Currently browsing posts about: SNAP

The USDA requires retailers who accept SNAP benefits to stock a few fruits and vegetables.  Formerly, USDA required retailers to provide three varieties of food in each of four categories—dairy, protein, grain, and fruits and vegetables.  It allowed stores to meet these requirements by providing a few tired-looking produce items, such as the ones shown here from a Walgreen drugstore.

USDA proposes to expand the number from 3 to 7.

This is confusing.  I thought the USDA did this in 2016: Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Clarification of Proposed Rule and Extension of Comment Period.

OK.  Whatever.  Let’s start with the press release, because I always enjoy USDA rhetoric: Secretary Rollins Strengthens SNAP Retailer Stocking Requirements to Make America Healthy Again.

Right now, the bar for stocking food as a SNAP retailer is far too low, allowing people to game the system and leaving vulnerable Americans without healthy food options. These common-sense changes are designed to minimize benefit trafficking and skimming, among other fraudulent activities, while making more nutritious foods available to families who rely on the program….USDA is actively reorienting SNAP towards better nutrition and emphasizing whole, healthy food for program participants. This includes approving 12 states to exclude certain unhealthy foods from purchase with SNAP benefits.

If you want the details, check the Proposed Rule – Updated Staple Food Stocking Standards for Retailers in SNAP. 

This offers complicated explanations of each food category: “The Department is proposing to subdivide protein into the following seven groupings of varieties:

• Perishable meat, poultry, or fish, including fresh or frozen versions for each different kind of animal;
• Shelf-stable meat, poultry, or fish for each different kind of animal;
• Eggs;
• Nuts/seeds;
• Raw beans, peas, or lentils, each of which would count as a distinct protein variety;
• Cooked (e.g., canned) beans,
• Peas, or lentils and multi-ingredient products with beans, peas, or lentils as the main ingredient; and
• Tofu/tempeh, together, would be a distinct variety from all other types of proteins and any other pea product as the main ingredient.”

At first glance, this looks like a step in the right direction.  It will require stores that accept SNAP benefits to offer a greater variety of healhy food options.

This is a no-brainer for Walmart or any other large grocery store.  They already do this.

Therefore, this rule has to be understood as being aimed at bodegas as well as at Dollar stores located in areas where no other retail foods are readily available.

That is why this proposal is considered a ‘mixed bag’ for both retailers and shoppers.

Such stores, widely frequented by SNAP recipients whose payments are likely to constitute significant percentages of sales, will have a hard time meeting these requ.  They already had trouble meeting the existing requirements.

This proposal does not seem to be accompanied by incentives to SNAP recipients to buy fruits and vegetables.

As detailed in an issue brief by Healthy Eating Research, The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives, incentives would help.  Otherwise, the rising cost of fruits and vegetables can seem prohibitive.

The proposal is open for comment—by November 24.  Here’s how.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Preferred method; follow the online instructions for submitting comments on docket FNS-2025-0018 or enter “RIN 0584-AF12” and click the “Search” button. Follow the instructions at this website.
• Mail: Comments should be addressed to SNAP Retailer Policy Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

I’ve been collecting graphs on the likely effects of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (shades of Orwell’s 1984) on income distribution in the United States.  Here are two examples to ponder.

From the Congressional Budget Office:

From The Budget Lab at Yale and Paul Krugman’s Substack

From Tax Policy Center and Penn-Wharton Budget Model (also via Paul Krugman)

These make the effects of the bill crystal clear.  The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The losers?  Everyone else, but especially those at the very bottom of the income distribution.

This is what Americans voted for?

And at a time when the bill cuts funding for federal food assistance programs like SNAP?

Will this Make Americans Healthy Again?

I don’t think so.

I am indebted to Melissa Fuster at Tulane University (congratulations on achieving tenure!) and Megan Knapp of Xavier University of Louisiana for telling me about this one.

The USDA has just approved a waiver for the State of Louisiana to exclude soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy from allowable purchases with SNAP benefits.

Check the definition of  excluded soft drinks [my emphasis]:

“Soft drinks” are defined as any carbonated nonalcoholic beverage containing high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners.

By this definition, soft drinks made with cane or beet sugar are fully allowed to be purchased using SNAP benefits.

What is the difference between high fructose corn syrup and cane or beet sugar?  Not much.  All are mixtures of glucose and fructose and have the same number of calories.

So why the distinction?

Guess which state is the #2 producer of cane sugar.

As I said, nutritionally hilarious (see my clip in John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight on this point).

I thought I should say something about the new state bans on using SNAP benefit cards to buy sodas and other kinds of junk foods.

