Nebraska to ban soda and energy drinks from SNAP under first USDA waiver
Nebraska is the first state to receive a federal waiver to ban the purchase of soda and energy drinks under the benefit program for low-income Americans long known as food stamps.
The move, announced Monday by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, would affect about 152,000 people in Nebraska enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps families pay for groceries.
'There's absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks,' Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen said in a statement. 'SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there's nothing nutritious about the junk we're removing with today's waiver.'
Six other states — Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa and West Virginia — have also submitted requests for waivers banning certain foods and drinks or, in some cases, expanding access to hot foods for participants, according to the USDA.
The push to ban sugary drinks, candy and more from the SNAP program has been key focus of Rollins and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Rollins called Monday's move 'a historic step to Make America Healthy again.'
Details of Nebraska's waiver, which takes effect Jan. 1, weren't immediately available. Anti-hunger advocates criticized it, saying it adds costs, boosts administrative burdens and increases stigma for people already facing food insecurity.
The waiver 'ignores decades of evidence showing that incentive-based approaches — not punitive restrictions — are the most effective, dignified path to improving nutrition and reducing hunger,' said Gina Plata-Nino, a deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy group.
SNAP is a roughly $100 billion program that serves about 42 million Americans and is run by the U.S. Agriculture Department and administered through states.
The program is authorized by the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which says SNAP benefits can be used 'for any food or food product intended for human consumption,' except alcohol, tobacco and hot foods, including those prepared for immediate consumption.
Over the past 20 years, lawmakers in several states have proposed stopping SNAP from paying for everything from bottled water and soda to chips, ice cream and 'luxury meats' like steak.
Until now, USDA rejected the waivers, saying there were no clear standards to define certain foods as good or bad. In addition, the agency had said restrictions would be difficult to implement, complicated and costly, and would not necessarily change recipients' food purchases or reduce health problems such as obesity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most voters in favor of Trump's ‘most favored nation' drug price policy: survey
A new survey found that a majority of voters are in favor lawmakers and candidates who they believe will take on Big Pharma price-gouging with most saying they're in favor of President Trump's 'most favored nation' policy. In a survey commissioned by the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance and conducted by National Research Inc., 85 percent of voters said prescription medications have gotten more expensive and nearly the same percentage of participants said pharmaceutical companies carried the most blame for the high cost. When asked about their voting choices, 86 percent said they were more likely to support a candidate who 'wants to force Big Pharma to lower prescription medication costs for American consumers' while 78 percent said they were less likely to support a candidate who accepted donations from Big Pharma. Overall, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: 'Congressional candidates should stop taking large political donations from Big Pharma because it is a conflict of interest.' During the 2024 election cycle, pharmaceutical and health product political action committees donated over $16 million to campaigns. 'Americans are speaking loudly and clearly, so it's important for Congress to listen: the time to join President Trump in lowering prescription drug costs is NOW. From coast to coast, the American people are suffering from high prescription costs, and they rightly blame Big Pharma. Simply stated, it's time for Big Pharma to put America first…not last,' PRA spokesman and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said in a statement. 'No doubt those currently serving on Capitol Hill are hearing the same message from their constituents. With the 2026 primary season ahead, those in the House and Senate need to take action. Voters are watching,' he added. The survey highlighted Trump's executive order that enacted 'most favored nation' drug pricing as an example of efforts to reduce prescription drug costs. The executive order directs the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to take 'all appropriate action' against 'unreasonable and discriminatory' policies in foreign countries that suppress drug prices abroad. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will set 'clear targets' for prescription drug and pharmaceutical price reductions within 30 days per the order. When asked about how they felt regarding the 'most favored nation' policy, 78 percent said they supported the policy, which included 61 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independent voters and 96 percent of Republicans. Republican participants were asked to pick between Trump; Kennedy and his 'make American health again' agenda; or Congress when it came to whom they trusted to 'force Big Pharma to lower their costs for prescription medicine.' Trump received the highest vote of confidence with 46 percent of GOP voters picking him, 14 percent picked Kennedy and only two percent picked Congress. Other changes that garnered support in the survey were restrictions on direct-to-consumer prescription medication ads and 78 percent agreed it was a conflict of interest for news networks to run such ads as they're covering health care issues. The survey was conducted from May 28 to June 1 and included 1,000 registered voters. The results have a margin or error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. Among participants, 35 percent were Republican, 33 percent were Democrat and 32 percent were independent.