New SNAP Rules Cut Soda Purchases Across Multiple States

The fight over what Americans can buy with food stamps has produced its first major set of numbers, and they are giving Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement something to celebrate. A new study found that soda purchases fell by about 12% among SNAP recipients after several states restricted the use of benefits for sugary drinks and other junk food.

The early results do not settle the political argument. They do, however, challenge the prediction that SNAP recipients would simply use cash to keep buying the same amount of soda.

Soda Purchases Fell After The Restrictions Took Effect

Researchers working with the National Bureau of Economic Research examined grocery purchases during the first half of 2026. The study included around 15,000 households using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, commonly known as SNAP or food stamps, with more than 20% of those households located in 10 states that had implemented new restrictions.

The researchers found that soda purchases among SNAP recipients fell by roughly 12% after the restrictions took effect. The reduction translated to approximately 34 fewer 12-ounce cans of soda per person each year, according to findings reported by STAT News.

Another account of the research put the decline at about 13%, based on an analysis of shopping histories from a smaller sample of SNAP recipients. That research found that households bought roughly 24 fewer ounces of soda each month, or about two standard cans.

The exact figures differ slightly depending on the dataset being discussed, but the overall result points in the same direction. Once soda became ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits, recipients bought less of it.

The findings are particularly significant because the restrictions are still relatively new. The earliest state-level bans began on Jan. 1 in Utah, while Texas introduced its restrictions on April 1. Other states launched their own programs throughout the spring.

Critics Expected People To Simply Use Their Own Money

Before the restrictions were introduced, many policy analysts questioned whether they would have much effect at all. SNAP does not generally cover every grocery purchase made by a household, meaning many recipients already use their own money to pay for some food and drinks.

That created an obvious argument against the policy. If someone wanted a soda, critics suggested, they could simply pay for it with cash instead of using SNAP benefits.

The early data suggests that does not happen as consistently as expected. Total soda purchases fell, particularly among households that depended most heavily on SNAP to cover their grocery expenses.

The research reported by The New York Times found that the quarter of recipients most reliant on SNAP reduced their total soda purchases by an estimated 40 ounces per month. Those who relied less heavily on the program reduced their purchases by about 13 ounces.

The difference offers an explanation for why the restrictions may be affecting behavior. Families with limited money outside their SNAP benefits may be less able to replace restricted purchases with cash.

That does not mean the policy has permanently changed consumer habits. David Frisvold, an economist at the University of Iowa and an author of the study, warned that the longer-term effects remain uncertain.

“I think an important question is, Will it be sustained over the course of a year? Two years?” Frisvold said. “Or will traditional economic theory win out, and people will figure out ways to manage all their resources in such a way that they can purchase whatever it was they wanted?”

The first few months of a new policy can produce changes that later disappear. Shoppers may eventually find ways to reorganize their budgets, especially if soda remains something they want to buy regularly.

MAHA Turned Food Stamps Into A Major Political Battleground

The restrictions have become one of the most visible policy efforts connected to Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement. Kennedy has made concerns about ultraprocessed food, chronic disease and the American diet central to his political health agenda.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has also played a major role by approving state requests to alter which products can be purchased through SNAP. So far, 23 states have received waivers from the US Department of Agriculture to pursue restrictions involving soda, candy and other products.

The rules are not identical across the country. Some states have focused mainly on soda and other sugary beverages, while others have included candy and additional products in their restrictions.

Not all of the approved programs are currently in effect. According to the source material, some states are still preparing to implement their policies, while restrictions in five states have been suspended following a federal court ruling.

The rollout has effectively created a series of real-world policy experiments. For years, nutrition advocates have argued that government food assistance should encourage healthier purchases, while critics have warned that restrictions could stigmatize low-income families and make shopping more complicated.

The new research gives the MAHA movement its first major evidence that the policy can change purchasing behavior. Whether that evidence is enough to justify the restrictions remains a far more difficult question.

Researchers See Potential Health And Financial Benefits

The study’s authors estimate that the reduction in soda consumption could have measurable long-term health effects. They calculated that the lower consumption associated with the restrictions could reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by 2.6% over the next 10 years per affected patient.

Applied across the United States, the researchers estimated that this could translate into about 34,000 fewer new cases of Type 2 diabetes. They also projected around $1 billion in annual savings for the health care system.

Matt Notowidigdo, an economics professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a co-author of the study, described the potential savings as meaningful despite their relatively small size compared with total national health spending.

“It leads to a billion dollars of savings for the health care system,” Notowidigdo said. “Given how big the health care system is, it’s a drop in the bucket. On the other hand, it’s $1 billion a year.”

The health concerns surrounding sugary drinks form the foundation of the policy argument. A 2025 study published in Nature Medicine estimated that soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to around 1 million new cases of heart disease and 2 million new cases of Type 2 diabetes worldwide each year.

The SNAP restrictions are not being presented by researchers as a complete solution to obesity or diabetes. Notowidigdo said the policy would likely need to be part of a broader effort aimed at reducing excessive consumption of sugary beverages.

“If the goal is to reduce obesity, reduce the cases of diabetes caused by people being overweight and overconsuming sugary beverages, this is probably one part of a broader set of policies,” he said.

That distinction is important because the early results show a measurable change, but they do not prove that the restrictions alone will transform public health.

Some Of The Spending Shifted To Other Sugary Drinks

One of the most important findings in the study could complicate the celebration surrounding the drop in soda sales. Researchers found that SNAP recipients used up to 39% of the money they no longer spent on soda to buy other sugary drinks and fruit juices that were not covered by the restrictions.

The result raises a problem for policymakers who want to reduce overall sugar consumption rather than simply reduce soda purchases. If shoppers replace restricted drinks with other sweetened products, the potential health benefits could be smaller than the initial soda numbers suggest.