More states ban soda and ‘junk food’ purchases from SNAP benefits: Varying restrictions add more confusion for food companies already struggling with slowing sales.

This article, from Food Dive, says

• Twelve states have now received approval to restrict benefits, with bans set to commence next year. The Department of Health and Human Services said the waivers aim to end the “subsidization of popular types of junk food.”

It points out that the bans vary in what they cover, and define candy and soft drinks in different ways.

Iowa, which has one of the most restrictive set of SNAP rules, is banning sugar-sweetened beverages that contain less than 50% juice, including sodas, energy drinks and flavored waters. The state is also restricting drink concentrates and powdered mix-ins.

The USDA has a web page devoted to SNAP Waivers (of existing rules governing what SNAP participants are allowed to buy).

Comment: I have long been in favor of pilot projects for banning sugar-sweetened beverages on SNAP (I was a member of the SNAP to Health Commission which issued a report in 2012.

Sodas are composed of sugars and water and have calories but no other redeeming nutritional value.

Even though we sympathized with the arguments that restrictions on purchases are condescending, we recommended pilot projects—along with research to evaluate them.  Would the bans change purchasing habits?  How would SNAP recipients feel about them?

It’s pretty clear how retailers feel about them.  Ouch.  Reduced sales.

The USDA turned down all requests for researchable pilot projects, ostensibly for logistical reasons.  Whatever.

Times have changed.

USDA’s SNAP waivers do not require research, unfortunately. I hope somebody in those states does some before-and-after data collection.

I worry that the waivers will be used as wedges to further cut SNAP benefits.

This one is a wait-and-see.  Stay tuned.

I made a mistake and did not get this one scheduled correctly.  I’m trying again to get it posted (sigh, my error).

The USDA’s Economic Research Service (what’s left of it) has released its annual report on food assistance, which cost $142 billion in 2024 for all of the 16 programs.

This is a decrease from the $168 billion spent in 2023.

Food assistance accounts for two-thirds of USDA’s budget.

SNAP accounts for 70% of USDA’s food assistance budget.  Its 14% (inflation-adjusted) decline from 2023 “was larger than for any other year on record.”  And that’s before this year’s proposed cuts.

SNAP participation and costs track closely with poverty and food insecurity; when they go up, SNAP goes up.

Comment: The best way to cut SNAP?  Cut poverty.

__________

Forthcoming November 11, 2025: What To Eat Now

I was delighted to see this opinion piece in Forbes by Hank Cardello, who writes very much from the food industry’s point of view: The One Big Beautiful Bill To MAHA: Drop Dead.

The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” now moving through the Senate proposes sharp cuts to SNAP (food stamps), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) and Medicaid—programs that are lifelines for low-income families. The contradiction is glaring: How can one branch of government promote healthier eating while another branch strips away the supports that make that possible?

“The bill handicaps MAHA’s goals,” he says, pointing out that reducing benefits for these programs can only “increase food insecurity, making it more difficult for people to afford nutritious food and sustain their health.”

This, he says, is

a political blunder…affordable food has more power to sway voters than tariffs or slogans. Cut these programs, and we widen the gap between what families should eat and what they can eat….Medicaid and SNAP aren’t just social programs—they’re long-term investments in public health and economic stability.

He suggests three ways to make MAHA a reality:

• Expand SNAP eligibility to include struggling working families just above the poverty line.
• Recognize food policy as a voter issue, not just a health issue.
• Lawmakers should stop pretending nutrition policy can succeed without social policy alignment.

COMMENT

Wow.  I could not have said this better myself.  What this tells me is that at least some segments of the food industry fully understand that making people too poor to buy their products is not good for business, let alone for society.  Cardullo always has intelligent things to say about food issues, even when I don’t always agree with them.  On this one, we are completely aligned.  Thanks Hank.

The press release: USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins Approves First Ever State Waiver to Restrict Soda and Energy Drinks from Food Stamps in Nebraska

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins today signed the first-ever waiver to amend the statutory definition of food for purchase for Nebraska’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Effective January 1, 2026, taxpayers will no longer be subsidizing the purchase of soda or energy drinks in the State of Nebraska.

Nebraska governor Jim Pillen put it this way:

There’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there’s nothing nutritious about the junk we’re removing with today’s waiver. I’m grateful to have worked with Secretary Rollins and the Trump Administration to get this effort across the finish line. It is a tremendous step toward improving the health and well-being of our state. We have to act because we can’t keep letting Nebraskans starve in the midst of plenty.

USDA Secretary Rollins then announced approval of SNAP soda waivers in Indiana and Iowa.

