...
By Suzanne Blake and Gabe Whisnant
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Americans in five states who receive government assistance to buy groceries will face new limits starting Thursday on what foods they can purchase with those benefits.
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are implementing waivers that restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to buy items such as soda, candy and other foods deemed unhealthy.
Why It Matters
The changes are part of a broader push by the Trump administration’s health and agriculture leaders to curb diet-related diseases by reshaping the $100 billion program that serves about 42 million people. Critics warn the move could create confusion at grocery stores and may not improve health outcomes for recipients.
Read More on News
...
What To Know
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins are pushing the waivers as they attempt to get rid of "unhealthy" foods within the nutrition food assistance program that serves 42 million Americans.
“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.
While sweet drinks and foods are associated with higher rates of obesity and diabetes, critics of the SNAP changes say that SNAP is already facing strict budget cuts and will be unprepared to enforce the new rules as there so far isn't a complete list of foods affected and point of sale issues could arise.
"RFK has put forward an initiative based on the belief that if individuals are receiving benefits, those dollars should be used on higher-quality ingredients believed to produce better health outcomes—things like vegetables—while limiting or banning junk food," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group, told Newsweek.
"The legality is the real question. This begins to drift into territory that feels un-American, where the state dictates what individuals can or cannot eat or drink. We need to be very careful leaning too far in this direction, as history has shown the unintended and often negative consequences of that kind of control."
SNAP restrictions are anticipated to cost retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 yearly afterward, according to the National Grocers Association.
Historically, federal policy has allowed SNAP benefits to be used for any and all food or food products "intended for human consumption" excluding alcohol, tobacco and prepared hot foods.
While prior legislative attempts have been made to stop SNAP from paying for expensive foods like steak or "junk food," these were blocked based on the United States Department of Agriculture's research that the restrictions would be too costly and cause looming issues if enforced.
The waivers will take effect on January 1, impacting roughly 1.4 million Americans, but more states could follow suit with SNAP restrictions.
While Utah and West Virginia are banning the use of SNAP to purchase soft drinks, Nebraska is abolishing the sale of soda and energy drinks. And Iowa will completely outlaw the use of SNAP benefits to buy soda, candy and an array of prepared foods.
What People Are Saying
Indiana Governor Mike Braun said when announcing his state's waiver request last year: "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.”
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Clearly, there is a case to be made for these bans, as some of the foods being restricted aren't healthy options and could lead to more health problems for those purchasing them. At the same point, some of these items are more affordable on the limited funds many households that qualify for SNAP receive, and advocates claim these moves are more about cutting the program than actually promoting more nutritious options."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group, told Newsweek: "Because the federal government provides the bulk of the funding, states may feel pressured to comply if they want continued access to those dollars. But a bigger question remains: if beneficiaries still want to purchase restricted items, do we simply end up creating a secondary market where benefits are sold for cash anyway?"
What Happens Next
The longer-term implications may be felt most at the corporate level, Thompson said.
"If government dollars stop flowing toward certain products, profits will be impacted. If estimates are accurate and SNAP accounts for 20–25 percent of Coca-Cola’s U.S. revenue, that represents a meaningful shift for these companies," Thompson said.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines