These 12 States Are Restricting SNAP Benefits - Here’s What You Can’t Buy Anymore

For the nearly 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP for food assistance, their grocery lists may soon look very different. As federal funding tightens and states gain more autonomy, new restrictions are reshaping what families can buy using SNAP.

Here's what could be changing and which states are affected, so you can stretch your grocery budget as benefits narrow and prices continue to rise.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps low-income individuals and families afford groceries. In 2024, it served more than 41.6 million people across the U.S. and provided an average monthly benefit of about $187 per person.

SNAP can be used to buy nearly any food item sold by approved retailers, with a few exceptions such as hot, prepared food, alcohol, or non-food items. But this longstanding flexibility may soon end for many participants.

In April 2025, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services began accepting applications from governors for pilot waivers to limit "non-nutritious" food purchases. As of August 2025, 12 states have been approved to implement the first-ever SNAP purchase restrictions on unhealthy foods.

According to the USDA, the goal is to "restore nutritional value" and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

At a recent press conference, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that individuals should be able to buy a sugar soda if they want to, but should not expect other taxpayers to fund it.

Supporters argue these restrictions could help combat obesity and chronic disease, while critics call them intrusive and stigmatizing.

As of Aug. 6, 2025, 12 states have received federal approval to restrict SNAP purchases:

• Arkansas
• Colorado
• Florida
• Idaho
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Louisiana
• Nebraska
• Oklahoma
• Texas
• Utah
• West Virginia

All 12 waivers will go into effect in 2026, but the start dates vary by state:

• Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia: Jan. 1, 2026
• Louisiana: Jan. 15, 2026
• Colorado: March 1, 2026
• Texas: April 1, 2026
• Arkansas: July 1, 2026

These restrictions are being rolled out through a waiver system, not legislation. Each state must apply for federal approval, propose its definitions of "non-nutritious" food, and agree to an evaluation period of up to five years.

That state-level flexibility is part of the USDA's larger plan to test whether restrictions can improve health outcomes, but it also means rules vary widely by state.

While all 12 states target sugary or ultra-processed foods, the scope differs. According to the USDA:

• Arkansas: Restricts soda, fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50% natural juice, unhealthy drinks, and candy
• Colorado: Restricts soft drinks
• Florida: Restricts soda, energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts
• Idaho: Restricts soda and candy
• Indiana: Restricts soft drinks and candy
• Iowa: Takes a hybrid approach. Restricts taxable items like soda, candy, and sweetened snacks while expanding eligibility to include seeds and plants that produce food. Iowans will be able to buy things like vegetable starters or fruit trees along with regular groceries when using their SNAP dollars.
• Louisiana: Restricts soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy
• Nebraska: Restricts soda and energy drinks
• Oklahoma: Restricts soft drinks and candy
• Texas: Restricts sweetened drinks and candy
• Utah: Restricts soft drinks
• West Virginia: Restricts soda.

These inconsistencies may make enforcement tricky — and onerous — for retailers, especially since there's no uniform definition of "junk food."

Yes — and there's a precedent for restrictions. The USDA has long set limits on how food benefits can be used. The original Food Stamp Program (1939–1943) used a two-stamp system: orange stamps for any food purchase and blue stamps only for food items the USDA deemed to be surplus.

Other programs like Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) also restrict purchases to a narrow list of healthy foods such as infant formula and specific sizes and types of milk, cereal, yogurt, and other "nutritious" foods.

However, unlike WIC, SNAP has historically emphasized choice. The program has long allowed recipients to decide what best fits their households' needs. New restrictions are a dramatic shift.

The new requirements could reduce purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages, which are linked to obesity and diabetes. It also aligns SNAP rules with other federal programs like WIC and school meals, which already limit sugary drinks.

Many argue that these changes encourage healthier dietary habits and potentially lower public health care costs. And some may agree with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that these restrictions address public concern that taxpayer-funded benefits shouldn't subsidize junk food.

Many have noted that creating consistent definitions can be difficult and confusing, whether you're a shopper or retailer. For example, does a granola bar count as a candy or a dessert? Restrictions can create checkout confusion. SNAP participants also overwhelmingly prefer expanded benefits or incentives for fruits and vegetables over restrictions.

Additionally, narrowing purchase options risks lower participation among eligible families. For those who live where healthy food is limited, this could be detrimental to their ability to get enough to eat, especially if they already struggle with access to food.

The real-world effects won't be clear until the changes take effect. Some research suggests restrictions might modestly improve diet quality, but they can also create unintended side effects.

Some SNAP recipients may feel embarrassed at checkout, abandon transactions, or simply stop using their benefits altogether, echoing long-documented WIC experiences. Others may simply buy the restricted items with cash instead, offsetting any health gains.

And while health experts agree that sugar consumption is too high, they caution that policy should empower, not shame, families struggling to afford food. They worry that increased restrictions would further stigmatize low-income families in public, causing additional stress, which can worsen physical and mental health outcomes.

Twelve states are piloting the most restrictive SNAP policies in the program's history, aiming to promote healthier eating but risking new barriers in the process. Whether these changes improve public health and program integrity, or simply add red tape and harm participants, remains to be seen.

Presently, more than 12% of all Americans — and one in five people in states like Louisiana and New Mexico — depend on SNAP to feed their families. If these reforms make participation harder, the trade-off may not be worth the savings. Out of confusion, many participants may end up using their own money for food that their SNAP benefits could have covered.

Regardless of how these SNAP changes play out, all consumers should pay attention to prices and food labels so they can shop smarter and avoid wasting their hard-earned money on groceries.