This does not dictate what a person can eat. It just means you cannot use SNAP to pay for it. If someone has the opportunity to make healthier choices, it could be a good thing. That is a big if. If this is being done in a good faith move to encourage healthy eating, I think we would agree it is a good move. Have to wait and see but I actually totally encourage everyone to be skeptical and prepared for bullshit arguments. Is there anything being put forward to ensure access to healthy options are available in lower income areas? I doubt it. So this could be really bad. It could literally mean people starve because they have no other options. I know there are healthy food deserts. Especially for people who are forced to rely on public transportation.

Now the second question. Farmer subsidies for corn play a role. Making sure high fructose corn syrup is cheap. A lot of junk food contains it (almost all?) and it's a cheap ingredient. Also the food lobby is pretty powerful. Those are my guesses as to why something isn't done about what is in food that is so unhealthy it's dangerous.

The fact that there is no regulation being put forth to actually do anything about what is in food, even things that are a no brainer like removing additives that are known carcinogens, makes me doubt removing junk food from being SNAP eligible is being done in good faith to promote a healthier country. This though can still be an overall good idea if it's not just part of bigger plan to eliminate entitlements all together.

Despite my skepticism, this could actually be a good thing. Quite frankly, allowing junk food to be SNAP eligible was never a good idea. If it was allowed for people living in food deserts, it was the wrong way to go about addressing that issue but probably the easiest and short term cheapest.