SNAP Update: Map Shows States Banning Junk Purchases
Numerous Republican-led states are working to ban candy and soda as eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits, with new rules expected in some states as early as January 2026.
This week, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins signed requests from Indiana and Iowa to limit the buying of unhealthy foods using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
It follows her signature on another waiver from Nebraska last week banning soda and energy drinks-the first of its kind.
"States have always been the greatest laboratories of democracy, and I am confident the best ideas will come from them," Rollins said in a statement sent to Newsweek. "Whether demonstration pilots on allowable purchases, or newfound ways to connect work-capable adults to jobs, or even new ways to get food to communities, I will continue to encourage states to be bold and enact change."
A waiver grants flexibility by modifying specific USDA program rules, enabling states to administer the SNAP program in different ways. Various states currently have SNAP waivers in place, and they were widely implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to help Americans get better access to food benefits.
SNAP benefits, also known as "food stamps," are paid to low- and no-income households across the U.S. that would otherwise struggle to afford groceries. Across the U.S., more than 40 million people receive SNAP benefits.
If all states that are currently considering such bans succeed, it will impact some 7.1 million recipients.
As it stands, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska have had waiver requests approved. The target implementation date for all is January 1, 2026.
Three other states have submitted their requests to the USDA: Arkansas, Texas, West Virginia, which are yet to be approved or declined.
On April 15 in Idaho, Governor Brad Little signed a bill passed through the state Legislature that approved the banning of soda and candy from food assistance benefits. The waiver has not yet been submitted to the USDA.
Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Louisiana and Tennessee are considering bills from lawmakers on the matter.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins formally requesting a waiver: "Under the Trump administration, for the first time since the program was authorized, states can take steps to eliminate the opportunity to buy junk food with SNAP benefits and assure that taxpayer dollars are used only to purchase healthy, nutritious food. We appreciate your efforts to allow states to implement innovative changes to support our citizens to lead healthy and productive lives."
Kavelle Christie, a health policy and advocacy expert, told Newsweek: "These proposals may seem appealing at first-after all, who wouldn't want to promote healthier eating habits? However, examining them closely makes it clear that the intent is power and controlling individuals with low incomes rather than improving nutrition.
"SNAP has long been a political target, often viewed as a means to impose moral judgments on low-income families rather than recognized as the essential safety net it truly is."
Further waiver approvals are expected as states submit them for consideration by the USDA.
Related Articles
SNAP Benefit Cut Warning Issued in State Trump Won by 1%Two More States Ban Junk Food From SNAP BenefitsHow Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Change SNAP BenefitsWhen Are June 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
36 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Inside the Collapse of the America's Overdose Prevention Program
At an addiction conference in Nashville, Tenn., in late April, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke about his own experience with drug use. 'Addiction is a source of misery. It's also a symptom of misery,' he said. Kennedy's very personal speech, however, ignored recent federal budget cuts and staffing reductions that could undo national drug programs' recent progress in reversing overdoses and treating substance use. Several experts in the crowd, including Caleb Banta-Green, a research professor at the University of Washington, who studies addiction, furiously spoke up during Kennedy's speech. Banta-Green interrupted, shouting 'Believe science!' before being removed from the venue. (The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment for this article.) 'I had to stand up and say something,' says Banta-Green, who has spent his career working with people who use drugs and was a senior science adviser at the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Obama administration. 'The general public needs to understand what is being dismantled and the very real impact it's going to have on them and their loved ones.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The Trump administration has defunded public health programs and made plans to consolidate or eliminate the systems that track their outcomes, making it difficult to monitor the deadly consequences of substance use, Banta-Green says. For instance, staff cuts to the Overdose Data to Action program and the Opioid Overdose Prevention and Surveillance program will hamper former tracking efforts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at local and state health departments' prevention programs. A recently fired policy analyst at the overdose prevention division at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control— who wishes to remain anonymous, citing fear of retaliation—tells Scientific American that she used to provide policy support to teams at health departments in 49 states and shared public overdose data and information to Congress. She is a veteran who should have had protected employment status, but she lost her job during federal cuts in February. 