By Gabriela Alvarez
Background
SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps until 2008, is a federally funded government program authorized under the “Farm Bill.” It provides assistance to low-income individuals for purchasing food.[1] States administer this program, and recipients generally must be at or below 130% of the federal poverty line, which, in most states, ranges from $15,650 for a one-person household to $54,150 or higher for a family of eight or more.[2] The monthly benefit begins at approximately $292 and assumes that the average household spends 30% of its gross income on food.[3] SNAP is an important public benefit that reaches about 1 in 8 people in the U.S., including 1 in 5 children.[4] With SNAP, people are allowed to buy most grocery items, excluding hot foods and alcohol.[5]
Proposed Restrictions
Guided in part by a concern for public health, both Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health and human services secretary, and Brooke Rollins, the new agriculture secretary, have support for restrictions on purchasing “junk” food with SNAP benefits. Although restrictions would be implemented on a state-by-state basis, states must first request a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to enforce the restriction.[6] So both Kennedy’s and Rollins’ support are fundamental to the likelihood of seeing those waivers approved.
Currently, there are at least 15 states, like Kansas, Arizona, and Tennessee, where state legislators have proposed bills and asked the federal government to allow new restrictions on SNAP for things like candy and sugary drinks.[7] But each state has focused on a different area of what they consider to be “junk” food, which could be the result of lobbying or personal interest and bias. For example, in Arizona, the proposal prevents SNAP participants from buying granola bars and certain cereals but allows them to buy potato chips. In Kansas, restrictions are being imposed on candy, but candy is defined as something that doesn’t contain flour, which would allow the purchase of a Twix and Twizzlers, but not a Clif energy bar.[8] Other bills don’t allow the purchase of soft drinks, but allow a drink with more than 50% fruit or vegetable juice, so juices that are more than 50% fruit juice that still contain a lot of processed sugar, would be allowed.[9] These nonsensical distinctions place doubt as to how much these restrictions would really benefit health in America.
Implications of Proposed Restrictions
There are two major issues with these restrictions: First, there is insufficient evidence to show these restrictions would benefit public health and second, implementing such restrictions may be more burdensome than beneficial.
No research indicates that SNAP purchases have led to a decline in health. In fact, studies suggest the opposite. There is research that confirms that SNAP participation is associated with lower rates of obesity and diabetes among children, as well as improved long-term health outcomes, including fewer sick days, reduced doctor visits, and $1,400 less in annual healthcare costs compared to non-participants. Yet now, SNAP is facing restrictions aimed at excluding foods deemed as junk, with the intention of improving national health.[10] There is also research that confirms no big difference between the food items that SNAP and non-SNAP customers purchase.[11] SNAP participants spend approximately 2 cents of every dollar on candy, 5 cents on soft drinks, and 40 cents on basic foods including meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread.[12] This raises the question, would these restrictions improve national health, or would it merely take away freedom of choice from over 40 million low-income Americans?
The fact that SNAP participants make purchases like non-participants logically leads to the possibility that the current state of health will be unaffected, given that non-SNAP participants won’t be restricted from continuing their dietary preferences. Further, many nutritionists have emphasized that healthy diets are more about the overall pattern of eating, not a particular food or meal eaten.[13] So the restriction of a certain sweet or drink would not translate to a healthier diet regardless. According to a 2021 survey by the USDA, what impedes 61% of SNAP participants from transitioning into a healthier diet is the affordability and availability of healthier options overall.[14] This means that potential restrictions wouldn’t translate to buying healthier food, but possibly buying less food, where the healthier food is still too expensive or unavailable.
Another issue is that ‘healthy’ is not an official food label, but rather a subjective term reflecting societal perceptions of nutrition. This leaves the definition used on the proposed bills more open to interpretation, which results in the nonsensical distinctions that would allow chips and certain candy bars, but not cereals and other candy bars. Also, some drinks that may have a lot of sugar, like orange juice, are important for people with diabetes, so for their diet it would be “healthy.”[15] In fact, this is one of the reasons that prior attempts at such restrictions have failed, because as the Agricultural Department stated in 2007, there are no clear standards to define foods “as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.”[16] But this isn’t the only difficulty in implementing the restrictions. Ultimately, the employees at grocery stores are the ones who will be implementing these restrictions on the day to day.[17] While corporate grocery stores may have the systems to quickly implement restrictions, smaller stores may not, which will either cause delays and highlighting of those with government assistance, or it will cause some stores to cease working with the program.[18] Either result leads to low-income individuals stripped of food options.
Conclusion
This wouldn’t be the first time there have been proposals to enact restrictions on SNAP, but this time the proposals have been gaining more traction on both the state and federal level. This indicates such restrictions may have a better chance of getting approved, given the program is administered through the federal and state governments together, and they seem to be on the same page about this. During Rollins’ first days in office, she sent a letter to state governments stating she intends to tackle the nation’s hunger problem and to “support state innovation through approvals of waivers.”[19] However, research shows that these restrictions would hurt the hunger problem and the health problem. At first glance, restricting junk food may seem like a reasonable way to promote health. But the research on SNAP suggests that these proposed policies are more likely to restrict low-income individuals’ freedom to choose their food and further reduce where they can shop.
[1] William F. Shughart II, Commentary: Can a new national nanny make America healthy again?, My Journal Courier (Mar. 14, 2025), https://www.myjournalcourier.com/opinion/article/a-national-nanny-make-us-healthy-william-f-20210478.php
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Katie Bergh, Dottie Rosenbaum & Catlin Nchako, Republican SNAP Proposals Could Take Food Away From Millions of Low-Income Individuals and Families, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Jan. 13, 2025), https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/republican-snap-proposals-could-take-food-away-from-millions-of-low-income
[5] Id.
[6] JoNel Aleccia, Trump Officials Want To Ban Junk Food From SNAP But Past Efforts Show It’s Not Easy, PBS News (Feb 19, 2025, 2:51 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/trump-officials-want-to-ban-junk-food-from-snap-but-past-efforts-show-its-not-easy
[7] Safia Samee Ali, SNAP Cuts: What Banning Candy and Soda from Stamps Could Mean, NEWSNATION (Mar. 19, 2025, 01:51 PM), https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/soda-candy-bans-potentially-cut-snap/
[8] Id.
[9] Aleccia, supra note 6.
[10] Lisa Held, Bans on Soda and Candy in SNAP Are Back on the Table, and They’re Still Controversial, CIVILEATS (Mar. 10, 2025), https://civileats.com/2025/03/10/bans-on-soda-and-candy-in-snap-are-back-on-the-table-and-theyre-still-controversial/
[11] Bergh, Rosenbaum, & Nchako, supra note 4.
[12] Held, supra note 10.
[13] Implications Of Restricting The Use Of Food Stamp Benefits – Summary, USDA – Food and Nutrition Service (Mar. 1, 2007), https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf
[14] Ali, supra note 7.
[15] Sareen Habeshian, What Cutting Junk Foods From SNAP Could Mean For Millions Of Recipients, AXIOS (Mar. 8, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/03/08/snap-junk-foods-cuts-trump
[16] Aleccia, supra note 6.
[17] Supra note 13.
[18] Bergh, Rosenbaum, & Nchako, supra note 4.
[19] Held, supra note 10.
