Limiting Food Choice in SNAP Will Undermine Health and Dignity

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the nation’s most important anti-hunger tool, built on the principle that families themselves are best able to choose the foods they need to thrive. SNAP has been shown to reduce food insecurity by as much as 30 percent and keep millions of children above the poverty line. Research consistently shows that SNAP not only reduces hunger but also improves health outcomes and strengthens local economies. Despite these data-proven results, the Trump Administration and congressional Republicans recently passed into law the largest cuts in the program’s history. In an unprecedented move, the federal government is abandoning its financial commitment to fund the entirety of SNAP benefits — putting current participants at risk of losing guaranteed support, while other provisions threaten to cut off benefits for older adults and parents of young teens who can’t meet harsh work requirements. At the same time, the Administration has cancelled the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s annual report that measures food insecurity, so we won’t be able to track the full scope of the cuts.

On top of these historic attacks on SNAP, the USDA has approved pilot projects in 12 states to restrict the foods families can purchase with SNAP. These pilots range from bans on particular items, like soda or candy, to sweeping policies like Iowa’s, which prohibits fruit leathers, fruit and nut items, and certain granola bars. These food restrictions are designed to humiliate and control SNAP participants, undermining their dignity of choice without proof these changes will improve diets. In fact, research shows that SNAP and non-SNAP households have broadly similar grocery purchasing and food consumption patterns, and a substantial body of recent research links SNAP with improved health outcomes and lower health care costs. If policymakers want to “make America healthy,” they should expand, not restrict, access to SNAP. Because hunger and shame are not healthy. Dignity, access, and freedom are.

SNAP was built on the principle that families should have the freedom to choose what they eat. As part of the War on Poverty, Congress designed the program to improve nutrition by helping poor families shop “through normal channels of trade,” selecting foods for their individual needs in their local grocery stores. That boost in purchasing power was the path to better diets and stronger local economies. These new restrictions undermine that foundation and ignore the complexity of real people’s dietary needs. As one Arkansas resident opposing their state’s pilot explained:

“I struggle with migraines that sometimes my medications do not help, and the caffeine in zero calorie soda does. I buy two twelve packs to keep on hand to manage breakthrough migraines, and SNAP benefits help me afford them alongside my groceries and medication.”

For people with diabetes, sweetened drinks can be essential for managing blood sugar. Stories like these reveal that a one-size-fits-all definition of “healthy” ignores the medical, cultural, and financial realities that shape food choices and wellness every day. Additionally, prohibiting the use of SNAP for specific foods is unlikely to be effective at improving household food consumption because most households combine SNAP and other income in their food budgets, and many participants use SNAP only briefly — often less than two years.

The paternalism of these restrictions revives a long, racist history of policing the diets of poor communities — especially Black, Indigenous, and immigrant individuals. Government programs as far back as the Freedmen’s Bureau after the Civil War tightly policed meager rations for newly freed Black Americans and impoverished white Southerners. Today’s SNAP restrictions echo the same sentiment that we cannot trust families with low incomes to make their own choices for themselves. Even with the shift to Electronic Benefits Transfer cards designed to mimic the purchasing style of other shoppers, using SNAP can already carry a heavy social burden and SNAP participants can still feel judged for what is in their carts. That scrutiny can discourage people from using their benefits, lead to skipped meals, and fuel “shame anxiety” or other mental health struggles. Food restrictions will create even more fraught encounters in the grocery store. Without clear signage and retailer training — which impose extensive burdens on food businesses — participants risk being denied or humiliated at checkout. Without significant consumer education, participants may not understand why some items are unexpectedly rejected at checkout. That’s not health, that’s harm. Moreover, this would not just impact SNAP shoppers and retailers; all shoppers can expect longer lines.

SNAP helps more than 41 million people put food on the table each month, while supporting local stores and strengthening economies. Cutting SNAP funding and policing people’s groceries does not improve the program or respect their dignity. With the largest cuts in the program’s history looming, states should reject SNAP food restrictions and focus on reducing hardship amid slashed funding and eligibility rollbacks — not compound burdens by making it more complicated to use this critical program.