Nineteen states now hold federal approval to block soda, candy and desserts from food-stamp purchases, turning what was once a uniform national benefit into a patchwork of state-by-state shopping rules. USDA has issued retailer compliance notices in early-implementation states including Indiana and Texas, spelling out exactly which products Electronic Benefit Transfer cards will no longer cover and what stores must do to stay authorized. The shift affects millions of SNAP recipients and tens of thousands of retailers, and no federal redemption data yet exist to show how buying patterns have changed.
How USDA waivers split SNAP into state-level food rules
The federal government has long treated SNAP as a single program with identical purchasing power in every state. That changed when USDA began approving demonstration waivers that let individual states redefine the word “food” for benefit purposes. Oklahoma’s waiver approval, for example, amended the standard SNAP definition to exclude candy and soft drinks from eligible purchases. The agency’s own waiver authority page states that “waivers may be approved when they support the nutritional objectives of the program,” according to the FNS waiver overview.
For retailers, the consequences are immediate and operational. USDA directed stores in Indiana to update point-of-sale systems so that restricted items trigger a denial when scanned against an EBT card, according to the Indiana retailer notice. A parallel notice for Texas lays out the same stocking and transaction obligations for stores in that state, according to the Texas retailer guidance. Stores that fail to comply risk losing their SNAP authorization entirely, a sanction that can erase a major share of revenue for small grocers and corner markets.
Nebraska took a different communication path, publishing plain-language guidance for recipients through its Department of Health and Human Services. The state’s Healthy Choices Waiver page lists the exact product categories excluded and explains how EBT cards will be programmed at the state level. It also addresses a practical question many recipients face: what happens when they shop across state lines, where a neighboring state may not restrict the same items. Nebraska officials emphasize that the restriction “follows the card, not the store,” meaning a Nebraska SNAP household will see soda and candy denied even at an out-of-state retailer that still sells those products to local recipients.
That rule cuts both ways. A shopper from a state without restrictions can use benefits to buy soda in a Nebraska supermarket, even as the person ahead of them in line using a Nebraska-issued card cannot. Advocates say those side-by-side transactions illustrate how a national entitlement has fractured into a set of state-specific food codes that ordinary shoppers may struggle to understand.
Federal tracking without federal results
USDA tracks these demonstration projects through its State Options Report, which catalogs approved waivers and state plan amendments using FFY 2025 SNAP data. The report places food-restriction waivers alongside other demonstration categories, giving a snapshot of which states have opted in and under what terms. But the report does not yet contain outcome data showing whether the restrictions changed what recipients actually buy, how often transactions are denied, or whether households shift those purchases to cash.
That gap matters for testing whether the policy works as intended. A reasonable hypothesis holds that states adopting food-restriction waivers earliest should show faster declines in SNAP redemptions at convenience stores and in categories like sugar-sweetened beverages. Without consistent national data, however, researchers cannot easily compare trends across waiver and non-waiver states or separate the effects of restrictions from broader shifts in food prices and inflation.
USDA has required participating states to submit their own evaluations as part of the waiver process, but those reports vary widely in scope and methodology. Some focus on administrative feasibility-how well EBT systems can distinguish eligible from ineligible items-while others attempt to survey households about changes in diet. Until those findings are synthesized into a public, cross-state analysis, policymakers are left with more assumptions than evidence.
Winners, losers and unanswered questions
Supporters of the waivers argue that SNAP should not subsidize products that contribute to diabetes, obesity and other chronic diseases. They frame the restrictions as aligning benefits with nutrition education messages that already encourage recipients to choose fruits, vegetables and whole grains over sugary drinks and candy. In that view, state-level experimentation is a feature, not a bug, allowing officials to test different lists of restricted items and see which approaches are workable.
Critics counter that the new rules stigmatize low-income shoppers and add friction at the checkout line. Cashiers must explain why one customer’s soda is denied while another’s is approved, and recipients may not know which brands fall on which side of the line until they are standing at the register. Retailers, for their part, must constantly update product files as manufacturers release new flavors or package sizes that may or may not be coded as restricted.
For now, the United States has moved from a single national standard for SNAP purchases to a landscape where a bottle of cola or a chocolate bar may be treated as food in one state and as a prohibited item in the next. Whether that experiment ultimately narrows health gaps or simply complicates life for families and stores will depend on evidence that, so far, the federal data systems are not yet equipped to provide.
Free for readers: The free Retirement Shield newsletter sends plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement — the scams to dodge, the benefits you’re owed, and what’s changing with Social Security and Medicare, a couple times a week. Get the free newsletter.
