Starting Thursday, residents in five states—Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia—who rely on government assistance for grocery purchases will face new restrictions regarding what foods they can buy with their benefits. These states are the pioneering group among at least 18 states that are set to implement waivers that prohibit the purchase of certain items through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP.
This initiative is part of a broader effort led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. Their goal is to encourage states to eliminate foods considered unhealthy from the federal program, which has a budget of approximately $100 billion and serves about 42 million Americans. Kennedy expressed his concerns in a December statement, emphasizing, “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.”
The primary aim of these changes is to combat chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes, which are often linked to sugary drinks and unhealthy snacks. This initiative is a crucial component of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again campaign. However, experts in the retail industry and health policy have raised concerns about the state SNAP programs, which are already facing significant budget cuts and may not be equipped to handle the complexities of these new restrictions. Many states lack comprehensive lists of affected foods, and the technology required for point-of-sale transactions varies widely.
The National Retail Federation, a trade association, has predicted that these restrictions will lead to longer checkout lines and an increase in customer complaints. Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan, described the situation as “a disaster waiting to happen” for SNAP recipients attempting to purchase food. A report from the National Grocers Association and other industry groups estimated that implementing these restrictions could initially cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion and incur additional annual costs of $759 million.
Gina Plata-Nino, the SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center, highlighted that penalizing SNAP recipients ultimately leads to higher grocery prices for everyone. These waivers represent a significant shift from decades-long federal policies established in 1964 and later authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which permitted SNAP benefits to be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” with exceptions for alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods.
In the past, proposals aimed at restricting SNAP benefits for purchasing expensive meats or “junk foods” like chips and ice cream were rejected due to concerns about their cost and complexity, as well as doubts about their effectiveness in changing recipients’ buying habits. However, during the second Trump administration, states were encouraged to seek waivers, leading to the current situation. Indiana Governor Mike Braun stated, “This isn’t the usual top-down, one-size-fits-all public health agenda. We’re focused on root causes, transparent information, and real results.”
The waivers that will take effect on January 1 affect approximately 1.4 million people. Specific restrictions include a ban on the use of SNAP benefits for soda and soft drinks in Utah and West Virginia, while Nebraska will restrict soda and energy drinks. Indiana will focus on soft drinks and candy, and Iowa will have the most stringent rules, impacting taxable foods, including soda and candy along with various prepared foods.
Marc Craig, a 47-year-old resident of Des Moines, shared his struggles living in his car since October, emphasizing that the new waivers complicate how he can utilize his monthly SNAP benefits of $298. He expressed concerns about the stigma faced by individuals using food assistance programs, stating, “They treat people that get food stamps like we’re not people.”
The current waivers are set to last for two years, with the potential for a three-year extension, as outlined by the Agriculture Department. Each state is mandated to evaluate the impact of these changes. Health experts, including Anand Parekh, chief policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, have voiced concerns that these waivers overlook fundamental issues affecting the health of SNAP recipients, stating, “This doesn’t solve the two fundamental problems, which are that healthy food in this country is not affordable and unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous.”