American Heart Assoc. opposes Texas SNAP’s sugary food, drink regulations

• The American Heart Association opposes a Texas bill that would restrict using SNAP benefits to purchase sugary drinks and processed snacks. Critics question if corporate funding influences the AHA’s policies.
• The AHA’s opposition has sparked criticism over its history of receiving funding from major food companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
• An AHA spokesperson says their position on the Texas legislation was “miscommunicated.” They say the organization has long favored the USDA using its authority to increase consumption of healthy foods and decrease consumption of sugary drinks.

---

Full Story

A debate over food stamps is heating up in Texas. The American Heart Association (AHA) opposes a bill restricting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for sugary drinks and processed snacks.

This stance has raised eyebrows, with some questioning whether corporate funding influences the organization’s policies.

Texas Senate Bill 379 sparks controversy

On Tuesday, March 11, the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services held a public hearing on Senate Bill 379. The proposed legislation would prevent SNAP recipients from using their benefits to buy certain junk food items. They include sodas, candy and chips.

During the hearing, lawmakers and public health advocates voiced their opinions. State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst expressed shock over the AHA’s opposition during the hearing.

“I often say that I can never be surprised in this building, but for the American Heart Association to be against this bill, that might be the surprise of the session so far,” said Kolkhorst.

Some argued that limiting sugary food purchases could help fight obesity and diet-related diseases.

One of the bill’s supporters, 19-year-old Grace Price, identified herself as a science-based investigative journalist. Price spoke in favor of the restrictions, pointing to studies linking high sugar consumption to chronic health conditions.

“America has an obesity problem, and products like soda and candy are making it worse,” Price said.

American Heart Association opposes the bill

Many were surprised when Alec Puente, the AHA’s government relations director, spoke against the bill. Puente testified that the AHA was concerned about the bill’s potential impact on SNAP participation. He also emphasized the importance of educating the public about healthy eating instead of restricting purchases.

“For a bill like this, we would need to be careful that it does not impact overall participation in the SNAP program and that there be adequate education to the public on healthy habits,” Puente said.

The AHA’s stance sparked criticism, with some questioning whether financial ties to major food companies influence its decision.

AHA’s history of corporate funding

The American Heart Association has long been scrutinized for its corporate partnerships. In 1997, the Chicago Tribune reported that the AHA had raised millions from companies like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, ConAgra and Kellogg’s.

In 2012, Kellogg’s and the AHA introduced a heart-healthy label on select cereals, including Raisin Bran, All-Bran and FiberPlus. A press release at the time said the label would help consumers make healthier choices.

AHA’s heart-check certification comes at a cost

The AHA’s Heart-Check Food Certification Program allows food manufacturers to apply for an official heart-healthy label — but at a price.

According to the AHA’s website, the certification fee ranges from $250 to $6,000 per product annually, depending on the number of products submitted.

Pepsi and Coca-Cola’s financial ties to AHA

The AHA also received funding from PepsiCo despite previously warning that sugary drinks may increase the risk of heart disease.

A 2016 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo sponsored at least 95 health organizations between 2011 and 2015.

PepsiCo is currently listed as a forum member on the AHA’s website. The company pays $15,000 annually to be part of an initiative aimed at “improving public health through sustainable nutrition.”

Critics argue that these corporate relationships create a conflict of interest. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have actively lobbied against at least 29 public health bills that sought to reduce soda consumption and improve nutrition policies.

AHA responds to criticism

An AHA spokesperson responded to Straight Arrow News after publication, saying their position on the Texas legislation was “miscommunicated,” and that the organization has long favored the USDA using its authority to increase consumption of healthy foods and decrease consumption of sugary drinks.

“Our position is consistent with our historical and explicit commitment to reducing the consumption of sugary drinks, which can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease,” VP of Advocacy Communications Steve Weiss said, adding that AHA has supported similar policies in Seattle, Philadelphia and other cities.

Coca-Cola’s health research funding

In 2015, Coca-Cola launched a transparency initiative, revealing that it had spent $118 million on health research and fitness partnerships.

That same year, a University of Cambridge study found that Coca-Cola had contracts allowing the company to terminate research if the findings were unfavorable.

Following a backlash, Coca-Cola responded in a statement to CNBC, saying, “We agree research transparency and integrity are important. That’s why, since 2016, The Coca-Cola Company has not independently funded research on issues related to health and wellbeing in keeping with research guiding principles that have been posted publicly on our website since that time.”

Texas is not alone in SNAP reform efforts

Texas is one of at least nine states that introduced bills restricting SNAP purchases in 2025.

However, according to Newsweek, none of these bills have passed both legislative chambers. Even if a state law passes, it would still require approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take effect.