Lawmakers in Texas are making waves with a controversial new bill that could change grocery shopping for millions of Americans who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. If passed, the legislation would prohibit recipients from using SNAP funds to purchase certain foods deemed “unhealthy,” including soda, candy, chips, and sugary drinks.
The Push to Cut Junk Food From SNAP
Currently, SNAP benefits—designed to help low- and no-income families buy groceries—cannot be used to purchase alcohol, tobacco, or prepared meals. However, some lawmakers argue that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for unhealthy foods, which they claim contribute to obesity and diet-related diseases.
“This is common sense,” Texas State Senator Mayes Middleton, the bill’s sponsor, told Newsweek. “According to the USDA, 20 percent of SNAP households’ food expenditures go toward sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, and candy. Sweetened beverages alone account for 9.3 percent of these expenditures.”
The proposed changes could have significant consequences for over 41 million Americans who depend on SNAP, particularly those living in food deserts—areas where affordable, healthy food is scarce.
What’s on the Chopping Block?
Under the proposed bill, SNAP users in Texas would be restricted from purchasing:
- Sugary sodas and sweetened beverages
- Energy drinks
- Candy
- Potato and corn chips
- Cookies and desserts
Middleton and other supporters argue that this move will help encourage healthier eating habits while also reducing taxpayer-funded medical costs linked to poor nutrition. Studies show that obesity-related healthcare expenses in the U.S. are significantly higher for low-income individuals, many of whom rely on government-funded healthcare programs.
A Growing Movement Across the U.S.
Texas isn’t alone in its efforts to reshape the SNAP program. Ten Republican-led states are considering similar legislation to block junk food purchases with SNAP funds. Additionally, two Republican-backed initiatives in Congress aim to remove soda and other sugary products from the program nationwide.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has also indicated interest in revising SNAP purchase guidelines, working alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to explore restrictions on junk food purchases.
The Debate: Nutrition vs. Access
Supporters of the bill argue that restricting SNAP purchases will improve public health and reduce long-term medical costs. Some point to statistics showing that obesity-related deaths in the U.S. reached an estimated 186,000 in 2021 alone.
But critics warn that limiting SNAP options could make it even harder for low-income families to access enough food. Studies have shown that healthier foods tend to be more expensive than processed snacks, which means the bill could place additional financial strain on struggling households.
Lauren Au, a nutrition expert at the University of California, Davis, believes the bill may have little impact on nutrition. “Most SNAP benefits are modest, and many families already supplement them with their own cash income,” she explained. “Instead, the ban may increase administrative costs and stigma for people using SNAP.”
Health policy expert Kavelle Christie takes it a step further, arguing that these types of proposals are more about controlling low-income individuals than promoting better nutrition. “SNAP has long been a political target,” she said. “Rather than recognizing it as the essential safety net it truly is, lawmakers are using it as a tool to impose moral judgments on low-income families.”
As the debate rages on, SNAP recipients and policymakers alike are watching closely to see whether Texas will become the first state to enact such sweeping restrictions—and whether other states will follow suit.