'No one else is doing surveillance and data collection and prevention like the CDC was,' she says. 'There's so much that's been cut.' (When approached for an interview by Scientific American, a CDC spokesperson said, 'Honestly, the new administration has changed how things normally work' and did not make anyone available for questions.) What Gets Measured Gets Managed Provisional data suggest that deaths from drug use declined by almost 25 percent in 2024, though overdoses remain the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 44. Cuts to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health will make it difficult to measure similar statistics in the future. Because substance use is highly stigmatized, Banta-Green says it's important to have diverse, localized and timely data from multiple agencies to accurately capture the need for services—and the ways they're actually used. 'You can't design public health or policy responses if you don't know the scale of the need,' he says. Overdose trends vary by region—for example, usage of the synthetic opioid fentanyl appeared earlier on the East Coast than the West—so national averages can obscure critical local patterns. These regional differences can offer important insights into which interventions might be working, Banta-Green says. For instance, important medications such as naloxone rapidly reverse opioid overdoses in emergency situations. But getting people onto long-term medications, including methadone and buprenorphine, which reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, can more effectively prevent mortality in both the short and long term. Declining deaths may also mask tragic underlying dynamics. Successful interventions may not be the only cause of a drop in overdoses; it could also be that the people who are most vulnerable to overdose have recently perished and that there are simply fewer remaining at risk. 'It's like a forest fire burning itself out,' Banta-Green says. This underscores the need for the large-scale data collection threatened by the proposed budget and staff cuts at the CDC and National Institutes of Health, says Regina LaBelle, an addiction policy expert at Georgetown University. 'What [the administration is] doing is shortsighted' and doesn't appear to be based 'on the effectiveness or the outcomes of the programs that [it's] cutting,' she says. For example, despite promising to expand naloxone access, the Trump administration's latest budget proposal cuts funding for a critical program that distributes the lifesaving medication to first aid responders. 'A Chance at Redemption' When LaBelle was acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, she led efforts to expand evidence-based programs that provided clean syringes and tested users' drugs for harmful substances. These strategies are often referred to as 'harm reduction,' which LaBelle describes as 'a way you can meet people where they are and give them the services they need to keep them from dying.' José Martínez, a substance use counselor based in Buffalo, N.Y., says harm-reduction practices helped save his life. When Martínez got his first job as a peer advocate for people using drugs, he was still in a chaotic part of his own addiction and had been sleeping on the street and the subway—and regularly getting into fights—for a decade. The day after he was hired to help provide counseling on hepatitis C, he got into a New York City shelter. As his bruises healed, he learned life skills he was never taught at home. 'For a lot of people, drug use is a coping tool,' he says. 'The drug is rarely the problem. Drug use is really a symptom.' Working with others who understood that many people need help minimizing risks gave Martínez a chance to make progress toward recovery in a way that he says abstinence-only treatment programs couldn't. 'I don't agree that somebody should be sober in order for them to do things different,' he says. Over the past six years working for the National Harm Reduction Coalition, Martínez started a national support network for other peer program workers and community members—people who share their experiences and are a trusted source of education and support for others using drugs. 'There's never no time limit,' he says. 'Everybody works on their own pace.' Though Martínez's program doesn't take federal funding, the Trump administration is cutting similar kinds of peer programs. Martínez says doing this peer work gives many users a sense of purpose and stability—and helps them avoid previous behaviors. The proposed 2026 federal budget will slash the CDC's opioid surveillance programs by $30 million. It also creates a new subdivision called the Administration for a Healthy America that will consolidate the agency's prevention work, along with existing programs at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA), which often coordinates grants for treatment programs. The programs formerly conducted through SAMHSA are also facing cuts of more than $1 billion. Advocates fear this will include a shift toward funding abstinence-only priorities, which, Martínez says, 'will definitely mean that we're going to have more overdoses.' (Some research suggests abstinence-based treatment actually puts people at a higher risk of fatal overdose than those who receive no treatment at all.) 