On Secretary Rollins’ first full day in office, she sent a letter to the nation’s governors (PDF, 88.8 KB), outlining her vision for the Department and inviting them to participate in a new “Laboratories of Innovation” initiative to create bold solutions to long-ignored challenges.

More are sure to follow.

Full disclosure: I was a member of the advisory committee for SNAP to Health, a project of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, chaired by Dr. Susan Blumenthal.  We released our report at a congressional briefing in 2012 (here’s what I said about it at the time.  Alas, most of the links no longer work, but here’s the report).

One of our recommendations:

Provide States with Flexibility to Evaluate Fresh Approaches to SNAP The USDA should grant states greater flexibility for waivers to pilot test and evaluate program changes in SNAP that would improve nutrition (e.g. pilot projects to assess the feasibility of incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods and/or limiting the purchase of high-calorie, nutrient-poor products with
SNAP benefits).

Our commission favored pilot projects to remove sodas from SNAP, but not at the expense of overall benefits.  We cited evidence that SNAP recipients would not necessarily object to having sodas removed; they could still buy sodas using their own money.

Historical note: the original plan for food stamps, the forerunner of SNAP, was to have sodas on the list of foods that could not be purchased with benefits.  The soda industry and retailers succeeded in lobbying to keep sodas in the program.

Guess who is objecting to the waivers: soda trade associations and retailers.  They say the new exclusions are “misguided” and could “create chaos and confusion.”

Food assistance advocates have long argued that restrictions are condescending and are in any case a cover for cutting SNAP benefits.

They are not wrong about that.  The Trump administration has cut SNAP benefits by 20% or so.

Will budget cuts make SNAP recipients healthy again?  I doubt it.

As for the waivers: I hope researchers in these states are lining up.

I want to know what effect these restrictions will have on overall SNAP food and drink purchases, drink purchases using their own funds, and overall health.  And I particularly want to know how SNAP recipients feel about the changes.

Resource

USDA’s tracking page on SNAP waivers

The effects of all the proposed budget cuts, clearly aimed at cutting taxes for the rich at the expense of the poor, will be painful, but two are especially ironic given the Making America Healthy Again effort.

The first were the farm-to-school programs “in alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order ‘Ending Radical and Wasteful Government and DEI Programs and Preferencing.’” These cuts were especially stupid because the programs did not cost much but were a demonstrably a win/win.  Schools got fresh produce, and small farmers got paid.

Now we have a second tiny program to lose funding, SNAP-ED, more formally the USDA’s National Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program.

Here’s what AI says about this program (not a bad summary, actually).

SNAP-Ed stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education. It is a federally funded, public health program designed to help low-income individuals and families make healthy food choices and adopt active lifestyles within their budget. SNAP-Ed provides nutrition education and promotes healthy food choices, while also supporting physical activity.

Goal: SNAP-Ed aims to improve the likelihood that people eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will make healthy choices within a limited budget and adopt physically active lifestyles.

Evidence-Based: The program uses evidence-based nutrition education and obesity prevention strategies.

Federally Funded: It is a grant program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

State and Local Partnerships: SNAP-Ed works with state and local organizations to deliver its services.

Focus Areas: SNAP-Ed initiatives include nutrition education (Classes on healthy eating, budgeting, meal planning, basic cooking, and food safety), social marketing campaigns (Community-based campaigns to promote healthy eating and physical activity), and efforts to improve community policies and environments.

Although AI didn’t mention it, SNAP-ED works.  See: SNAP-Ed: The Transition of the Nation’s Largest Nutrition Education Program Into a Pillar of the Public Health Infrastructure

The SNAP-Ed program has demonstrated that its comprehensive approaches are primed to address public health crises along with its ongoing role of helping to eliminate nutrition-related health disparities. Despite the program’s public health focus, community-wide scope, and capacity for sector-level change, SNAP-Ed funding has been static for more than decade, even as its audience and mission have doubled. Funding for SNAP-Ed was only 0.4% of the total 2021 SNAP budget, or $5.15 annually for each of the nearly 90 million people in its audience—roughly the cost of a bag of oranges or potatoes.

The cost of this program is roughly half a billion dollars a year, not even a rounding error in the federal budget.  Cutting it does no good for anyone, undercuts the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) agenda, and is thoughtless and unnecessary.

Resources

• House Agriculture Committee — Reconciliation bill FY 2025
• Section-By-Section (See: 10011)
• One-Page Overview: Restoring Accountability & Prioritizing Work
• One-Page Summary: Renewing the American Dream: Prioritizing Work in SNAP
• SNAP Integrity and Farm Security Full Committee Markup (livestream link)