SNAP Recipients Fight Back In Junk Food Crackdown
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
(54,858 posts)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
(131,849 posts)twodogsbarking
(18,460 posts)Maybe it isn't even about the money.
niyad
(131,849 posts)since it is assumed that women do most of the grocery shopping. And we KNOW women cannot make intelligent decisions on their own.
jfz9580m
(16,985 posts)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
(865 posts)......"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
(6,888 posts)Why should we do so with SNAP? Or is it because snap benefits the poors?
SunSeeker
(58,189 posts)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
(131,849 posts)Jacson6
(1,936 posts)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
(131,849 posts)Torchlight
(6,735 posts)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 dont know.
quaint
(4,965 posts)niyad
(131,849 posts)Oliver Bolliver Butt
(140 posts)niyad
(131,849 posts)Oliver Bolliver Butt
(140 posts)niyad
(131,849 posts)Torchlight
(6,735 posts)Just a guess, though.
moonscape
(5,693 posts)in food deserts.
niyad
(131,849 posts)EX500rider
(12,498 posts)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
(6,735 posts)niyad
(131,849 posts)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.
cstanleytech
(28,428 posts)I'd say an increase of an minimum of 200 a month per child for produce would probably help a lot.
niyad
(131,849 posts)CTyankee
(68,105 posts)Or maybe they hold down two jobs and simply can't be home to cook. Or they may simply be homeless.
EX500rider
(12,498 posts)Just not sugary drinks and candy
CTyankee
(68,105 posts)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
(12,498 posts)I think subsidizing diabetes may be a bad idea, ymmv
CTyankee
(68,105 posts)Health care professionals are the people who can help here.
cstanleytech
(28,428 posts)CTyankee
(68,105 posts)Or maybe they simply don't have ready access to those foods.
BaronChocula
(4,461 posts)I'll just put that there.
niyad
(131,849 posts)BaronChocula
(4,461 posts)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
(131,849 posts)BaronChocula
(4,461 posts)That's why it was in quotes.
niyad
(131,849 posts)Bettie
(19,600 posts)I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Just say it, whatever it is.
70sEraVet
(5,441 posts)is that poor people are undeserving. New restrictions, but an old tradition.
pcdb
(108 posts)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
(131,849 posts)about people's health?
pcdb
(108 posts)That doesn't mean Democrats have to want people to get diabetes just to be on the other side.
niyad
(131,849 posts)coul address some of the other, more immediate, issues being discussed in this thread?
niyad
(131,849 posts)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
(21,820 posts)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
(131,849 posts)qualify as "nutrition". Allowing any kind of alcohol is, in all likelihood, never going to happen.
Celerity
(54,240 posts)https://www.hhs.texas.gov/news/2026/03/new-snap-purchase-restrictions-take-effect-april-1
IzzaNuDay
(1,279 posts)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 its by design.
cstanleytech
(28,428 posts)niyad
(131,849 posts)electric_blue68
(26,764 posts)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
(31,326 posts)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
(26,764 posts)In the 2000s, 2010s.
Polybius
(21,820 posts)Early 2020's.
electric_blue68
(26,764 posts)but that's good. Nothing wrong with a bit of that
chouchou
(3,097 posts)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
(131,849 posts)definition of "fun"???
I absolutely agree with the rest of your post.
chouchou
(3,097 posts)....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
(131,849 posts)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
(3,097 posts)...and I'm going to win a Rolls Royce today..
niyad
(131,849 posts)Can I have the first ride in your new Rolls?
chouchou
(3,097 posts)MichMan
(17,076 posts)This is just an additional restriction it would appear.
niyad
(131,849 posts)Torchlight
(6,735 posts)Good luck!
niyad
(131,849 posts)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
(10,281 posts)Its 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?
Its so close minded to assume everyone has a burner and a pot to boil water for rice in. Its just not the case.
niyad
(131,849 posts)understood the prohibition against hot or prepared foods in SNAP. WTAF??? Who could possibly need them more???
EX500rider
(12,498 posts)...that don't involve cooking