America loves policing poor people. From how they dress to how they parent to, yes, even what they eat. The latest battleground? A growing push to ban SNAP recipients from purchasing so-called "junk food" with their benefits. While it’s being framed as a public health initiative, let’s call it what it really is: another thinly veiled attack on low-income communities, particularly Black and Brown ones, that does nothing to address the root causes of food insecurity.

First, let’s talk about the idea of “junk food.” Who gets to decide what’s “junk” and what’s “acceptable”? Are we talking about potato chips and soda? What about sugary yogurts marketed as healthy or pre-packaged granola bars loaded with corn syrup? And let’s not ignore the fact that many of these so-called “junk foods” are among the most affordable, convenient, and accessible options for people living in food deserts—places where full-service grocery stores are scarce, but fast food, gas stations, and corner stores are abundant.

For millions of Americans relying on SNAP, food choices aren’t about indulgence—they’re about survival. When you live in a neighborhood where the closest grocery store is two bus rides away but the corner bodega sells a bag of chips for a dollar, guess what’s getting purchased? And when fresh produce is overpriced, understocked, or outright unavailable, you make do with what’s in front of you.

What’s most insidious about this push to regulate poor people’s food choices is that it completely ignores the structural barriers that create these dietary patterns in the first place. If the government really cared about nutrition for low-income families, it wouldn’t be micromanaging what’s in their grocery carts—it would be ensuring equitable access to fresh, affordable food. That means investing in grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods, expanding urban farming initiatives, and making healthier foods cost-comparable to processed ones.

And let’s be real: rich people eat junk food too. Ever heard of Whole Foods' $10 artisanal chocolate bars? Or the influencer obsession with expensive fast food like Shake Shack? The difference is, when you have money, your choices aren’t scrutinized. No one is standing over a hedge fund manager’s shoulder at the checkout line telling him to put down the Haagen-Dazs. But for a single mom on SNAP, suddenly her bag of Doritos becomes a symbol of moral failure.

And for the people who claim this is about taxpayer dollars being used "responsibly," let’s pause for a reality check. The biggest drain on taxpayer money isn’t someone buying a Mountain Dew with their EBT card—it’s corporate subsidies, defense spending, and tax loopholes for billionaires. If people really cared about “waste,” they’d focus on that instead of demonizing a struggling family grabbing a pack of cookies.

At the end of the day, what someone eats doesn’t affect you. It doesn’t change your diet, your health, or your ability to function. So why is there such an obsession with what poor people put in their mouths? Because this isn’t about health. It’s about control. It’s about punishing people for being poor.

If we actually want to improve nutrition and health outcomes for low-income communities, we need to stop dictating their choices and start addressing the real issues: poverty, accessibility, and affordability. Until then, keep your hands out of other people’s grocery bags—because what they eat doesn’t make you sh-t.