The Wall Street Journal published Allysia Finley’s opinion piece, “Do Food Stamps Make People Fat?” on April 20, 2025. From its title, the piece positions itself within a particular ideological frame: this is not an inquiry, it’s a preloaded insinuation that government support programs, specifically SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), are to blame for American obesity rates. The article, though posing as a critique of nutrition policy, ultimately functions less as serious analysis and more a moralistic attack on welfare recipients, cloaked in the language of public health concern. It is a case study in how ideological bias masquerades as concern-trolling, manufacturing controversy where rigorous data analysis would instead demand complexity.

Published under the WSJ’s “Opinion Life Science” banner, Finley’s article leverages selective statistics, dubious framing, and rhetorical sleights of hand to reinforce a long-standing right-wing narrative: that welfare programs breed personal failure. What’s telling is not just what is argued, but how: conflating correlation with causation, deploying isolated data points without broader socioeconomic context, and selectively citing sources like the Foundation for Government Accountability—a libertarian think tank with its own agenda. In doing so, the piece sacrifices genuine public policy debate for ideological point-scoring, while camouflaging cruelty as common sense.

Critically, the piece is ridden with anti-fat bias, treating larger bodies not just as a health concern but as a moral and economic blight on the nation. Obesity here is portrayed as prima facie evidence of failure: failure of discipline, failure of character, failure of governance. There is no attempt to understand weight as a complex interplay of genetics, environment, stress, socioeconomic status, and more. Fatness is simply rendered as sin—a convenient, visual shorthand for all that Finley believes is wrong with welfare programs. The effect is dehumanizing and deeply irresponsible.

Finley begins with this provocative claim:

“American waistlines have ballooned in tandem with government welfare. Is there a connection? Studies show people on food stamps eat less healthily than other low-income Americans.”

This opening maneuver is a textbook bait-and-switch. The reader is primed to expect causality—government benefits cause obesity—but the actual evidence cited merely shows correlation: food stamp recipients have worse diets than their income peers. No attempt is made to control for confounding variables: chronic stress, food deserts, lack of healthcare, educational disparities, targeted advertising, or the extreme price accessibility of junk food compared to fresh produce. The piece floats “studies” as a magical incantation but does not grapple with their design, limitations, or findings in any meaningful way.

Later, Finley writes:

“Cue the protests from so-called antihunger groups on the left, which have made common cause with the candy and beverage industries.”

This rhetorical flourish weaponizes guilt by association. By boxing antihunger advocates together with corporate giants like Coca-Cola, the piece insinuates that any defense of SNAP’s flexibility must be corrupt or insincere. No evidence is offered for this alleged “common cause”—only innuendo. Moreover, it ignores the actual arguments made by antihunger groups: that restricting SNAP purchases stigmatizes recipients, creates logistical barriers, and is often a stalking horse for deeper cuts to benefits. Finley presents opposition as caricature, not as serious ethical or logistical debate.

Midway through, the article claims:

“Alcoholic drinks, which you can’t buy with food stamps, at least have some demonstrated cardiovascular benefits.”

This is a grotesque comparison masquerading as wit. Alcohol’s marginal cardiovascular benefits are not a serious justification for its exclusion from SNAP, nor are they meaningfully comparable to the sugar content of soda. Alcohol is excluded because it is intoxicating, addictive, and carries immediate risks of abuse and public harm—risks that far exceed the nuances of nutritional science. This glib analogy exposes the unseriousness of the argument: it prefers rhetorical points to medical or policy reality.

Finley also asserts:

“America doesn’t have a ‘hunger’ problem. About three-quarters of adult food-stamp beneficiaries are overweight or obese.”

This is an extraordinary act of bad faith. Hunger and obesity are not mutually exclusive. Food insecurity often drives consumption of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods because they are cheaper, shelf-stable, and heavily marketed. Researchers have coined the term “hunger-obesity paradox” to describe exactly this phenomenon. By collapsing two distinct issues into a single misleading claim, the article blinds readers to the complexity of poverty-driven nutritional decisions.

Finally, Finley claims:

“Zooming out, the bigger problem is that government encourages indulgent and indolent behavior.”

This sweeping condemnation reveals the ideological heart of the piece. Despite spending earlier sections gesturing toward health concerns and public costs, the article ultimately arrives at the well-worn trope: welfare recipients are lazy, and government programs only enable their failures. Public health is not the genuine concern here—it is merely a stage prop for the broader political performance. The real target is the idea that society owes material support to its vulnerable members at all.

The decision to publish this piece is as revealing as its content. By framing structural problems—poverty, food deserts, medical inequities—as individual moral failings, the Wall Street Journal transforms systemic critique into personalized disdain. The choice of sources (such as the Foundation for Government Accountability) and the absence of credible nutritional science perspectives signals not a search for truth, but a reinforcement of reader prejudices. The article prioritizes ideological comfort over intellectual honesty.

At a meta level, “Do Food Stamps Make People Fat?” illustrates a dangerous trend in American media: using the veneer of data-driven argument to launder cultural resentments into acceptable opinion. The impact is cumulative: by repeatedly linking welfare with obesity, laziness, and moral decay, pieces like this shape public opinion in ways that erode support for anti-poverty programs—regardless of the evidence base. It is not journalism; it is propaganda in a lab coat.

Ultimately, the problems with Finley’s article are twofold: the content is misleading, and the editorial decision to publish it legitimizes that misdirection. Media organizations have a responsibility to distinguish between legitimate debate and manufactured controversy. When they fail, they do more than distort one policy discussion—they degrade public trust in the possibility of informed civic discourse itself.

This post was originally published on this site