As of last month, twelve states had received federal waivers allowing them to restrict the purchase of certain foods under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) based on limited nutritional value. These restrictions, set to take effect in 2026, will prohibit participants from using SNAP benefits to buy items such as soda, candy, and other sugary products. As states prepare for implementation, it is useful to review the policy objectives and set realistic expectations for their impact. Better health is the ultimate aim, but the near-term policy goal should be reducing added sugar intake among SNAP participants.

SNAP is the nation’s primary food assistance program for low-income households, providing nearly $100 billion per year in assistance to 40 million Americans. A four-person household with no other income can receive a maximum benefit of $975 per month. Currently, participants can purchase any food or beverage for home consumption using SNAP benefits, with the exception of alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods. However, research shows that SNAP participants disproportionately buy unhealthy products—particularly sugary beverages—compared to income-eligible non-participants and higher-income non-participants.     

SNAP participants also suffer comparatively more from poor health—65 percent of SNAP adults ages 50-64 and one-quarter of those under age 50 have been diagnosed with a diet-related disease. For more than two decades, states had unsuccessfully sought authority to further restrict SNAP purchases on nutritional grounds, arguing that limiting unhealthy foods is essential to addressing chronic conditions such as obesity. Building on momentum from President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again initiative, twelve states submitted requests earlier this year to implement food restrictions in SNAP, which Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins approved. Under the new rules, participants in waiver states will still be free to purchase any food or beverage with their own money, but SNAP benefits may no longer be used for certain products deemed to have limited nutritional value.

The case for restricting unhealthy items in SNAP rests on a few key rationales.

First, these waivers recognize that SNAP is a federally funded nutrition assistance program, not merely an anti-hunger program. As I have argued before, individuals should remain free to eat and drink whatever they choose, but taxpayer dollars intended for nutrition assistance should not subsidize products directly linked to obesity and other chronic diseases. Other federal nutrition programs, such as WIC and the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, already operate with restrictions, such as only allowing certain types of foods in WIC and limiting sodium and added sugar amounts in school lunches. SNAP should be no different.

Second, evidence shows that SNAP directly contributes to poor diets by permitting the purchase of unhealthy products. Research shows that participants spend SNAP benefits differently than their own money, with a sizeable share going toward unhealthy items—particularly sweetened beverages. A recent study found that the pandemic-era increase in SNAP benefits (i.e., emergency allotments) boosted spending on grocery staples, but also on snacks and beverages, undercutting the theory that higher benefits shift consumption toward healthier foods. The study also found no increase in non-food spending, challenging the idea that participants treat SNAP dollars as fully fungible with cash.

Finally, restricting certain products from SNAP will reduce their consumption among participants and could improve health outcomes over time. Based on existing evidence, economists estimated that making soda ineligible for SNAP purchase would reduce overall soda consumption among participants by 18 percent. Sugary beverage consumption is directly linked to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, making reduced consumption an important public health goal.  Given that SNAP participants disproportionately struggle with poor health, even modest improvements in diet could have significant long-term benefits.

Even though the arguments in favor of restrictions are strong, expectations about the policy’s immediate impact should remain realistic. Research suggests restrictions will reduce consumption of targeted items, but the broader effects on nutrition and the long-term health of SNAP participants are likely modest given the complexity of the problem. This is because numerous other factors contribute to SNAP participants’ nutrition, which compound the health issues they experience, such as limited access to healthy foods, time and resource constraints, and deceptive marketing strategies. This makes reduced intake of restricted items important, but only one part of a broader, more comprehensive strategy. A comprehensive strategy should include SNAP-specific efforts, such as incentive programs, as well as population-wide strategies.

For these reasons, we should judge the success or failure of SNAP food restrictions in waiver states by monitoring the overall intake of targeted products, especially the consumption of added sugars among SNAP participants. If SNAP participants in the twelve states that implement food restrictions reduce their overall added sugar intake, that alone will be a positive public health outcome.