'The general public needs to understand what is being dismantled and the very real impact it's going to have on them and their loved ones.' —Caleb Banta-Green, addiction research professor These cuts could disproportionately affect communities already facing higher overdose rates: Martínez, who is Puerto Rican, notes that U.S. Black, Latino and Indigenous communities have experienced drug overdose death increases in recent years. In many states, overdose deaths in Black and brown communities remain high while white overdose death rates are declining. Looming cuts to Medicaid programs, LaBelle warns, are likely to worsen inequalities in health care access, which tends to make communities of color more vulnerable. In Kentucky, where Governor Andy Beshear recently celebrated a 30 percent decline in overdose deaths, Shreeta Waldon, executive director of the Kentucky Harm Reduction Coalition, says the reality is more nuanced. While national overdose deaths declined in white populations from 2021 to 2023, for example, they continued to rise among people of color. Black and Latino communities often face barriers when accessing health services, many of which have been shaped by predominantly white institutions. Waldon says it's essential for people from diverse backgrounds to participate in policy decisions and necessary to ensure that opioid abatement funds —legal funds used toward treatment and prevention—are distributed fairly. Without adequate federal funding, Waldon predicts treatment programs in Kentucky will become backlogged—potentially pushing more people into crisis situations that lead to emergency services or incarceration rather than to recovery. These financial and political pressures are not only making it harder to find support for people in crisis; they also reduce opportunities to discuss community needs. Waldon says she knows some social workers who now avoid terms such as 'Black woman' or 'marginalized' in grants and public talks out of fear of losing funding. But people currently needing treatment for substance-use disorder are not necessarily aware of the federal funding news—or 'what's about to hit them when they try to go get treatment and they're hit with barriers,' Waldon says. 'That's way more important to me than trying to tailor the way I talk.' Funding and staffing cuts don't just limit resources for the people most in need. They limit the ability to understand where someone is coming from, which undermines efforts to provide meaningful care, Martínez says. Harm reduction is more than the services and physical tools given to community members, he says. It's about the approach. 'When you look at a whole person, you plant the seed of health and dignity,' he says. 'If everybody deserves a chance at redemption, then we've got to rethink how we're approaching things.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Inherited Genetic Trait Predicts Resistance to Immunotherapy for Deadly Skin Cancer
NEW YORK, June 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Tests in 1,225 patients with the most deadly form of skin cancer reveal for the first time a genetic trait among most of those who did not respond to the latest cancer treatments, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors. Metastatic melanoma, as the disease is formally named, kills nearly 10,000 Americans annually. While the drugs have proven highly successful in treating metastatic melanoma and several other cancers, the therapies are known to not work for almost half of those who are prescribed them, usually after initial chemotherapy or surgery have failed to stem the growth of new cancer cells. Led by researchers at NYU Langone Health and its Perlmutter Cancer Center, the new study involved a genetic analysis of blood samples from the ongoing landmark CheckMate-067 Phase 3 trial being conducted in over 100 medical centers in 19 countries. Study results showed that patients with a specific type of genetic mutation, called MT haplogroup T (HG-T), were 3.46 times less likely to respond to checkpoint therapy than those without HG-T. Mutations are changes encoded in the DNA of abnormal or different cells. Researchers found the HG-T changes in immunotherapy-resistant patients' cell powerhouse structures, or mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA is unique in that it is passed down only from a mother to her offspring, with no genetic contribution or copy from the father, as is traditionally found in a cell's control center, or nuclear DNA. Over time, mitochondrial DNA has evolved worldwide into subgroups labeled from A to Z based on their common mutations. Publishing in the journal Nature Medicine online June 5, the researchers say they decided to focus on mitochondrial DNA not just because of its unique lineage but also due to previous research showing it played a role in immune cell development. In the CheckMate trial, immunotherapy drugs, such as nivolumab, were used alone or in combination with another checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab, in preventing postsurgical recurrence of melanoma. The drugs work by blocking molecules (the checkpoints) that sit on the surface of immune T cells to keep them from attacking cancer cells like they would invading viruses or bacteria. The body normally uses checkpoints to recognize healthy cells, but in cancer, tumor cells have hijacked and turned off the checkpoints to evade immune system detection. Immunotherapies block checkpoints, making cancer cells more "visible" and vulnerable again to immune cells. To validate their CheckMate findings, researchers then checked their initial results against samples from 397 metastatic melanoma patients of similar age and gender, whose immunotherapy treatment records were stored at NYU Langone as part of the International Germline Immuno-Oncology Melanoma Consortium (IO-GEM). Results again revealed the same link of immunotherapy resistance to HG-T. "Checkpoint immunotherapy has become the mainstay