SNAP Recipients Fight Back In Junk Food Crackdown

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Mar 12, 2026 at 06:43 AM EDT updated Mar 12, 2026 at 08:35 AM EDT


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that new restrictions on what they can purchase with the benefits are unlawful and harmful to people who rely on the program.

Five plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, seeking to halt and then overturn SNAP "waivers" that block benefits being used to purchase foods considered low in nutritional value, such as candy and as sugary drinks. The USDA told Newsweek on Thursday it will "not comment on pending litigation."

Why It Matters

New food restrictions waivers have been approved in 22 states, with several already implementing the new blocks. The changes impact millions of low- and no-income Americans who depend on benefits to buy groceries.

The case challenges a policy shift backed by officials in the Trump administration that supporters say is intended to promote healthier diets. The plaintiffs argue the restrictions make it harder for families to access food and manage health conditions, while also creating confusion for shoppers at grocery store checkouts.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/snap-recipients-fight-back-junk-food-ban-waiver-lawsuit-11664497

---

Link to SUIT (PDF viewer) is here

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Sugar may not be the main problem

There are dozens of other additives that amount to some altered form of sweetener ... polysaccharides, gums of many varieties, modified food starch to name a few. They alter gut bacteria. We weren't meant to eat this stuff.

[niyad]

20. see post 15

[twodogsbarking]

2. Just give them the fucking money. They spend more money "discussing" it than it costs.

Maybe it isn't even about the money.

[niyad]

11. It is, and always has been, about control, shaming, and, to a great degree, misogyny,

since it is assumed that women do most of the grocery shopping. And we KNOW women cannot make intelligent decisions on their own.

[jfz9580m]

53. That is what emotion Ai is for!

So someone like this nice Epstein associated lady (who was not raised religious, but swayed by pseudoscientific bilge like Intelligent Design) worked on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Picard

She wanted to “rehabilitate” Epstein. She is a creepy person like all of the MIT Media Lab.

[FadedMullet]

3. My sympathies would revolve around a better understanding of "access food", "manage health conditions" and......

......"create confusion". Call me a reactionary, but there is nothing wrong with the public buying good food for the poor, instead of "All-American" junk food.

[choie]

5. Do we get a say in what type of food the military is served?

Why should we do so with SNAP? Or is it because snap benefits “the poors”?

[SunSeeker]

9. These rules would prevent a family from using SNAP to buy a birthday cake for their kids.

I survived on food stamps as a kid, I know it was humiliating enough for my mom to pay with food stamps. To not even be able to buy your kid a birthday cake is just too much.

[niyad]

19. see post 15

[Jacson6]

4. I don't know...

I receive a small stipend of SNAP each month as a retired OM that I use to buy chicken, hamburger and staple to last through the month. IME.

[niyad]

21. See post 15

[Torchlight]

6. I'll pay attention to the counter-arguments when healthy food

is as affordable as many junk foods. Until then, they sound little more like sanctimonious attempts to tell others how to better live their lives than rational, thought-out positions. As long as luxury jets with bedrooms for officials are so common, I'll look at cutting costs there rather than scrutinizing the dining tables of people whose circumstances I don’t know.

[quaint]

7. You nailed it "when healthy food is as affordable as many junk foods"

[niyad]

18. THANK YOU!!!

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

28. In what world would high-quality anything be as affordable as junk?

[niyad]

38. A sane one?

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

42. define 'junk' then

[niyad]

43. Anything I don't like.

[Torchlight]

57. In the same world that sealions move goalposts

Just a guess, though.

[Cirsium]

77. Oh, come on

That is ridiculous. You are judging food as though it were widgets. Yes, luxury widgets will always be more expensive than junk widgets.

Food is free. I live and work in a fruit district and there are thousands of "feral" fruit trees here producing fruit every year, free for the taking. Go get it. You pay for food in order to support the people tending and harvesting, cleaning and packing, storing and shipping the produce to you. You are paying for convenience as well as for your health and safety.

I have been lucky, eating fresh fruit off the tree every day in the season. We have a policy here - no one goes hungry in this county so long as we are farming. But many people do not have access to fresh healthy food. Most poor people make very intelligent food decisions. We have to. (I say "we" because you don't make much money working on the farm). Poor people make much better dollar to calorie ratio decisions than well-off people do.

As I have often said...

Never before in the existence of humankind has there ever been a population as ignorant about and alienated from the source of their own food as modern Americans.

[moonscape]

35. And when healthy food is available

in food deserts.

[niyad]

39. EXACTLY. see post 15.

[EX500rider]

63. Who says they have to buy healthy food?

They're free to buy all kinds of macaroni and cheese etc and any kind of other processed crap they want, just not sugary drinks and candy

[Torchlight]

65. You're arguing a point I neither made nor implied.

[niyad]

70. Maybe you could acquaint yourself with some of the restrictions,

and those that have been proposed over the years. Like the ones proposed in WI several yyears ago, forbidding real cheese (in WI), dried beans, rice, etc.

