“If they have no bread, let them eat cake!” This is the famously tone deaf solution to the hunger crisis that occurred during the French Revolution of the late 1700’s, generally attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. Although she probably never actually said that, the sentiment characterized her indifference to the French people’s, um, affordability problem. It served to justify her arrest and subsequent beheading. Her husband, King Louis XVI was guillotined too, along with some 2,600 aristocrats, although at some point, they stopped counting. The queen’s final words to the executioner were, “Excuse me, sir.” Which, you have to admit was pretty gracious, under the circumstances. There is no official record of what the executioner replied. I think it was, “If you can keep your head when all others about you are losing theirs…”—no, that was Rudyard Kipling. The executioner probably didn’t say anything because he was dreaming of some of that cake he heard so much about.

Beginning January 1, Iowa and five other states are no longer allowing cake or any other sugary treats or “junk” foods to be subsidized under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which serves 42 million low-income Americans. This initiative was the brainchild of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (And by “brainchild” I am definitely not making a snarky reference to Secretary Kennedy’s well-documented brain worm which may or may not be responsible for his peculiar policies.)

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, with no health or administrative experience, owes his current position to his anti-vaccination stance and his dream of a sugar-free America. A former heroin addict and roadkill gourmand, Kennedy wants to make the US healthy by promoting better nutrition. And what better way to achieve this than by denying comforting junk food to the poor? Still, as Kennedy puts it, “Every American who wants to eat a donut ought to be able to eat it or drink a Coke.” They are free to poison themselves with sugar–as long as they pay for it themselves. And many Americans agree. Although, it’s funny how some can be eager to restrict the diets of other people, yet they are not so enthusiastic about cutting back on their own pork rinds and Little Debbie cakes. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds agrees with the SNAP restrictions, “To promote healthy eating and protect future generations from disease.” Of course, as she reminds us, we’re all going to die, for heaven’s sake.

The assumption is that without the SNAP subsidies, low-income American will not use their limited disposable income to buy sodas and candy and the US will save a ton of money. But the National Grocers Association estimates the new changes will result in confusion at the checkout counter, costing $1.6 billion initially and $759 million a year after that. Kate Bauer, a nutritionist at the University of Michigan, told the Associated Press, “It’s a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected.”

With only the relatively affluent Americans able to fatten themselves up on junk food, the logical alternative for low-income families is to jump to the top of the food chain. And eat the rich.