“What do you get when you guzzle down sweets? Eating as much as an elephant eats. What are you at getting terribly fat? What do you think will come of that? I don’t like the look of it.” – sung by the Oompa Loompas in the 1971 film “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”

As a teenager I worked at the little gas and grocery store smack dab in the middle of Woodland.

It was owned by Dennis and Kim Benefield during my tenure, though some people still remember it as Alfred Green’s store from earlier times. It was a great gig, and I still remember fondly the people with whom I worked and the customers I got to know. My brother would go on to work there a few years after me.

While my memory is somewhat unreliable going back 25 years, I can remember one or two incidents when kids came into the store and bought up around $40 to $50 worth of candy using food stamps funds because the balance left on the card would be lost if the funds were not spent.

I want to be clear that this was a rare occurrence because sharing an anecdote like this can really paint a picture of abuse in the system that is not accurate.

The majority of people I checked out at the cash register who used food stamps did so in a prudent way, getting food that would better align with a more fulfilling diet and limiting the purchase of sweet treats.

Those rare instances of candy splurges do stick in my mind, though, but they soon might be a relic of the past.

The Alabama Legislature is considering Senate Bill 57, which would exclude both candy and soft drinks from being purchased using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. Many people still refer to SNAP using the old term for the program – food stamps – so I will do the same in this article.

Should the bill pass, Alabama’s Department of Human Resources, which distributes food stamp benefits in the state, would request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal agency in charge of providing the program’s funding to each state, to exclude candy and soda from being purchased with food stamps.

Alabama would not be the first state to enact these restrictions. The USDA lists 18 states that have received approval to exempt soda and candy as food items eligible for purchase.

Alabama Daily News correspondent Mary Sell reported around 740,000 Alabamians currently receive food stamps benefits. She quotes the bill’s main sponsor – Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur – stating that it is Orr’s belief that candy and soft drink purchases contribute to the state’s high obesity rate.

“The taxpayer shouldn’t be funding sugar-type drinks … that are contributing to the statewide obesity levels. Let’s rein it in,” Orr said.

There will be some costs in trying to set up and enforce this law and defining what exactly is candy and what is not can be more difficult than you might think.

For example, marshmallows would qualify as candy under the bill’s definition, but they are also used for cooking several kinds of dishes. An amendment to the bill has been proposed that would allow marshmallows to be purchased.

Also, there could be a small loss of revenue for stores that sell food, though one would think food stamps recipients would not let the money provided go to waste and would purchase other food.

Yet, the main argument against prohibiting the purchase of candy and soda with food stamps is likely that some people may consider the prohibition to be a little mean spirited and overbearing.

I can understand this viewpoint. Honestly, I do not think most people would mind if there was a way to allow the purchase of a candy bar and 20-ounce soft drink once a week for each kid on food stamps. That is not really enforceable, however.

Using food stamps only for healthier eating options should be better for the long-term health of the individual. This could also be a long-term benefit in lowering the costs involved with public health overall.

Does this solve the obesity crisis among lower-income Alabamians? No.

But in public policy there is no silver bullet that completely solves a widespread problem. Smart policies have to stack on top of each other to mitigate the negative impacts of the issue as much as possible.

In other words, you have to eat the elephant one bite at a time. Try pulling that off without getting fat.