A dozen states will soon restrict certain junk foods from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program after the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved another set of the waiver requests earlier this month.
Grocers in those states – which include Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas – will have to adapt those new rules as soon as January.
Some of the waivers aim to exclude soft drinks, energy drinks and sweetened drinks, others also restrict candy from eligible SNAP purchases. Each state has a set of definitions for what is considered “candy” or “carbonated beverage.” Some food advocates say the definitions are confusing and do not tackle the heart of accessible nutrition.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins praised the states that submitted waivers and said in a recent news release that they are taking action to address “chronic health problems.”
“President Trump has changed the status quo, and the entire cabinet is taking action to Make America Healthy Again,” Rollins said in the release. “At USDA, we play a key role in supporting Americans who fall on hard times, and that commitment does not change. Rather, these state waivers promote healthier options for families in need.”
In a statement, Eric Payne, a spokesperson for the National Grocers Association, which represents about 21,500 stores, said the nation’s independent community grocers play a vital role in supporting health. He said policymakers should recognize grocers are often the final and the most direct connection between SNAP and its participants.
“Restrictions on SNAP food purchases can have far-reaching effects on Main Street businesses, with the potential to disrupt store operations, workforce stability and supply chain relationships,” Payne said in the statement. “To mitigate any of these potential undue burdens, state officials should expeditiously provide clear and transparent guidance on which specific foods retailers are required to recode, while also protecting the privacy of SNAP participants.”
Preparing for change
More than 42 million people use SNAP benefits, with millions of people enrolled throughout the Great Plains and Midwest, according to USDA data.
Although SNAP shoppers have variety in what they can buy, there are some limits. Products like medicines, tobacco, alcohol and foods that are hot when sold are existing national restrictions in the food aid program. But Ansley Fellers, executive director of the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association, said the impending rules are different.
She said grocers have seen the existing exclusions for a long time, and the new state-by-state rules will be more complicated. In Nebraska, the state is excluding soda and energy drinks from the benefit and expects to begin the restrictions next year.
“I think confusing the fact that there are current restrictions with the new restrictions coming down the pike is — it's apples and oranges,” Fellers said.
The state-by-state nature means it’s likely that customers will seek out stores in a bordering state without exclusions, which will cause stores with restrictions to lose sales, Fellers said.
“Nebraska's retailers are at a huge disadvantage in that case because even if you are getting a SNAP card in Nebraska and you can go buy whatever you want in South Dakota and you're only a few miles from the border, why wouldn't you?” Fellers said.
Stores will have to update point of sale systems, Fellers said. She said this creates more costs to business, and that might cause stores operating with thin margins to raise prices for customers.
Jeff Klaus is general manager at Retail Data Systems, which is owned by Data Systems Incorporated. It’s the largest independent point of sale dealer in North America specializing in restaurants, grocery stores and convenience stores.
At this point, he said it’s unclear who will be vetting the products based on the definitions.
“We can give recommendations, but let's just go out on a limb here and say, I accidentally forgot to fix Snickers bars. And now somebody buys Snickers bars with SNAP. Whose fault is that? Is it mine? Is it the retailer?” Klaus said.
He said there are a lot of legality questions that people have to consider when doing large projects like this one. The company is waiting for state guidance, but Klaus said it’s a matter of sorting all the individual items.
In Nebraska, the association is asking the state to provide a detailed list of what is to be excluded from the program because Fellers said they need clarification on certain products. She said unless the private sector – grocers, manufacturers and wholesalers — can make a list, it will fall to the store to work with their point of sale systems to figure out what products apply.
Because of the number of products and ingredients on the market, she said it will be difficult and an ongoing process as things change regularly. The association is also asking the state to not hold retailers responsible when mistakes are made in purchasing and signage for stores.
“I think that our cashiers, these managers and these stores are going to have to have some really difficult conversations with people, especially at the beginning when folks are not aware this is happening,” Fellers said. “There's going to be a lot of training. There will be a lot of hiccups at the beginning, and there's just some things that we're hoping to iron out in the next couple of months.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services wrote that the department will work with retailers and provide information before and during the implementation process.
Klaus said there is always some concern about getting it right the first time, which is why the company relies on state and local governments to help with data.
“Big, large corporate stores, they already know how to do this kind of stuff as well, but it's a lot less costly for them on a global scale to implement changes like this than it is for rural America,” Klaus said. “It's harder for them. It's going to cost them money because nothing's free, right? Our services aren't free.
The pain they're going to go through, it's not free. So it's going to be costly for them. And hopefully it's worth it for a healthier society. Time will tell,” Klaus said.
Choices at the store
In the most recent USDA SNAP waiver announcement, governors from the states with the newly-approved bans expressed their support. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said in the release he’s glad the waiver is being finalized for “the health and wellbeing of Oklahomans.”
“We are making Oklahoma healthy again, and I’m grateful for the support of Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy and Secretary Rollins,” Stitt said. “It’s common sense that taxpayer money shouldn’t pay for foods that make us sicker.”
And Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott applauded the Trump administrative officials.
“By restricting unhealthy foods from being purchased with SNAP benefits, Texas can help ensure the health and well-being of Texans,” Abbott in a news release. “The new SNAP guidelines will ensure taxpayer dollars are used to purchase foods that provide real nutritional value.”
But some experts say it’s more complicated, and food advocates say the restrictions could have harmful effects.
In Oklahoma, anti-hunger advocates say waivers are not effective, the state’s definitions are confusing and administrative resources should be focused on lowering the state’s error rate because of the cost shifts included in the GOP’s Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Craig Gunderson, chair of the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty at Baylor University, said SNAP is successful in ways other programs fail. It allows shoppers to buy groceries at a store with their neighbors and get what they view is appropriate for their household.
“So this – I’m really disappointed about these restrictions because they take away that dignity and autonomy, and it's going to have serious consequences for vulnerable Americans,” Gunderson said.
He said the restrictions are demeaning to low-income Americans.
In his view, SNAP is an anti-hunger program and is not designed to improve people’s health, outside of relieving their food insecurity. He said the bans will not make a difference in what people buy.
“By imposing these bans is what's going to end up happening is you're going to have more food insecure people, which is going to drive up healthcare costs, which is going to drive the worst health outcomes,” Gunderson said.
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
