment associated with Big Sugar fall where they may. Those subsidies come with a horrendous long tail of consequences.