New rules took effect Thursday in five states that limit what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dollars can buy, blocking soda, candy and other sweetened products at grocery checkouts. Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia launched the first wave of state waivers on Jan. 1, part of a multiyear push to test whether tightening SNAP eligibility for specific items can reduce diet-related disease and health costs.
The policy marks a sharp departure from decades of federal guidance that allowed SNAP purchases for nearly all foods meant for home consumption, excluding alcohol, tobacco and hot prepared meals. Under the new waivers, the five states will bar categories such as regular soda, many energy drinks and candy; exact definitions vary by state. Retailers have spent weeks updating barcode files and point-of-sale prompts to stop ineligible items at checkout. Supporters frame the change as a public-health measure. Critics say it stigmatizes low-income shoppers and creates costly confusion at registers while leaving prices for healthy food unchanged.
Indiana’s rules illustrate how granular the definitions can get. State officials said typical potato chips remain allowed, as do 100% fruit and vegetable juices, while soda, mints and candy-coated products are not. Iowa’s list mirrors federal “taxable food” categories in places, sweeping in regular soda and many confections. Nebraska is focusing on sugary drinks and candy, with exemptions for items sweetened only with noncaloric substitutes. Utah’s waiver targets soft drinks; West Virginia’s cites “soda, candy and certain prepared desserts,” with detailed product codes sent to grocers ahead of the start date. Each state will report purchase data and health indicators back to federal partners over the next two years as part of an evaluation.
Officials said more states are slated to follow later this year and next, with staggered start dates that extend into 2026. Florida, Texas, Missouri, Colorado and others have announced plans or obtained federal permission to restrict some mix of soda, energy drinks, candy and specific prepared desserts. The waivers let states diverge from SNAP’s national baseline on a trial basis; they do not change the program’s core benefit formula or eligibility rules. Still, Thursday’s rollout touches hundreds of thousands of households across the initial five states and adds a new layer of complexity for national chains that must maintain different UPC block lists by state.
Grocers and small retailers say the operational burden is significant but manageable with lead time. Chains pushed overnight updates to barcode catalogs this week, trained cashiers to handle declined items and posted small signs at beverage coolers and candy racks. Independent stores that rely on third-party processors said they were sent templates and “eligible/ineligible” lists, though some worry about edge cases—protein bars that resemble candy, flavored waters with a splash of juice, or seasonal items coded differently by manufacturers. State agencies have set up hotlines for retailers and promised grace periods before imposing penalties for sales that slip through during the transition.
Anti-hunger groups argue that shoppers will bear the brunt of any confusion. Advocates say checkout denials can be embarrassing and time-consuming, especially for families juggling multiple items and forms of payment. They also question whether the bans will meaningfully change diets without parallel steps that make healthier foods more affordable. Researchers watching the rollout noted that past proposals to limit SNAP-purchased sugary drinks failed at the federal level because of cost and complexity for retailers; the new state waivers make those tradeoffs concrete in real stores, with real shoppers, for the first time at scale.
Public-health officials backing the waivers say sugar-sweetened beverages are among the top SNAP expenditures in many markets and contribute to obesity and Type 2 diabetes. By removing soda and certain candies from the covered basket, they contend, states can steer purchases without reducing the dollar value of monthly benefits. Health departments in the five states said they will monitor outcomes such as substitution patterns—whether shoppers shift to diet soda, juice or water—and any spillover effects on household budgets. The evaluations will also track retailer error rates, cashier interventions and how frequently items are denied at the point of sale.
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, serves more than 40 million people in a typical month nationwide. The benefit can be used at grocery stores, many convenience stores and some farmers markets. Until now, states had limited flexibility to narrow the list of eligible foods. The new waivers create a two-year test period, with options to extend, during which federal and state officials will assess whether category bans are feasible and effective. If the pilots show measurable health or cost benefits without undue harm, officials could consider extending or expanding the model; if not, the restrictions would lapse when the waivers expire.
For households, the practical effects depend on where they shop and what they buy. A family in Omaha that routinely puts a 12-pack of soda and a bag of candy in a monthly cart will now have those items flagged as ineligible on the EBT portion of the transaction and must pay cash or card if they still want them. In Salt Lake City, a shopper may find that diet sodas or flavored seltzers ring up differently depending on sweeteners and labeling. In Charleston, W.Va., a frosted bakery item might be allowed if coded as bread but denied if coded as a “prepared dessert.” State FAQs emphasize that staples such as milk, bread, produce, rice, beans and meats are unaffected.
Retailers say another complication is the pace of product turnover. Seasonal candies, limited-edition drinks and private-label items come and go quickly, making it critical to keep UPC lists fresh. Several states say they will push weekly updates during the early weeks, then taper as error rates fall. Enforcement focuses on system accuracy rather than penalizing individual shoppers; civil penalties for merchants apply only after repeated noncompliance once the grace period ends. States are also fielding questions about home delivery and online orders, where eligibility checks happen in shopping carts rather than at physical registers.
Legal challenges could surface. Past attempts to restrict specific foods under SNAP have drawn opposition from advocacy groups and some industry trade associations, which argue that Congress intended the program to be neutral among foods and that carving out categories invites inconsistent treatment across states. Supporters counter that the waiver authority explicitly allows state experimentation. For now, the five-state launch proceeds while additional states finalize their lists and go-live dates. Federal and state agencies say they will publish evaluations detailing retailer costs, shopper impacts and any changes in purchases tied to the bans.
Officials in Indiana and Iowa said they will revisit definitions as needed. If retailers flag a product that appears miscategorized—such as a sports drink formulated below a sugar threshold or a nutrition bar marketed as a meal replacement—state teams can update the lists. Health departments said they will share summary data, not individual shopper records, when reporting outcomes. In Nebraska, the Department of Health and Human Services said it is coordinating with grocery distributors to ensure shelf tags match register rules to minimize surprises for shoppers.
On Thursday morning, stores in Des Moines and Indianapolis posted small placards near coolers and checkout lanes explaining that SNAP no longer covers certain sweetened drinks and candy. Clerks said most customers moved through with little trouble; the few denials involved single-serve sodas and holiday chocolates tucked beside bread and produce. In Charleston, a cashier said the register now prompts, “EBT-ineligible item—offer alternative payment?” Utah grocers reported heavier call volumes from owners of small markets asking about UPC corrections and exceptions for items like powdered drink mixes.
What happens next will be closely watched across the country. States launching later in 2026 are testing broader or narrower lists tied to existing tax definitions or nutrition criteria. Trade groups want uniform rules; anti-hunger advocates want studies on substitution and food security; public-health departments want data on sugar purchases and HbA1c trends in Medicaid populations. The five pilots that began Jan. 1 will feed much of that debate with real-world results rather than projections.
As of Thu., Jan. 1, the five waivers are active, retailer hotlines remain open for troubleshooting, and agencies plan the first public updates after the initial month of transactions is analyzed in February.
Author note: Last updated January 1, 2026.