in cancer care in the past decade, especially for those with metastatic melanoma, but until now it has never been clearly explained why nearly half will not respond to treatment," said study co-lead investigator and epidemiologist Kelsey Monson, PhD. "Our study results offer the first scientific evidence of a genetic biomarker, or presence of a mitochondrial mutation known as MT haplogroup T, to help explain why and identify those metastatic melanoma patients who are most likely to not respond to immunotherapy for the disease," said study co-lead investigator and molecular biologist Robert Ferguson, PhD. "Our findings make possible future testing for the presence of MT haplogroup T to determine which metastatic melanoma patients are most likely to not respond to checkpoint therapy, so other treatment options can be considered, which in turn could improve overall outcomes," said senior study investigator Tomas Kirchhoff, PhD. "These study results also raise the possibility that other mitochondrial haploid variants could influence which patients respond to other immune therapies," said Kirchhoff, an associate professor in the Department of Population Health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and a member of the Perlmutter Cancer Center. Among the study's other key findings was that treatment-resistant HG-T patients had more underdeveloped T cells than nonresistant patients without HG-T. Researchers traced this poor differentiation to increased resilience to reactive oxygen species (ROS), chemicals commonly linked to inflammation, suggesting that HG-T conferred some form of ROS protection that stunted T cell attack. Kirchhoff says that further experiments are needed to determine the precise role played by mitochondrial genetics, ROS metabolism, and antitumor T cell immunity in cancer therapy. The more immediate next step is a prospective clinical trial to assess whether non-HG-T patients fare better on immunotherapy than patients with HG-T, and whether this applies to other mitochondrial haplogroups and cancers. Funding for the study was provided by National Institutes of Health grants R01CA227505, F99CA274650, P50CA225450, and P30CA008748, with additional support from Melanoma Research Alliance grant MRA-686192. Further funding support was provided by Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente grants M2/2 and L1-2. Both drugs used in the CheckMate trial are manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb, which sponsored the trial and provided the patient specimens and data used in the analysis. Besides Monson, Ferguson, and Kirchhoff, NYU Langone researchers involved in this study are co-investigators Joanna Handzlik, Leah Morales, Jiahan Xiong, Vylyny Chat, Sasha Dagayev, Alireza Khodadadi-Jamayran, Danny Simpson, Esther Kazlow, Anabelle Bunis, Chaitra Sreenivasaiah, Malid Ibrahim, Iryna Voloshyneya, Yuting Lu, Yongzhao Shao, Michelle Krogsgaard, Janice Mehnart, and Iman Osman. Other study co-investigators are Wouter Ouwerkerk and Rosalie Luiten, at Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands; Mariaelena Capone, Gabriele Madonna, and Paolo Ascierto, at the National Tumor Institute Fondazione G. Pascale in Naples, Italy; Anna Pavlick and Hao Tang, at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York; John Haanen, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam; Sonia Dolfi and Daniel Tenney at Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, New Jersey; Thomas Gajewski, at the University of Chicago; Stephen Hodi and Osama Rahma, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; Keith Flaherty and Ryan Sullivan, at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University in Boston; Kasey Couts and William Robinson, at the University of Colorado in Aurora; Igor Puzanov, at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York; Marc Ernstoff, at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland; Michael Postow, at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York; and Jason Luke, at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. About NYU Langone Health NYU Langone Health is a fully integrated health system that consistently achieves the best patient outcomes through a rigorous focus on quality that has resulted in some of the lowest mortality rates in the nation. Vizient Inc. has ranked NYU Langone No. 1 out of 115 comprehensive academic medical centers across the nation for three years in a row, and U.S. News & World Report recently placed nine of its clinical specialties among the top five in the nation. NYU Langone offers a comprehensive range of medical services with one high standard of care across seven inpatient locations, its Perlmutter Cancer Center, and more than 320 outpatient locations in the New York area and Florida. With $14.2 billion in revenue this year, the system also includes two tuition-free medical schools, in Manhattan and on Long Island, and a vast research enterprise. Media ContactDavid STUDY DOI:10.1038/s41591-025-03699-3 STUDY LINK: View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE NYU Langone Health System
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
FDA Not Recommending Newly Approved COVID-19 Vaccine: Official
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new COVID-19 vaccine but is not recommending people receive it, the agency's top vaccine officials said on June 4. 'There's another misconception I want to clarify, which is, people have said, 'You at FDA are recommending the shots to high risk people and older people.' I want to be very clear, the FDA is not your doctor. We are not, we don't recommend shots to people,' Dr. Vinay Prasad, head of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a
