Slashing SNAP-Ed, WIC, and SNAP isn’t just shortsighted — it’s scientifically indefensible.

If “Make America Healthy Again” were anything more than a political catchphrase, we’d be talking about how to expand — not gut — programs like SNAP-Ed, WIC, and SNAP. Instead, they’re on the chopping block.

The latest federal budget bill cuts more than $4.6 million from Connecticut’s SNAP-Ed program alone. Nationwide, that means tens of thousands of families will lose access to community nutrition classes, culturally relevant grocery store tours, and evidence-based support for feeding kids on a tight budget.

Let’s be clear: SNAP-Ed is not fluff. It’s one of the most rigorously evaluated nutrition education programs in the country. Research consistently shows that SNAP-Ed improves diet quality, increases fruit and vegetable intake, and even reduces food insecurity. Every dollar invested in SNAP-Ed saves the healthcare system between $2 and $10 in long-term costs. That’s not a soundbite — that’s peer-reviewed science.

Meanwhile, WIC — another program with decades of data behind it — improves birth outcomes, increases breastfeeding rates, improves infant nutrition outcomes (iron deficiency anemia and obesity rates improve), and ensures children are developmentally on track. Enrollment in the program is also a touch point for families with economically vulnerable kids who qualify for additional wrap-around services. It’s one of the few interventions proven to reduce racial disparities in infant health. Yet WIC’s future funding is uncertain, too.

And then there’s SNAP itself — the foundation of food access for over 40 million Americans. The new budget imposes stricter work requirements, cuts benefits, and shifts administrative costs to already overburdened states. All while ignoring the real math: SNAP not only reduces hunger — it boosts local economies and improves health outcomes, especially for children and older adults.

When the president or HHS secretary tells us they want to Make America Healthy Again — but defund the very programs that make healthy living possible — I have to ask: Was this ever really about health?

Because if it were, we’d be doubling down on prevention. We’d be expanding access to SNAP-Ed in every grocery store, community center, and school. We’d make it easier — not harder — for low-income families to access nutritious food. We’d treat food as the critical determinant of health that it is. We would expand produce prescription programs, increase funding for diabetes prevention programs, and set added sugar and sodium limits on foods in schools instead of distractions like food dyes.

I am here for the removal of food dyes, and I want schools (and society) to serve less processed foods, but let’s first make sure every American has access to enough nutritious food to lead a healthy, productive life.

The elephant in the room is that slogans don’t save lives, but science-based policy does. If we care about making America healthy, we need to fund what works.

Jaime S. Foster, PhD, is the State Representative for Connecticut’s 57th House District.