The House Agriculture Committee’s Farm, Food and National Security Act (Farm Bill) preserves existing nutrition assistance for low income shoppers, but lawmakers face mounting pressure over proposed amendments that would impose national limits on certain food categories.
Recent proposed amendments to the Farm Bill (HR 7567) have triggered public opposition and debate. The revisions build on state-level restrictions for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and propose a national exclusion of unhealthy foods and beverage from SNAP purchases.
While HR 7567 does not explicitly ban soda, candy, desserts or other food categories from SNAP coverage, it preserves existing SNAP law defined as “eligible food.” However, lawmakers will vote on a separate amendment that would introduce proposed national SNAP restrictions.
How many states are participating in SNAP waivers?
As of March 2026, 22 states are participating in SNAP waivers which restrict SNAP shoppers from using their benefits to purchase soda and/or candy. These states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
One outlier is Iowa, which restricts all taxable food products in concordance with Iowa Department of Revenue. This excludes food producing plants and seeds for food producing plants.
Industry groups urge Congress to wait
Industry and advocacy groups urge Congress to pause on additional SNAP restrictions until state waiver pilots are evaluated.
In a letter to Congress earlier this week, a coalition of retail associations, including the National Grocers Association (NGA) and National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), pushed lawmakers to evaluate state-level SNAP restriction waivers before considering a nationwide ban. The letter comes after NGA expressed concern Jan. 1 about the economic and operational impact from state-level SNAP restrictions on retailers.
Of the proposed HR 7567 amendments, NGA’s VP of Government Affairs Stephanie Johnson pointed to the burden of more “red tape” on retailers of SNAP restrictions and asked Congress to “let the pilots play out and work with retailers on the front lines before making changes that hit millions of families and small businesses.”
SNAP sales contribute significant dollars to retailers, according to NGA. Sales from SNAP shoppers accounts for one-third of total US grocery sales or more than $250 million annually, in addition to more than one million jobs, per NGA.
“The amendments under consideration would include broadly defined product categories such as ‘soft drinks,’ ‘soda,’ ‘candy, ice cream, prepared desserts and similar items,’ and seafood not domestically sourced, with no consistent statutory definitions, making the language overly broad and vague for compliance,” wrote NGA in its letter.
Other organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center raise concerns over SNAP waivers’ impact on nutrition, particularly in states where SNAP shoppers already experience food insecurity. Instead of Congress placing more restrictions, SNAP purchase options should be expanded to include hot foods, food kits or prepared foods from grocers, SPLC wrote in a March 2 letter.
SPLC cited the impact of HR 1 SNAP cuts, also known as the Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reduces funding for SNAP and shifts the onus onto states to cover costs.
The Congressional Budget Office projects roughly $41 billion in federal SNAP cuts. About $7 billion reflects reduced benefits, while the remaining $35 billion results from costs transferred to states.
“Congress should only advance a Farm Bill this Congress if it reverses the harmful HR 1 SNAP cuts, reduces barriers to SNAP, restores vital reporting requirements and staffing needed to administer nutrition programs and protects the integrity and data security of the SNAP program. Our federal government must do more to strengthen nutrition assistance programs to fully meet the needs of those facing hunger in this country – not undermine, de-fund or weaken those programs,” wrote Sakira Cook, SPLC’s federal policy director.
State-level SNAP restrictions already showing impact on soda and candy sales
Since SNAP restrictions were implemented Jan. 1 across five states, candy and soda purchases dropped roughly two-fold compared to the same SNAP purchases non-restricted states, according to data from digital promotions platform Ibotta.
Although SNAP shoppers are buying less candy and soda, they are still purchasing these products just in infrequent and smaller volumes, according to Ibotta.
Many SNAP shoppers are still buying national brands without SNAP support, but more than half (60%) opt for private label or alternative options to manage costs.