Disdain and sanctimonious judgement are just oozing from your posts on this subject.

See post 15.

[EX500rider]

74. There's certainly some self-righteous sanctimonious posting going on here

I agree with that.
Our mileage May differ on who's doing it though
All I saw on the blurb is they were not alowing candy and soda.

[niyad]

86. ohhh myyyyyy. Our mileage does indeed vary. Thank you for confirming

everything I said.

[cstanleytech]

8. I'm not against junk food restrictions but I support an increase in the amount provided as eating healthy isn't cheap.

I'd say an increase of an minimum of 200 a month per child for produce would probably help a lot.

[niyad]

17. See post 15.

[CTyankee]

54. Many poor people lack kitchens in which to whip up those great recipes from scratch with all their helpful vitamins.

Or maybe they hold down two jobs and simply can't be home to cook. Or they may simply be homeless.

[EX500rider]

64. This doesn't stop them from buying TV dinners and macaroni and cheese and other easy quick Foods

Just not sugary drinks and candy

[CTyankee]

66. Why do we get to be their food cop?

We don't "trust" them to buy the food WE deem OK to eat?

What can we do to help them eat better foods? Offer them fresh, better foods! Make it easy to get them.

[EX500rider]

67. If the taxpayer is footing the bill the taxpayer has some say

I think subsidizing diabetes may be a bad idea, ymmv

[CTyankee]

72. I agree. How can we get at this problem as a society?

Health care professionals are the people who can help here.

[cstanleytech]

68. Yes which is why produce is a good area to provide more money to spend on as you don't need to cook salads.

[CTyankee]

73. A great point. The issue is how we get such foods to those who need, but can't afford to buy, those food items.

Or maybe they simply don't have ready access to those foods.

[BaronChocula]

10. "The five plaintiffs--who live in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia..."

I'll just put that there.

[niyad]

12. Really.?? What, exactly, are we to understand by that?

[BaronChocula]

13. With the exception of Colorado

these are "red states" going back at least three presidential elections. Simpleton magas would probably least expect this much pushback from ordinarily "safe zones."

[niyad]

16. Then why include Colorado?

[BaronChocula]

22. It was taken verbatim from the article

That's why it was in quotes.

[niyad]

23. Thank you.

[BaronChocula]

24. ...

[Bettie]

26. Are people in those states less worthy of having food

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Just say it, whatever it is.

[70sEraVet]

14. The story they want to push with these restrictions,

is that poor people are undeserving. New restrictions, but an old tradition.

[pcdb]

40. I think it's that taxpayer funded diabetes is a bad idea.

This is another issue that Democrats used to support but are now against. I guess we'll just keep driving the cost of healthcare up.

[niyad]

44. Do you seriously think ANY of this bs debate has to do with genuine concern

about people's health?

[pcdb]

47. Maybe not to Republicans

That doesn't mean Democrats have to want people to get diabetes just to be on the other side.

[niyad]

49. That isn't an either/or, regardless of how you frame it. Perhaps you

coul address some of the other, more immediate, issues being discussed in this thread?

[niyad]

15. Before I start screaming about the self-righteous sanctimony and

virtue signalling that seems to surround every discussion about "healthy eating" and "junk food restrictions", wherever they occur, I would like people to keep in mind one little fact. Many people live in the "food deserts", meaning there are no grocery stores within ten miles. The ONLY access to any kind of food in those areas is convenience stores, with their limited choices. And before I hear anything about "just get on a bus", as one pontificator snarled at me several years ago in a meeting, many of those same areas do not have decent public transit, either. And, even if there is, hauling bags of groceries on and off buses, particularly if one has to transfer, or has mobility isssues, is not a picnic.

When one defends all these restrictions, whatever one's stated reason, one must ask oneself why it is okay to tell these people what they may, or may not, purchase with OUR money. Does one tell the military how to spend the trillions they get? Does one restrict the oil companies? Big AG? Big Pharma? And then think about what those answers say about oneself.

[Polybius]

37. But at what point is the line drawn?

Should beer be allowed? How about household items? Or would those be the cutoff in your opinion? For the record, I am all for allowing sweets to be purchased with SNAP.

[niyad]

41. Supplemental Nutrition. .last I checked, household items do not

qualify as "nutrition". Allowing any kind of alcohol is, in all likelihood, never going to happen.

[Celerity]

55. Starting April 1, Texas also will ban SNAP purchases of many drinks that use artificial sweeteners.

Starting April 1, 2026, Texas will implement new restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, banning the purchase of candy, gum, and sweetened drinks containing 5g or more of added sugar or artificial sweeteners. These changes are part of a broader, state-driven effort to limit junk food in food-aid programs.

https://www.hhs.texas.gov/news/2026/03/new-snap-purchase-restrictions-take-effect-april-1

[Cirsium]

79. yes yes yes yes

FFS.

What is the matter with people here?

[IzzaNuDay]

56. Totally agree with you

Once I was on a business trip to an urban area, and I wanted to find some healthy snacks during my trip. I was fortunate to have a rental car. But even then, it was a challenge to find a grocery store in this area.

