Additional Coverage:
New Year, New Rules: 18 States to Restrict SNAP Purchases on “Junk Food”
Starting New Year’s Day, millions of Americans relying on food assistance will face new restrictions on what they can buy, as at least 18 states prepare to ban the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for items like candy, soda, and other foods deemed “unhealthy.”
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia are the first five states to implement these waivers, which aim to curb chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes. The initiative is a key part of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” effort, supported by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.
“We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create,” Kennedy stated in December.
The changes represent a significant shift from decades of federal policy, which previously allowed SNAP benefits for “any food or food product intended for human consumption” with few exceptions.
Confusion and Consequences Loom
However, the rollout is sparking concern among retail industry experts and health policy analysts. They warn that state SNAP programs, already grappling with budget cuts, are ill-equipped for the complex transition. A lack of clear, comprehensive lists of prohibited foods and varying technical challenges at the point of sale across states and individual stores are expected to create significant hurdles.
Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan, predicts “a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected,” a sentiment echoed by the National Retail Federation. The trade association anticipates longer checkout lines and an increase in customer complaints as SNAP recipients navigate the new regulations.
Research on whether restricting SNAP purchases genuinely improves diet quality and health remains inconclusive, adding another layer of debate to the policy.
For the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP, these new restrictions are the latest in a series of challenges. The program experienced disruptions during a recent 43-day U.S. government shutdown, and its utilization typically surges during economic downturns. Nearly 62% of SNAP participants are in families with children, while approximately 37% are in households with older adults or people with disabilities.
Food insecurity in the U.S. has seen an increase, with roughly 14% of households reporting it between January and October, up from 12.5% in 2024.
Retailers Foresee Financial Strain
The financial implications extend beyond SNAP recipients. A report from the National Grocers Association and other trade groups estimates the initial cost of implementing these restrictions for U.S. retailers at $1.6 billion, with an ongoing annual cost of $759 million.
“Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store,” warned Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center.
Previous attempts to restrict SNAP purchases, such as banning expensive meats or certain “junk foods,” were denied by the USDA, citing concerns about cost, complexity, and uncertain efficacy. However, the second Trump administration has actively encouraged and incentivized states to pursue these waivers.
“This isn’t the usual top-down, one-size-fits-all public health agenda,” said Indiana Gov. Mike Braun upon announcing his state’s request last spring. “We’re focused on root causes, transparent information and real results.”
State-Specific Restrictions
The initial five state waivers, impacting approximately 1.4 million people, vary in their specifics:
- Utah and West Virginia: Will ban the use of SNAP for soda and soft drinks.
- Nebraska: Will prohibit soda and energy drinks.
- Indiana: Will target soft drinks and candy.
- Iowa (most restrictive): Limits apply to taxable foods, including soda and candy, as well as certain prepared foods.
Plata-Nino highlighted the ambiguity in Iowa’s rules, noting that the provided “items list does not provide enough specific information to prepare a SNAP participant to go to the grocery store.”
Marc Craig, a 47-year-old Des Moines resident currently living in his car, expressed concern about the added difficulty in managing his $298 monthly SNAP benefits and the increased stigma at checkout. “They treat people that get food stamps like we’re not people,” Craig said.
These initial waivers will be in effect for two years, with an option for a three-year extension, and each state is mandated to assess their impact.
Dr. Anand Parekh, chief health policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, voiced a broader concern, suggesting that these waivers overlook fundamental issues affecting the health of SNAP recipients. “This doesn’t solve the two fundamental problems, which is healthy food in this country is not affordable and unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous,” he stated.