Notowidigdo argued that a more comprehensive approach may be needed if reducing sugar intake is the primary objective.

“If the goal is to reduce sugar consumption, you want the ban to be more comprehensive, not less,” he said.

The available data also leaves several questions unanswered. A decline in soda purchases does not automatically reveal what people are drinking instead, particularly when grocery data cannot capture every purchase made in restaurants, convenience stores or other locations.

The New York Times reported that water purchases were unaffected during the period studied. Data from the rewards app Fetch also found that SNAP households in its sample spent about 12% less on soda during the first three months of 2026 compared with the same period the previous year.

Coffee and juice purchases also did not decline in the Fetch sample, adding another layer of complexity to the results. A shopper may reduce soda purchases without making a straightforward switch to water or another healthier alternative.

The policy’s success may therefore depend heavily on what happens next. Cutting soda purchases is one measurable goal, but understanding the full dietary impact requires a much broader look at what families buy and consume.

A Federal Judge Has Already Blocked Some State Bans

The MAHA-backed restrictions are also facing a serious legal challenge. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from allowing five states to move forward with their SNAP restrictions involving sugary drinks and candy.

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Department of Agriculture lacked the authority it relied upon when approving waivers for pilot projects in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

The states had sought to change which products qualified as eligible food under their programs. While the restrictions differed from state to state, all five included limits involving sugary drinks, while some also restricted candy.

Jackson emphasized that her ruling was not intended as a judgment on whether limiting junk food purchases was good public health policy. Her decision focused instead on whether the federal government had followed the law when approving the waivers.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” Jackson wrote.

“But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

The case was brought by five SNAP recipients who argued that the restrictions affected their ability to purchase products they considered important for their health and wellness. Their claims included concerns involving Type 1 diabetes, kidney issues and the need for drinks that provide energy.

The ruling means the political debate now has a legal dimension that could shape how the restrictions develop across the country. Even if early research supports the policy’s effect on soda purchases, the administration must still establish that it has the authority to make those changes through state waivers.

Supporters And Critics Are Arguing Over More Than Soda

The debate surrounding the restrictions has moved beyond the simple question of whether soda is unhealthy. Supporters argue that taxpayer-funded food assistance should encourage better nutrition rather than subsidize products associated with obesity and diabetes.

Rollins made that argument after the federal ruling blocked the restrictions in five states. In a post on X, she described the policy as a commonsense effort to stop SNAP benefits from being used for products she said contribute to serious health problems.

The administration has indicated that it intends to continue pursuing the MAHA agenda despite the court setback. That means the legal fight and the policy experiments are likely to continue at the same time.

Critics, however, have raised concerns about stigma and the practical difficulties created by changing eligibility rules. A survey of SNAP recipients conducted as part of the study found that the restrictions made some participants more likely to report feeling judged or disrespected.

Benjamin Chrisinger, an assistant professor of community health at Tufts University, described that finding as concerning. He noted that stigma can be difficult to weigh against measurable health outcomes when evaluating whether a policy’s benefits justify its social costs.

Other critics have questioned whether the potential national health gains are large enough to justify imposing restrictions on one particular group of Americans. Robert Paarlberg, a professor emeritus of political science focused on food policy at Wellesley University, said the research appeared sound but questioned the scale of the benefit.

Paarlberg suggested that a broader tax on sugary beverages could be an alternative approach because it would affect all consumers rather than specifically targeting SNAP recipients.

The disagreement exposes a deeper divide in the politics of public health. One side sees government purchasing rules as a legitimate tool for encouraging better choices. The other sees those rules as an unnecessary and potentially stigmatizing form of control over low-income households.

The First Six Months Have Produced More Questions

The new research is significant, but it remains early evidence rather than a final verdict. The National Bureau of Economic Research paper has not yet been peer-reviewed, and the restrictions have only been operating for a relatively short period.

The study also has limitations. One expert cited in the source material said the sample may not fully represent the broader population of SNAP recipients, meaning the findings should not automatically be treated as a perfect picture of the entire program.

Purchase data can also show what people bought without fully explaining why they bought it. It cannot capture every drink consumed outside grocery stores, and it cannot yet show whether people will maintain the same purchasing habits over the next several years.

Lisa Harnack, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, said more time was needed to understand what people were substituting for soda. She also raised questions about how rigorously individual state programs were being evaluated.

The early evidence nevertheless answers one question more clearly than before. The restrictions appear to have reduced soda purchases rather than simply causing SNAP recipients to move all of their soda spending onto cash.

The results so far point to several important developments:

• Soda purchases among SNAP recipients fell by roughly 12% after restrictions were introduced in the states studied.
• Households most dependent on SNAP showed larger reductions in their total soda purchases.
• Some of the money no longer spent on soda shifted toward other sugary drinks and fruit juices.
• Researchers do not yet know whether the decline will continue over the next one or two years.
• Legal challenges could determine whether some state restrictions are allowed to remain in place.

Those findings leave the policy debate far more complicated than a simple victory or defeat for either side.

The Drop In Soda Sales Is Only The Beginning

The first six months have given Kennedy’s MAHA movement an early result that supporters can point to: removing soda from SNAP eligibility appears to reduce how much soda SNAP recipients buy. That is a meaningful finding because many critics expected the policy to have little effect on total purchases.

The harder test comes next. If the reduction lasts, and if it leads to measurable improvements in health without creating excessive confusion or stigma, the restrictions could become a much larger part of the national food policy debate. If shoppers simply shift to other sugary products or find ways to restore previous buying habits, the early victory may prove temporary.

For now, soda sales have fallen where the restrictions have been studied. The question facing Washington, the states and the courts is whether changing what SNAP can buy is the right way to change what America drinks.