Food Stamp Bans on Soda, Candy Expand to Three Additional States

The Trump administration’s crusade to make Americans healthier is about to spread to three new states on the verge of blocking their lowest income residents from using federal food assistance to purchase sugary products, as concerns from grocers about compliance hurdles grow.

By Feb. 18, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit recipients living in Idaho, Louisiana, and Oklahoma will no longer be able to use the program formerly known as food stamps to buy products deemed unhealthy.

Five states already restricted similar items—generally, sodas and candies—at the outset of 2026, with permission from the US Agriculture Department. By October, 18 states will have “junk food” bans for SNAP users in effect.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has touted the initiative as a major milestone in his Make America Healthy Again agenda; the policy change is also one of the first MAHA moves advanced by this administration with regulatory enforcement.

The exact contours of which foods are restricted, however, vary widely by state, posing a web of complex rules that grocery store owners and their customers are struggling to navigate.

“You’ve got many products, like protein bars, that people think of as healthy that can meet the definition of candy in some of these states,” said Doug Kantor, general counsel for the National Association of Convenience Stores.

Grocers and convenience store owners aren’t thrilled about the changes or USDA’s promise to penalize SNAP retailers by involuntarily removing them from program participation after two violations.

Kantor’s organization and the National Grocers Association warned in a Jan. 7 letter to USDA it’s “not feasible for retailers to achieve perfect compliance with the restriction definitions.”

Anti-hunger groups have also warned that if SNAP retailers start going offline, it will limit low-income households’ access to healthy and affordable foods.

“I suspect that litigation will commence in the late spring or early summer after USDA withdraws retailers’ SNAP authorizations and those decisions are upheld on administrative review,” attorney Stewart Fried said in emailed comments. He represents retailers across roughly a dozen states implementing purchase restrictions as a principal at Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz PC.

Federal enforcement starts April 1 in the first five states to enact restrictions: Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia.

As that date approaches, officials at USDA are reviewing five more state proposals to restrict similar items, according to department spokesperson Alec Varsamis.

Liquid or Powder Gatorade?

Deciphering which foods SNAP users can purchase has been particularly difficult for small retailers with limited resources, not least because only two states—Nebraska and Oklahoma—have provided retailers with lists of barcodes for newly restricted items, Fried said.

Idaho’s restrictions, for example, define soda as “beverages containing sweeteners,” meaning SNAP benefits can’t pay for bottled liquid Gatorade—but can purchase the powdered counterpart, “despite sugar being the first listed ingredient in Gatorade powder,” Fried said.

Those differences abound across states. Louisiana is set to make candy ineligible for SNAP purchases next week, but the state exempts products containing flour, such as Kit Kats and Whoppers. Oklahoma’s restrictions ban candy, but allow baked goods including cakes and cookies.

Grocers, in the January letter to USDA, asked for “a reasonable margin of error” that accounts for seasonal products, label changes, and unclear restrictions.

As retailers press the government for more specific compliance guidance and looser enforcement, the private sector has stepped in. Consumer analytics firm NIQ Global Intelligence PLC now markets a list of restricted item codes to stores to keep point-of-sales systems compliant.

Legal Questions

So far, organizations frustrated by the new restrictions bearing down on retailers and their customers across 18 states haven’t sued.

Kantor said that until USDA starts enforcing the restrictions come April, it’s too early to say “whether there might be legal challenges that come up.”

Retailers have a 90-day grace period after the restrictions take effect in their state. If they’re caught selling blocked items to SNAP users after that period, they get a warning letter from USDA. On the second offense, the department will withdraw its authorization for the store to accept federal food benefits.

Gina Plata-Nino, who directs SNAP policy advocacy at the Food Research and Action Center, said the anti-hunger group is concerned USDA’s handling of state waivers enabling the restrictions has been “arbitrary and that it doesn’t meet the statutory regulations.”

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 lets states ask USDA to waive certain SNAP requirements to conduct pilot projects testing changes to the program. The pilots restricting sodas and candies are set to last two years.

States are required to gather data tracking the effectiveness of pilot projects, but the evaluation plans submitted to block sugary foods were “incredibly vague,” Plata-Nino said.

“This suggests to us that USDA did not conduct a thorough and critical review of the waiver requests,” Plata-Nino said.

Officials at USDA have rejected proposed pilot projects to ban sugary foods under the SNAP program in the past.

Legal concerns raised by some haven’t stopped Kennedy and his supporters from claiming the new limits on food purchases as a success—even though SNAP isn’t under his jurisdiction.

Kennedy, speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on Feb. 9, said 78% of children on SNAP also qualify for Medicaid, which means “we’re paying for treating their diabetes.”

“We’re not starting a nanny state, like if you live in this country, you can buy a Coca-Cola if you want one, or eat a Krispy Kreme donut,” Kennedy said. “But we’re going to tell you it’s not good for you.”

Michael Bloomberg has backed measures to curb sugar consumption and Bloomberg Philanthropies has supported imposition of sugar taxes as part of obesity-prevention public health initiatives around the world. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.