In a significant move, the governors of Arkansas and Indiana, both Republicans, announced plans to eliminate the purchase of soft drinks and candy through a program designed to assist low-income individuals in affording groceries. This initiative marks the first instance of any state attempting to enact such changes within what has long been recognized as the food stamp program. Arkansan Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders declared that their proposal is focused on enhancing the health of more than 350,000 residents who utilize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Sanders expressed concern that “taxpayers are subsidizing poor health,” referring to the costs incurred both prior to and following health consequences linked to poor dietary habits. At a conference held in Little Rock, Sanders was joined by Brooke Rollins, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary, to discuss the new policy direction. Meanwhile, in Indianapolis, Governor Mike Braun, in unison with U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ leader Mehmet Oz, declared intentions to shift the focus toward nutrition rather than allowing funds to be used for unhealthy snacks and drinks.
The states’ actions are part of a broader trend where several regions attempt to remove foods potentially harmful to health from the federally funded program. This has been an essential objective for those involved in the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, as emphasized by Rollins and Kennedy. Kennedy pointedly remarked that the country’s food system has become detrimental, impacting national strength and health.
Details of the Arkansas plan, set to start in July 2026, include preventing the use of SNAP benefits for purchasing sodas, including both sugary and diet sodas, fruit and vegetable beverages with less than half natural juice, unhealthy drinks, candy (including flour-based confections like Kit Kat bars), and artificially sweetened treats. Conversely, participants would be allowed to buy hot rotisserie chickens, which are currently not covered by the program.
Indiana’s alterations aim to remove candy and soft drinks from the list of eligible SNAP purchases. Additionally, Braun has issued orders to amend work requirements for SNAP participants, restore income and asset verification protocols, and scrutinize improper payments and errors to keep the program’s objectives aligned with federal directives.
Nevertheless, antihunger organizations challenge the rationale for these SNAP food restrictions, pointing to evidence that shows SNAP beneficiaries are not necessarily more inclined than other low-income groups to buy sugary snacks or drinks. They argue that such limitations could diminish the autonomy and dignity of recipients, who receive, on average, about $187 per month, equating to roughly $6.20 daily.
Gina Plata-Nino from the Food Research and Action Center criticized the targeting of a specific demographic without substantial corroborative data indicating they are the root of the problem or that this approach will yield healthier outcomes. Meanwhile, trade groups representing the beverage and candy sectors have opposed the initiatives, claiming SNAP participants are unfairly singled out.
American Beverage representatives have accused authorities of opting to serve as “food police” rather than effectively seeking to elevate individuals out of SNAP dependency by promoting adequate employment opportunities. Chris Gindlesperger of the National Confectioners Association labeled the chosen strategy as “misguided.” He noted that both SNAP and non-SNAP participants generally acknowledge that treats like chocolate and candy are not substitutes for regular meals.
Administered by the USDA and enforced at the state level, the SNAP program’s framework is grounded in the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. This guideline stipulates that SNAP funds should be allocated for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” excluding alcoholic drinks, tobacco, and heated items. Typically, these benefits are available to households with a gross income at or beneath 130% of the federal poverty line, roughly translating to an annual income of $33,500 for a family of three.
To exclude particular food items, Congress would need to amend the existing legislation, or states would require specific waivers to limit purchase options, according to Katie Bergh from the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Over the last twenty years, proposals from both sides of the political aisle in numerous states have suggested the cessation of SNAP funds for items like soda, potato chips, luxury meats, bottled water, and even extravagant birthday cakes. There have been six prior waiver requests since 2004, with four being denied, one withdrawn, and another deemed incomplete.
The USDA has previously denied these waiver attempts, citing an absence of an unequivocal criterion to classify foods as unhealthy, the potential complexity and costs associated with implementing such restrictions, and doubts regarding the effectiveness in altering food purchasing habits or improving health outcomes among SNAP beneficiaries.