SNAP Waivers Mean These States Will Ban Junk Food Purchases Starting in 2026

townhall ^ | 12/29/25 | Amy Curtis

[from occupied ga]

This writer is old enough to remember that the debate over whether or not food stamps should cover junk food isn't a new thing. It goes back years. She's also old enough to remember when Democrats pushed for soda taxes as a way to discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods.

...

Starting next year, however, 18 states will ban junk food for SNAP users.

...

“It’s just a classic government operation where they’ve thrown this out there, and well-meaning though they may be, it’s caused mass confusion, and it’s making some retailers question whether they’re going to stay with the program or not,” said Joe Lackey, president of the Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association.“

...

( welfare recipient's comments) Because are you gonna take away hot chocolate from people? Are you gonna take away sugar-free candy from the elderly or from diabetics who, that's the only candy they can have? Are you gonna...you're gonna take those things away from the elderly and the disabled? So I would like to know where is your line and where have you drawn it?"

The short answer is this: the elderly and diabetics (many of whom would bristle at being called "disabled") are still free to buy junk food and candy. With their own money.

When you rely on the government to pay for your food, the taxpayers who are footing the bill get a say. If you don't want someone else telling you what you can and cannot buy, pay for your own groceries.

The entitlement and ingratitude is off the charts.

---

TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: food; junk; parasites; snap; welfare

[from occupied ga]

The part in blue is the non-parasites response on social media to some welfare parasite's whining. LET HER GET A JOB. I just read that of the 19 MILLION plus families receiving welfare they get an average of $70,000 each. that's money out of the pockets of people who actually work for a living and into the pockets of people who do nothing.l

[proxy_user]

According to the Government Accountability Office, about 70% of SNAP recipients have at least on person in their household with a full-time job.

[CottonBall]

I always thought we should just be giving them things like beans and rice that they have to cook from scratch. It’s cheap, nutritious, we can give them recipes and spices. If they want processed and prepackaged foods, work for it.

Anybody know the list of states? I guess I could go look at the link doesn’t that violate tradition though?

[Mathews]

I’m getting hit left and right with spam calls and texts about SNAP. I know for a fact I don’t qualify so these are definitely phishing expeditions to gather personal data. Be careful folks.

[Ken522]

You're good, CottonBall - I looked for you:

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, West Virginia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, Hawaii, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Missouri.

[jimpick]

“”””I always thought we should just be giving them things like beans and rice””””

Whoa! Whoa, big fella. How would a liberal feel good when giving away your money if it was just the bare minimum? They need to go for the gold ring.

[goodnesswins]

I looked...no mention of states

[from occupied ga]

Full time jobs as defined in Somalia? To keep those 19 million+ Democrat votes, I suspect that somehow the books are getting cooked to cover those who shouldn’t be getting the loot (which in my opinion is every single one of them who is not physically disabled and unable to work)

Just as a wild guess I’d say for at least half of the collecting welfare is their job

[goodnesswins]

Found this, too...

The specific definitions and timing of the bans vary by state, with several states setting the restriction to take effect on January 1, 2026, while others, such as Florida and Texas, will implement the changes later in the year.

[Secret Agent Man]

All states should.

[Bon of Babble]

Does that include fast food?:

In California:

My local Wendy's has an "EBT Accepted here" sign up as well.

[rlmorel]

My whole life I thought it should be that way. Otherwise, it is wealth redistribution on its face. In my state, I saw this, which infuriated me:

I like lobster, but I don't often eat it because I live within my means. WTF does that mean when someone who doesn't work buys things that I won't, and I pay for it?

That is slavery. Brings Atlas Shrugged to mind.

[from occupied ga]

I see my state - GA - is not on the list ☹️

[from occupied ga]

Your slavery comment is right on the bullseye. Whenever you define some good or service as a right that means someone has to provide it. And it comes down to the question, to whom does your labor belong? You? Or someone else? If your labor belongs to you that’s freedom. If it belongs to someone else that is the definition of slavery.

[rlmorel]

I understand why people don’t cotton to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” because the prose is sometimes pedantic, repetitive, and overwrought, but...it is spot on this particular aspect of being productive only to supply leeches who are unwilling to do the work.

[catnipman]

it would be far easier and far more effective to list what SNAP would pay for than what it wont’t:

a starter list of what SNAP would pay for:

meat and seafood in all forms (excluding added sweetener forms)

all forms of legumes (excluding added sweetener forms)

vegetables and fruits in all forms (excluding added sweetener forms as well as all fruit juice)

all WHOLE grains (excluding added sweetener forms)

milk and milk products in all forms (excluding added sweetener forms)

eggs in all forms

seed flour bread and corn bread, both risen and flat in all forms (excluding fried forms such as chips as well as all added sweetener forms)

all nuts (excluding added sweetener forms)

cooking oils and fats (excluding semi-synthetic forms such as anything made with hydrogenated oils)

baking supplies [excluding sweeteners] and seasonings

[packrat35]

Surprised to see Hawaii on the list.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Rice and beans only. We’re not messin’ around. The two together make a complete protein. They’re unlikely to find their way on the black market. Watch obesity rates go down. Po’ folk can pay for their own vegetables-it’s not that expensive.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I wish someone who understood the bizarre nature of American agribusiness would redesign SNAP, which would mostly mean “adding to, not deleting from”.

To start with, AM agriculture has long been overproducing food. Producing too much is harder on farmers than producing too little. Much of our national production is allowed to rot in storage after being purchased by the government.

Oddly enough, giving surplus food away *does not* markedly lower the retail price of that food.

States vary widely by what and how much food they produce. And this production varies wildly the year around.

So why not vary the retail price of SNAP food to take into account surges in production? Grocery stores do this already with some prices.

For example, in some years, the price of potatoes can drop as low as $1 for 10 pounds. SNAP should take advantage of this, not just to provide food for the poor, but to slash the amount of potatoes in storage, cutting the warehouse storage costs for retailers and the government, but stabilizing the market for potatoes and supporting potato farmers.

[gundog]

Starting in 2026, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee will prohibit the use of SNAP benefits to buy items like soda, energy drinks, candy and prepared desserts.