Excluding Sodas and Junk Food from SNAP Benefits: A Policy Shift with Health Implications

In a significant policy shift, several U.S. states have received federal approval to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for purchasing certain foods, notably sodas and other sugary items. This move, effective in 2026, aims to promote healthier eating habits among low-income populations and reduce the prevalence of diet-related diseases.

Sugar is more than just a sweetener in food and beverage production; it's a key ingredient that enhances flavors, textures, and shelf-life across various products. From providing the perfect sweetness in beverages to ensuring the ideal texture in baked goods, sugar's role is pivotal.

Background and Implementation

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has granted waivers to 12 states—Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah—allowing them to amend the statutory definition of eligible foods under SNAP. These changes will prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for purchasing items such as sodas, candy, energy drinks, and prepared desserts. For instance, Texas will ban sweetened drinks and candy, while Florida will also exclude energy drinks and prepared desserts from SNAP eligibility.

Health and Public Policy Rationale

Make America Healthy Again campaign seeks to encourage healthier dietary choices among Americans.

Proponents of these restrictions argue that limiting access to sugary and processed foods can lead to improved public health outcomes. Studies suggest that removing eligibility for sugar-sweetened beverages from SNAP could result in a 2.4% reduction in obesity prevalence and a 1.7% decrease in type 2 diabetes cases.

The initiative aligns with the broader "Make America Healthy Again" campaign, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which seeks to encourage healthier dietary choices among Americans.

Phony Critiques and Concerns

Despite the health objectives, critics contend that these restrictions may not effectively address the underlying issues of food insecurity. They argue that limiting SNAP benefits to exclude certain foods could disproportionately impact low-income families who may have limited access to affordable, nutritious alternatives. Additionally, the enforcement of such restrictions could impose administrative burdens on both retailers and state agencies.

Let us break down that criticism point-by-point and explain why it doesn’t hold up:

1. "Restrictions may not effectively address underlying issues of food insecurity."

This is a classic deflection. SNAP’s core mission is to provide nutritional assistance to those in need, not to fund unhealthy food choices that contribute to chronic illness. The problem isn’t food insecurity itself—it’s the type of food being purchased with SNAP benefits. Allowing unlimited sugary sodas and junk food perpetuates poor health outcomes and adds a massive burden on the healthcare system. Addressing nutrition insecurity is a valid and necessary step alongside addressing hunger. It’s not an either/or scenario.

2. "Limiting benefits could disproportionately impact low-income families who may have limited access to affordable nutritious alternatives."

This argument assumes that sugary sodas and candy are the only affordable options. But in reality:

• Many healthy, low-cost alternatives exist—fresh produce, frozen veggies, whole grains, and lean proteins—that SNAP fully covers now and in the future.

• Sugary sodas and junk food are not necessities; they are discretionary, and even harmful items perceived to be luxury. If anything, restrictions encourage healthier spending habits that prevent costly diet-related diseases.

• The real problem lies in education and access to nutritious foods, which policy can support with incentives and subsidies for fresh, affordable options—not by enabling junk food purchases.

3. "Enforcement imposes administrative burdens on retailers and agencies."

Sure, any policy change requires some adjustment, but:

• Modern point-of-sale systems can easily distinguish eligible from ineligible items.

• Several states have already successfully implemented such restrictions with minimal disruption.

• The cost of enforcement pales in comparison to the long-term public health savings from reducing diet-related diseases linked to sugary and processed foods.

Summary:

This criticism conflates food insecurity with unhealthy food consumption to justify keeping poor nutritional choices funded by taxpayer dollars. It ignores the fundamental purpose of SNAP: to help people eat well enough to be healthy and productive. Public assistance programs should empower recipients to make better choices, not enable habits that worsen health and financial strain.

Conclusion

The exclusion of sodas and junk food from SNAP benefits represents a significant shift in U.S. food assistance policy, reflecting a growing emphasis on public health. The intent is to promote healthier eating habits and reduce diet-related diseases. Future evaluations will determine the effectiveness of these measures in achieving their health objectives.

Citizens' Coalition hopes California will soon join the MAHA program to promote healthier spending habits and prevent diet-related diseases.