Four U.S. states—Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, and Nebraska—seek federal permission to restrict how Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds can be spent.

These states want to deter recipients from using their benefits to purchase sugary drinks, candy, and other "junk food" items with the primary goal of promoting healthier eating habits.

Rethinking What SNAP Should Pay For

SNAP, previously known as the Food Stamp Program, provides financial assistance that allows more than 41 million Americans to put food on the table. Programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) limit purchases to specific nutritious items. SNAP presently offers far more flexibility, including products that many health experts say are contributing to a national diet crisis

Officials in the four proposing states believe these options are counterproductive to the purpose of SNAP, emphasizing the rising rates of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, especially among low-income populations.

"Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to buy candy bars and soft drinks," said Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen. "We need to make sure the food we subsidize with public funds is actually nutritious."

What Exactly Are the States Proposing?

The governors have asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers SNAP, for waivers that would allow them to prohibit specific product categories from being eligible for purchase. If granted, the waivers would bar recipients from spending SNAP funds on:

Candy and Sweets

• Chocolate bars (e.g., Snickers, Hershey's)

• Gummy candies (e.g., gummy bears, gummy worms)

• Hard candies (e.g., lollipops, peppermints)

• Chewing gum

• Candy-coated nuts

• Candy made with flour (e.g., Kit Kat, Twix)

• Marshmallow-based treats

• Artificially sweetened candies (sugar-free versions)

Sugary Beverages

• Regular sodas (e.g., Coca-Cola, Pepsi)

• Diet sodas and other artificially sweetened soft drinks

• Energy drinks (e.g., Monster, Red Bull)

• Sweetened iced teas and lemonades

• Fruit drinks with less than 50% real juice (e.g., Hi-C, Sunny D)

• Sports drinks (e.g., Gatorade, Powerade)

• Sweetened flavored waters

Processed Snacks

• Packaged cookies (e.g., Chips Ahoy, Oreos)

• Snack cakes (e.g., Twinkies, HoHos, Little Debbie products)

• Pre-packaged pastries and toaster treats (e.g., Pop-Tarts)

• Candy bars that straddle candy/snack definitions (e.g., protein bars with high sugar content)

• Sweetened granola bars or cereal bars

• Potato chips (e.g., Lay's, Pringles)

• Tortilla chips and nachos

• Cheese puffs and cheese-flavored snacks

• Pretzels (especially flavored or coated varieties)

• Snack mixes (e.g., Chex Mix)

• Packaged crackers with low nutritional value

The goal is to align SNAP purchases with federal dietary guidelines, encouraging participants to buy more fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins.

Why the USDA Has Historically Opposed SNAP Food Limits

While recent state-level efforts to limit SNAP purchases of candy, soda, and other “junk food” have gained momentum, this isn’t the first time such proposals have been made. In fact, New York City, Maine, and Minnesota all previously submitted similar waiver requests to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—each one ultimately denied.

The USDA’s rationale has remained fairly consistent over time. The agency has expressed three primary concerns:

• Implementation Complexity: creating a clear, enforceable list of banned items would be logistically challenging for both retailers and administrators

• Increased Administrative Costs: restricting purchases would likely require new infrastructure

• Potential for Stigmatization: implying low-income individuals are less capable of making informed dietary decisions

Despite the USDA's historic reluctance, the landscape is changing. Rising rates of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses have reignited calls for reform. Policymakers are increasingly viewing SNAP not just as a hunger relief program but as a potential tool for public health intervention.

Adding fuel to the fire, a 2022 USDA-commissioned study found that over 20% of SNAP funds are spent on sugar-sweetened beverages and processed snack foods. That finding has alarmed both lawmakers and public health officials who argue that taxpayer dollars should not be subsidizing items that contribute to chronic disease and soaring healthcare costs.

As a result, the USDA now faces growing pressure to re-evaluate its previous stance, especially as more states push for waivers. While the agency has yet to signal a definitive change in policy, the convergence of public health urgency, political momentum, and data-backed concern may make a shift more likely than in years past.

Advocacy Groups and Experts Challenge SNAP Restrictions

Despite growing momentum, critics warn that banning “junk food” from SNAP risks stigmatizing low-income Americans and policing their food choices in ways not applied to the general public.

“It sends the wrong message,” said Ellen Vollinger, legal director at the Food Research & Action Center. “You’re basically telling low-income people that they can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own food.”

Cultural food preferences, packaging, and marketing could lead to uneven enforcement or unintentional exclusion of acceptable items. Critics also argue that education and better access to nutritious food—rather than bans—may be more effective.

Should the Government Influence Food Purchases?

This debate is part of a larger national conversation: To what extent should public policy shape personal consumer choices—especially when those purchases are subsidized with taxpayer dollars?

Some argue that with chronic diseases on the rise and health disparities widening, it's no longer just a personal issue. Proponents of the waiver requests view the effort as a pilot program—a way to test whether steering SNAP purchases toward healthier options results in better health outcomes for recipients.

How the SNAP Debate Could Shape Future Food Policy

The USDA has not announced a final decision on the waiver requests. Approval would set a precedent that could open the door for broader policy changes nationwide. If denied, state lawmakers may try alternative legislative routes.

Regardless of the outcome, these efforts have reignited focus on a critical question: Should food assistance programs aim to improve nutrition by limiting choice—or is that a step too far?

Whether these states succeed or not, their proposals emphasize a central dilemma in modern public health policy— balancing freedom of choice with the goal of better health for all. As the U.S. grapples with rising diet-related illnesses, food policy reform will likely remain a hot topic for years to come.