Starting Jan. 1, grocery shopping will look different for some Americans — and not by choice.
Five states — Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia — are rolling out new restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Pro benefits that ban the purchase of soda, candy and other foods labeled as unhealthy. The policy is being promoted as a public health intervention aimed at reducing sugar consumption and chronic disease.
On paper, it sounds simple. On the ground, it is anything but.
SNAP recipients already navigate food deserts, unstable housing, limited transportation and rigid budgets. Many shop at stores with few healthy options and higher prices. Now add checkout systems that may or may not recognize banned items, retailers unprepared to enforce inconsistent rules and no clear, universal list of prohibited purchases.
The result is predictable: longer checkout lines, declined transactions and public embarrassment at the register.
Those specific purchase restrictions will not apply in California. But CalFresh, the state’s version of SNAP, will still be affected by other significant federal changes under H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
The law expands work requirements and time limits, requiring more adults — including people with older children, veterans and individuals experiencing homelessness — to work, train, attend school or complete community service at least 80 hours a month to keep benefits. Those who fail to meet the requirements risk losing assistance after three months in a three-year period once statewide waivers expire.
H.R. 1 also cuts federal SNAP funding, which could lower benefit levels for some households. California must now restrict who can claim certain deductions, such as the standard utility allowance. Households without separate heating or cooling costs and without an older adult or person with a disability may see reduced benefits or lose eligibility altogether.
The law further narrows eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants, limiting CalFresh access to specific groups, including lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants and some individuals under the Compact of Free Association. Tens of thousands of Californians could lose food assistance as a result, according to the California Association of Food Banks.
Administrative costs are also set to rise. Beginning in 2026, states will be required to cover a larger share of SNAP administrative expenses, a shift likely to strain county social services departments and slow benefit processing.
California has pushed back against some federal actions. During a late-2025 government shutdown, a court ordered the restoration of full SNAP and CalFresh benefits after the U.S. Department of Agriculture attempted to limit payments during the funding lapse.
Research on whether restricting SNAP purchases improves health outcomes is mixed at best. An EBT card does not cause chronic disease. Chronic illness is driven by poverty, stress, lack of access to affordable healthy food and systems that punish people instead of supporting them.
For people relying on SNAP, food choices are already constrained by geography and income. In many rural and low-income communities, grocery stores may be miles away. Fresh produce can be scarce, expensive or unavailable. Transportation is often unreliable. When options are narrow, policing purchases does not expand choice — it narrows it further.
Health advocates argue that if these policies were truly about health, the focus would be on expanding food access, lowering prices and investing in infrastructure that brings healthy options into underserved communities. It would mean supporting retailers, not turning them into enforcement agents. It would mean addressing poverty as a public health issue, not transforming checkout counters into points of surveillance.
Instead, beginning Jan. 1, SNAP recipients in several states will see their grocery choices audited item by item, register by register.