Your SNAP Benefits Will Change: Specific Food Items Banned in Three States Next Year

In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved waivers that change the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska. Starting January 2026, SNAP recipients in these states will face limits on buying certain foods, such as soft drinks and candy. Led by Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins, this move aims to prioritize nutrition amid growing health concerns. The decision has sparked lively discussion, as leaders weigh the promise of better health against the challenges of food access for low-income families.

These waivers are a first for SNAP, a program that supports over 41 million people each month. Historically, recipients could purchase nearly any food, except alcohol, tobacco, and hot foods. Now, Indiana’s waiver excludes soft drinks and candy, Iowa’s bans foods subject to state sales tax, like sweetened beverages and snacks, and Nebraska’s prohibits soda and energy drinks. Set to begin next year, these changes signal a new focus on using SNAP to combat diet-related diseases.

The policy stems from the Make America Healthy Again initiative, backed by Secretary Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They argue that SNAP must return to its 1964 roots of promoting nutrition while supporting farmers. With one in three youths aged 12 to 19 facing prediabetes and obesity driving $147 billion in annual medical costs, the need for action feels urgent. Still, the approach has raised questions about its impact on those who rely on the program.

Advocates of the waivers highlight troubling health trends. Chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease, are increasingly common, especially among children. Data reveals that 40 percent of school-aged kids have at least one chronic condition, and 15 percent of high school students consume soda daily. For supporters, these statistics underscore the need for SNAP to encourage healthier eating habits, potentially reducing strain on healthcare systems over time.

The argument also touches on finances. SNAP, funded entirely by federal dollars, represents a significant investment. Proponents of the waivers contend that these funds should prioritize nutritious foods, aligning with the Food Stamp Act of 1977’s call for “a more nutritious diet.” States like Indiana and Iowa view the policy as a way to support local agriculture by boosting demand for fresh, wholesome products.

State leaders are among the strongest backers. Indiana Governor Mike Braun hailed the waiver as a recommitment to SNAP’s nutritional mission, while Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds emphasized its role in safeguarding future generations. Their support ties into a broader effort, spurred by Secretary Rollins’ “Laboratories of Innovation,” which encourages states to experiment with policies that could eventually influence national standards.

Opponents of the waivers argue that the policy misses the mark. Public health researchers and advocates for low-income groups point out that banning certain foods doesn’t tackle deeper issues, like limited access to grocery stores or insufficient benefit amounts. A 2025 University of Michigan study showed that restricting soda purchases cut spending on those items but didn’t improve overall nutrition, raising doubts about the waivers’ effectiveness.

Recipient autonomy is another concern. Since the 1960s, SNAP has trusted participants to choose foods that fit their household needs and cultural preferences. Critics, including some congressional Democrats, argue that restrictions erode this trust and add stigma at checkout. They advocate for programs like GusNIP, which matches SNAP dollars spent on produce, as a way to promote healthy eating without limiting choice.

Equity remains a critical issue. Low-income communities, especially communities of color, often face barriers to accessing healthy foods, such as living in areas with few supermarkets. Critics warn that restrictions could worsen these challenges, particularly in rural or urban settings. They propose alternatives like the SNAP Tribal Food Sovereignty Act, which allows tribal governments to customize benefits, or increased funding for WIC and Medicaid to address systemic inequities.

The waivers are an experiment, and their outcomes will shape future policy. USDA requires states to report on health impacts and program access, but meaningful data will take time to emerge. Success could lead to broader adoption, while setbacks might strengthen calls for solutions like higher benefits or expanded nutrition incentives. The debate highlights a larger question: how to align public health goals with the needs of SNAP participants.

SNAP has long adapted to new realities. From its start in the 1930s to its 2008 renaming, the program has shifted to address hunger, economic crises, and now chronic disease. Recent changes, like the 2023 Thrifty Food Plan increasing benefits by 21 percent, reflect this flexibility. Yet, with food insecurity and diet-related illnesses persistent, finding effective strategies remains a challenge.

As Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska prepare for 2026, the waivers carry both potential and risk. They aim to foster healthier lives but must avoid harming those who depend on SNAP. The nation will watch closely, eager to learn whether this approach can deliver meaningful change while ensuring no one is left behind.