I found a small grocery store, but the produce quality was awful. And the first thing I thought was how do the residents ever find the same foods I look for? Yeah, we definitely have food deserts. And I am afraid it’s by design.

[cstanleytech]

69. That's an entirely different issue though but it's one that does need to be addressed urgently IMO.

[niyad]

71. No, it is obviously a central part of the issue.

[Cirsium]

78. Thank you

Very well said.

[niyad]

83. You are most welcome. One would not think such a post was needed

amoung progressives, but. . .

[electric_blue68]

25. If I remember correctly in NYS/C...

when I had food stamps we couldn't buy soda, or candy. Not that I bought a lot anyway. Probably not chips, etc, either. Again, only bought a small to modest amount.

[NH Ethylene]

27. I remember exactly that decades ago when I got food stamps.

I don't recall it being a problem for me. I certainly wasn't going to feed my two toddlers any junk food anyway.

[electric_blue68]

29. In my case it was just for me...

In the 2000s, 2010s.

[Polybius]

36. I can't speak for NYS, but soda and candy was allowed in NYC when I was on it

Early 2020's.

[electric_blue68]

45. I'm an NYC'r but don't have SNAP anymore...

but that's good. Nothing wrong with a bit of that

[chouchou]

30. I think I wrote this the other day.

Wouldn't a percentage be more fair Like 15 percent or 20 percent for "fun"

It's amazing how many Americans stand up and rant about the poor get free food..."They should sweep the streets"
But..They don't mind when the politicians, Military, con people and corporations steal tons of money
from the taxpayers.. Grrrrr.

[niyad]

34. Why should there be ANY "percentage for fun" designation? By WHOSE

definition of "fun"???

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post.

[chouchou]

50. I understand your point. I was thinking that the "Other sons-a-####"" would stop trashing the poor..

....if there was a little bit of regular structure. My personal beliefs are; Give them the damn food/clothes cards..
and shut down the nasty overview. Yes, I'm trying to walk on both rails.

[niyad]

52. I can welll understand your desire to try that. However, as old and jaded

and annoyed and exhausted and ENRAGED as I am from many decades of dealing with those hate-filled assholes, I can tell you that NOTHING will stop them from trashing the poor, the immigrants, the disabled. .actually. . . anybody who isn't like them.

[chouchou]

58. Unfortunately, your words are true. I keep hoping that mostly people are kind, fair and just.

...and I'm going to win a Rolls Royce today..

[niyad]

59. It is good to have hope and optimism.

Can I have the first ride in your new Rolls?

[chouchou]

60. Absolutely. We can go shopping like professionals.

[niyad]

61. yayyyy

[MichMan]

31. You haven't been able to buy beer or wine for decades

This is just an additional restriction it would appear.

[niyad]

32. see post 15

[GenThePerservering]

75. OMG, enough with the post #15

I used to live on food stamps in a food desert. I DID NOT WASTE IT ON SODA OR CANDY. It was tough enough to keep fed without that shit burning through what little I had.

[Cirsium]

81. Good for you

Enough with the "I came through OK so I have no sympathy for those who didn't" bs. How's that?

[niyad]

85. Thank you for confirming my post.

[Torchlight]

62. Creative use of Reductio ad absurdum. Very serious stuff

Good luck!

[niyad]

33. Let us add one little thing to this discussion. Apprroximately FIFTY PERCENT

of ALL the food in this country goes to waste. FIFTY PERCENT. We could feed everyone. And yet the ones at the top playing their ugly games make sure that the ones at the bottom are debating, fighting over, piously virtue signalling over, scraps. How it must amuse them.

[Demobrat]

46. Not everyone has cooking facilities or equipment.

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2026, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

It’s all well and good to say the money should go for fresh food, but where is the single mom living with her two kids in a motel room supposed to cook it? How about the one living in a trailer without a working stove? And if there is a stove, what about the pots and pans? Does everyone pack them up when they run from an abusive relationship?
It’s so privileged to assume everyone has a burner and a pot to boil water for rice in. It’s just not the case.

[niyad]

48. THANK YOU!! And then there are the tuly homeless. I have never

understood the prohibition against hot or prepared foods in SNAP. WTAF??? Who could possibly need them more???

[Demobrat]

87. I only didn't mention them because

I understand it’s impossible to get food stamps without an address. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope so.

[EX500rider]

51. Where does it say "fresh food"? It says no "candy and sugary drinks" That would leave tons of options..

...that don't involve cooking

[questionseverything]

82. 90 billion dollars the defense department wasted on lobster, crab and steak 🥩

In one month but for sure no snickers for welfare kids

Got it!

[Cirsium]

80. Thank you

When did Democrats become so callous and ignorant?

[ShepKat]

76. when i was on snap,

there wasn't enough to buy crap bs fake food. Never bought soda, ever.
my kids ate ok and any dessert type food and potato chips were homemade

[niyad]

84. see post 15

[Demobrat]

88. You had a home with a working kitchen to make them in.

How lovely for you.