Beginning Thursday, residents in a handful of states who rely on federal assistance to buy groceries will face new limits on what they can put in their carts, with soda, candy, and other products newly off-limits under updated rules.
The changes apply first in Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia, which are the earliest adopters of state waivers restricting purchases through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. At least 18 states are expected to follow with similar requests.
Federal officials backing the shift say the goal is to steer the $100 billion nutrition program toward healthier outcomes. The initiative has been championed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who have urged states to remove foods they consider harmful from eligibility under a program that serves roughly 42 million people nationwide.
“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 said in a statement in December.
Supporters of the waivers say cutting back on sugary drinks and snack foods could help curb chronic conditions such as obesity and diabetes, priorities tied to Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again campaign.
Retailers and health policy specialists, however, warn that the rollout is happening faster than stores and states can realistically handle. They say SNAP systems are already strained by funding cuts, and many states have not issued clear or comprehensive lists of which items are banned. Technical hurdles at checkout counters also vary widely by retailer and location. Researchers are also divided on whether limiting SNAP purchases meaningfully improves nutrition or long-term health.
The National Retail Federation has cautioned that shoppers should expect longer lines and more confusion at registers as customers and cashiers navigate the new rules.
A standard notice accompanying coverage of the changes states that readers who register agree to applicable terms and privacy policies and may receive communications and advertising from affiliated media companies.
“It’s a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected,” said Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan.
Industry groups say the costs could be substantial. A report from the National Grocers Association and allied trade organizations estimated that retailers would spend about $1.6 billion upfront to implement the restrictions, followed by roughly $759 million in additional annual expenses.
“Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center.
The policy marks a sharp break from decades of federal practice. SNAP was created in 1964 and later governed by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which allows benefits to be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” with limited exceptions such as alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods. Over the years, proposals to bar purchases like steak, chips, or ice cream have repeatedly failed.
Those earlier efforts were turned down after USDA research found that restrictions would be expensive to administer, difficult to enforce, and unlikely to significantly alter buying habits or reduce health problems like obesity.
Under the second Trump administration, states have been encouraged — and in some cases incentivized — to revisit the idea. This time, several moved quickly.
“This isn’t the usual top-down, one-size-fits-all public health agenda,” Indiana Gov. Mike Braun said when announcing his state’s waiver request last spring. “We’re focused on root causes, transparent information and real results.”
Collectively, the five waivers taking effect Jan. 1 affect about 1.4 million people. Utah and West Virginia will block SNAP purchases of soda and soft drinks, Nebraska will ban soda and energy drinks, Indiana will restrict soft drinks and candy, and Iowa has adopted the broadest limits so far. Iowa’s rules cover taxable foods like soda and candy as well as certain prepared items.
“The items list does not provide enough specific information to prepare a SNAP participant to go to the grocery store,” Plata-Nino wrote in a blog post. “Many additional items — including certain prepared foods — will also be disallowed, even though they are not clearly identified in the notice to households.”
For recipients like Marc Craig, 47, of Des Moines, the changes feel personal. Craig, who said he has been living out of his car since October, relies on $298 a month in SNAP benefits. He worries the new rules will make it harder to budget and will intensify the embarrassment he already feels at checkout counters.
“They treat people that get food stamps like we’re not people,” Craig said.
According to the Agriculture Department, the waivers approved now and in the coming months will remain in place for two years, with the option for states to extend them for up to three more. Each participating state must evaluate how the restrictions affect participants and outcomes.
Public health experts caution that the policy may miss the bigger picture. Anand Parekh, chief health policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, said focusing solely on SNAP ignores broader structural problems.
“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 said.
{Matzav.com}
