Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s long-heralded food stamp reform is coming Jan. 1, but everyone's confused about how to implement it.
Eighteen states have adopted restrictions on using food aid to purchase soda and other processed foods, prompted by the Health secretary’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. The bans vary widely from state to state, and the absence of detailed guidance has left local officials, retailers and participants of the nation’s largest anti-hunger initiative struggling to determine which foods are still allowed.
The Agriculture Department, which runs the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and oversees states’ plans, has yet to offer definitive enforcement guidelines and did not give a timeline on when it would provide guidance on the bans. Some states have already announced implementation delays amid a rush to define what’s banned.
“It’s just a classic government operation where they’ve thrown this out there, and well-meaning though they may be, it's caused mass confusion, and it's making some retailers question whether they're going to stay with the program or not,” said Joe Lackey, president of the Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association.
Kennedy’s push for SNAP restrictions has won support from members of both parties and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. But the bans are expected to place a heavy burden on retailers and local economies already bracing for other changes to the nutrition program that serves 40 million Americans.
Retailers could be required to ban as many as 120,000 food and drink items depending on the state, according to an estimate from the National Grocers Association. That could impose hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs for retailers each year, because the lists must be continually updated as manufacturers introduce new products and propose reformulations, said Stephanie Johnson, NGA’s vice president of government relations and political affairs.
“There is little uniformity across the 18 states that have received waivers with respect to the products that will soon be SNAP-ineligible,” said Olsson Frank Weeda principal Stewart Fried, whose firm represents retailers on SNAP issues at USDA and federal courts. “Failure to comply could lead to at least a six-month disqualification of the store from SNAP for selling as few as one SNAP-ineligible item.”
On the flip side, interpreting the waivers too broadly — banning too many items — could also be termed discrimination against SNAP participants, which USDA also prohibits.
Among the questions retailers are struggling to answer: Is a Gatorade a soda? Are granola bars candy? What about chocolate in the baking aisle versus chocolate in the candy aisle?
Retailers are anxious about having to police what food aid participants buy and worrying that families will be embarrassed or angry when they discover what items they can no longer purchase with their benefits.
"It is going to be such a nightmare for both the recipients to plan around this, but then also for these cashiers,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center. She also noted there have been few efforts to educate participants about the new restrictions.
Staffing shortages at USDA’s nutrition agency — resulting from the Trump administration’s layoffs and deferred resignation program — and the department’s out-of-date website have made it more difficult for companies and retailers to get answers about enforcement.
“The Department remains available to provide technical assistance and support, will issue guidance as appropriate, and looks forward to the commencement of some of these waivers in the coming weeks and months,” USDA spokesperson Alec Varsamis said in a statement.
Utah, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia and Louisiana will implement bans in January, with more to follow in 2026.
Oklahoma is the only state that has released an itemized list of foods that no longer qualify. Indiana, whose waiver takes effect Jan. 1, released charts about items that are banned just this week, including Gatorade, which is produced in the state. But Lackey says even that list has left questions.
As retailers scramble to code their computers correctly to comply, a third-party company, NielsenIQ, confirmed it has begun selling a list of qualifying items to retailers, though it’s unclear if that list will meet USDA’s standards.
Some other states have sent letters to SNAP beneficiaries about the changes but even these offered scant details, according to copies obtained by POLITICO.
“Starting January 1, 2026, certain types of foods will no longer be eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits,” reads a letter sent to Iowa SNAP households. “This change is to make sure that the SNAP purchases meet the purpose of the program: extending your family’s grocery budget so you can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.”
The letter lists “soda, including those with 50 percent less fruit or vegetable juice” as well as candy, “candy-coated items” and chewing gum as ineligible. But the letter directs participants to another state agency or independent counsel “for definitive guidance.”
In Utah, where the state’s waiver is narrowly tailored to limit soft drinks, retailers have had an easier time preparing for Jan. 1, said Dave Davis, president of the Utah Food Industry Association.
Still, he acknowledged the bans will be a surprise for some participants next month, most of whom are likely to find out at the cash register in the absence of any vigorous education campaign.
The changes come as retailers are preparing to implement a significant overhaul in stocking requirements to comply with a new Trump administration rule mandating that authorized SNAP retailers offer more food options. And the bans are set to take effect at a time when grocery stores and states are reeling from the aftershocks of the temporary pause in SNAP benefits during the government shutdown as well as sweeping cuts enacted as part of Republicans’ tax-and-spending law that are expected to cut millions of people from the program.
Smaller retailers, such as convenience stores or gas stations, may opt out of SNAP altogether, explained Margaret Mannion, a lobbyist for the National Association of Convenience Stores. That could exacerbate food deserts in rural areas where a full-service grocery store may be 40 miles or more away.
Roughly half of NACS members’ stores are operated by a single person who runs the cash register, handles bookkeeping and will be responsible for implementing the waivers. But Mannion said their members are “in the dark” about the new food bans.
“Are we going to get fined or get our license taken away?” she said. “There’s a whole lot of confusion.”
Nutrition experts disagree on how effective the waivers will be at achieving Kennedy’s stated goal of lowering rates of chronic disease. Some argue that it could help cut down on junk-food purchases, especially soda, but that it hinges on strong efficacy evaluation. Some point out that because SNAP is supplemental, participants will just use other money to buy soda or processed foods. Still others say banning certain foods from SNAP is illegal and may further stigmatize the program.
Anti-hunger advocates are also worried that most states don’t have a good method to evaluate whether the bans are working — a required component of any approved waiver.
“[USDA] just haphazard approved this to get this out as a way to weaken the reach and the accessibility of the SNAP program and they dressed it up in sheep’s clothing to say this is about health,” said FRAC’s Plata-Nino, noting that several states said they planned to evaluate effectiveness of the bans using a federal nutrition education program known as SNAP-Ed that was defunded in Republicans’ tax-and-spending package.
Comments
Post a Comment