By Riley McCoy
The Register-Herald
BECKLEY — A new rule at the checkout line has some West Virginians arguing about soda, health and who gets to decide.
As West Virginia restricts soda purchases from SNAP benefits, state leaders have framed the change as a health-focused step meant to steer public dollars toward nutrition while emphasizing that residents can still buy soda with their own money. Residents across the region are split on what the policy really represents.
Supporters describe the restriction as long-overdue and aimed especially at children and nutrition while critics see it as the government getting too involved in private choices — particularly for low-income families who already feel watched and judged. In randomized street interviews across the region, business owners, parents, workers and longtime residents weighed fairness, economic impact, personal responsibility and the purpose of food assistance itself.
Supporters tended to frame it as a correction aimed at long-term health, especially for kids. Kaylee Gill said she knew some people would dislike the restriction but she argued it points families in a better direction.
“I think it’s a good thing, to be honest,” Gill said. “It starts with teaching our kids not to have so much sugar.”
Gill said soda isn’t the only item she thinks should be questioned under SNAP. Drawing on her retail experience, Gill said, “People would buy like $60 to $70 worth of candy from the candy aisle,” and added, “I just don’t think that should really be allowed.”
For others, the soda restriction landed less as a nutrition policy and more as a statement about who gets autonomy and who does not. Lindsay Morrison of Charleston said she has paid into the system for most of her working life and felt the change stripped away basic choices for people using benefits.
“I paid [my taxes] for the majority of my work life,” Morrison said. “So, the fact that I can’t choose and pick what I want from something I paid into is very upsetting.”
Morrison said she views SNAP as assistance meant to keep people afloat, not a program where the state sets a menu, and she objected to the idea that assistance should come with tighter control over everyday decisions.
“It’s made for us to help us to survive,” Morrison said. “At this point, you’re literally telling us what we can eat and what we can drink and it’s not OK, absolutely not.”
Viewpoints ranged from the immediate here-and-now to the potential unintended consequences of a slippery slope.
Bill Kious said he wasn’t focused on soda as much as what the policy could lead to, and he questioned whether West Virginia’s move might become a model for other states with similar politics.
“I think there are some other states that look at things the same way that West Virginia does,” Kious said. “They’ll look at this and they see that it looks like it’s working.”
Some opponents described the restriction as the start of a longer list instead of an isolated change. James Medding said he didn’t think the change would leave anyone without food, but he worried it sets a precedent that could expand beyond soda.
“Nobody’s gonna starve to death,” Medding said. “But what are they gonna do next? They’re gonna start with this and then it’s gonna be something else.”
However, supporters of the waiver leaned on the stated purpose of the program itself. Steve Holcomb said SNAP is meant to help cover nutrition and he questioned whether soda fits that mission.
“The program was set up to be for nutritional value,” Holcomb said. “Soda has no nutrition to it at all these days.”
For some, support came down to health outcomes they see up close. Jimmy Walker said he favored the restriction because of what he associates with heavy soda consumption.
“Because people gain a lot of weight from drinking sodas,” Walker said. “A lot of people got high blood pressure.”
Even among supporters, some framed the issue through children and habit instead of punishment. Sheila Prince said she supported the restriction as a way to cut down on sugar for children.
“I’m really not against it, because, you know, children need to slow down a bunch of sweets,” Prince said. “I know a little boy that his mom gave him so much sweets that all his teeth rotted out.”
Overall, the interviews showed no direct consensus, just a diversity of perspectives on a policy that is as divisive as it is impactful. Some residents saw the soda restriction as a common-sense health step that could shape children’s habits while others viewed it as another line of control drawn around low-income families, with questions about fairness, dignity and what could be restricted next.
See more from The Register-Herald