Beginning Thursday, individuals in five states receiving federal assistance for groceries will face new restrictions on purchasing items like sodas and candy with their benefits.
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia are the first of at least 18 states to implement exemptions that limit the types of food allowed under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
This initiative, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, aims to remove unhealthy food options from the $100 billion federal program that benefits 42 million Americans, historically known as food stamps.
“We cannot keep funding programs that contribute to health issues and then require taxpayers to finance treatment for those illnesses,” Kennedy remarked in a statement last December.
The goal is to combat chronic diseases, like obesity and diabetes, associated with sugary beverages and treats—part of President Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.
Despite these intentions, experts in retail and health policy have raised concerns. They argue that the SNAP program, already strained by significant budget cuts, lacks clarity about the specific foods affected. Additionally, the technical systems at stores might struggle to adapt to new rules, complicating the purchasing process. Research on whether these limits truly enhance dietary quality is inconclusive.
The National Retail Federation has warned that longer lines and customer complaints could become commonplace as SNAP recipients navigate the new rules.
“We’re likely to face a situation where people are attempting to buy items, only to have their transactions declined,” expressed Kate Bauer, a nutrition science specialist at the University of Michigan.
A report by the National Grocers Association and other industry sources anticipates that these SNAP restrictions could initially cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion, including $759 million in upfront costs, with ongoing annual expenses of the same amount.
“Punishing SNAP recipients will likely lead to higher grocery prices for everyone,” noted Gina Plata Nino, SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center, advocating against hunger.
This exemption marks a significant shift from long-standing federal policy, which was first established in 1964 and reaffirmed by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. According to the legislation, SNAP benefits can be used for nearly any food intended for consumption, aside from alcohol and hot ready-to-eat meals. The program also excludes cigarettes.
Historically, lawmakers have considered restricting SNAP spending on more costly items like steak and various snacks, such as chips and ice cream, but these proposals were usually rejected due to concerns about the costs and complexities involved in implementing such restrictions.
However, during the second Trump administration, states were encouraged to seek these exemptions, leading to increased compliance.
“This is not your typical top-down public health initiative,” commented Indiana Governor Mike Brown when announcing his state’s request. “Our focus is on addressing root causes, offering transparent information, and obtaining real outcomes.”
The exemptions, effective January 1, will impact around 1.4 million individuals. In Utah and West Virginia, SNAP cannot be used for sodas or soft drinks, while Nebraska restricts sodas and energy drinks. Indiana aims to limit soft drink and candy purchases, and Iowa enforces more extensive restrictions on taxable items, including certain prepared foods.
“The product list is not detailed enough for SNAP participants to plan their grocery trips effectively,” Plata Nino stated in a blog. “Additionally, many more items will also be subject to these prohibitions, including specific prepared foods.”
Mark Craig, a 47-year-old resident of Des Moines, shared how the new rules will complicate his budgeting of the $298 he receives monthly in SNAP benefits—while also increasing the stigma he faces at checkout.
“People treat those of us on food stamps like we’re somehow less than human,” Craig said.
The USDA has indicated that the SNAP waivers being put into place now will last for two years, with a chance to extend for three more. States will need to assess the effects of these changes.
Anand Parekh, chief policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, expressed concern that the waiver overlooks broader issues affecting SNAP recipients’ health.
“This does not address two core challenges: the high cost of healthy food and the prevalence of cheap, unhealthy options,” he emphasized.
