Allysia Finley is right to question the logic of allowing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, beneficiaries to spend billions of government dollars earmarked for nutrition on sugary beverages and candy (“Do Food Stamps Make People Fat?,” Life Science, April 21). Critics maintain that government-mandated SNAP restrictions would threaten personal freedom. But SNAP is an in-kind benefit, meaning Congress already restricts it to food and beverages for home consumption, unlike traditional cash aid to poor families. Evidence shows that recipients tend to spend SNAP benefits differently than cash for this reason, which likely contributes to the less healthy diets observed among SNAP participants compared to nonrecipients.

Moreover, with or without restrictions, recipients remain free to purchase whatever foods they want—with their own money. The rationale for restricting SNAP purchases lies in ensuring that this taxpayer-funded program is aligned with its purpose. President Richard Nixon nationalized the food-stamp program in 1973 to address hunger and malnutrition. Its core mission today is to improve nutrition. American taxpayers have a reasonable expectation that funding supports this goal, rather than being used to purchase products that contribute to obesity, disease and other health problems.

Like many well-intentioned government initiatives, SNAP has drifted far from its mandate with its ever-expanding costs supporting poor diets on the taxpayer’s dime. It is only logical to return it to its original intent: helping low-income households afford nutritious foods.