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Three States Ban Junk Food From SNAP Benefits: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Junk food purchases using SNAP benefits have been banned in three more states, taking the national total to six. Arkansas, Idaho and Utah have all had waivers approved that will ban unhealthy purchases from being made using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Tuesday. They join three states who had their waiver requests approved in May: Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska. Why It Matters Across Arkansas, Idaho and Utah, about 540,000 people collect SNAP benefits to help them pay for groceries. Several other Republican states are considering limitations on what SNAP recipients can buy using their benefits as part of the Make America Healthy Again movement. What To Know 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 coronavirus pandemic to enhance access to food benefits. According to the USDA press release, each waiver will come into force in 2026. In Arkansas and Idaho, the ban covers soft drinks and candy purchases. In Utah, the ban is only for soft drinks. Stock image/file photo: A woman looks at shelves stocked with soft drinks in a grocery store. Stock image/file photo: A woman looks at shelves stocked with soft drinks in a grocery store. GETTY Governors have cited concerns over obesity and the pressure poor health puts on other taxpayer-funded programs like Medicaid. According to Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 23 percent of food stamps—$27 billion annually—spent by recipients goes toward soft drinks, unhealthy snacks, candy and desserts. Critics of the purchase limitations have said such policies are paternalistic and fail to address the fact that many low-income communities face disparities in accessing healthy, affordable food options. What People Are Saying Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement sent to Newsweek: "States have always been the greatest laboratories of democracy, and I am confident the best ideas will come from them. 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." Idaho Governor Brad Little: "Idaho proudly welcomes the MAHA movement because it is all about looking for new ways to improve nutrition, increase exercise, and take better care of ourselves and one another, especially our children. We are excited to partner with the Trump administration in bringing common sense to the government's food assistance program with the approval of our SNAP waiver." Kavelle Christie, a health policy and advocacy expert, told Newsweek: "The issue isn't about individuals misusing their benefits, but their limited choices. In many rural areas and food deserts, convenience stores and fast-food chains are often the only available options. For many families, fresh produce and healthy meals are luxuries that are unattainable, not because they do not want these foods, but because they are unavailable or too expensive." Valerie Imbruce, director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, previously told Newsweek: "Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients' inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods. Soda and candy are much cheaper and more calorie dense than 100 percent fruit juices or prebiotic non-artificially sweetened carbonated beverages, thanks to price supports and subsidies by the federal government to support a U.S. sugar industry." What Happens Next Lawmakers in several other states—Arizona, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Texas, and West Virginia—are all considering making similar bans. Some have submitted waiver requests to the USDA while others are considering bills.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Nearly 700,000 Americans Lose Health Care Coverage in 2025
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Almost 700,000 Americans lost Medicaid coverage in one month at the start of this year, according to new enrollment data compiled by KFF. The significant drop in Medicaid enrollment in January from December 2024 is part of a long-term trend amid the continuation of the federal program's "unwinding" process, which began after pandemic-era protections ended. Enrollment was still higher in January than it was in February 2020. Why It Matters The data highlights the continued ripple effects of the Medicaid policy shift, with millions more likely to be affected in the months ahead—particularly low-income families, children, and older adults who rely on Medicaid for basic care access. Health care experts and advocates warn that the unwinding process is opening large gaps in the U.S. health care system, with many falling through the cracks due to administrative barriers or lack of communication, not because they no longer qualify. File photo: people block a street during a protest over proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. File photo: people block a street during a protest over proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. Rick Bowmer/AP What to Know Data collected by KFF shows that from December 2024 to January 2025, Medicaid enrollment dropped by 669,938, bringing the total number of Americans enrolled in Medicaid to around 71.2 million. While this number remains high, it reflects a steady monthly decline that began in 2023 when states resumed redeterminations, where they checked whether enrollees were still eligible for benefits. The process had been paused during the COVID-19 public health emergency alongside an expansion to the federal protection available for vulnerable Americans with limited income and resources. When those protections were lifted following the pandemic, millions faced the risk of being disenrolled—not just due to income changes, but because of paperwork errors, missed deadlines, or outdated contact information. According to KFF's data, more than 16 million people have been disenrolled from Medicaid since the unwinding began in the spring of 2023. An April 2024 survey by KFF of 1,227 U.S. adults who had Medicaid coverage in prior to April 1, 2023, found that 28 percent of former enrolees found other forms of health coverage, while 47 percent were eventually re-enrolled to Medicaid. Around a quarter of enrolees reported as remaining uninsured. States like Montana, Tennessee and Colorado have seen some of the largest decreases in enrollment, with levels in January 2025 dropping below pre-pandemic levels. What People Are Saying William Schpero, assistant professor of population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, told Newsweek: "This is evidence that we are likely still seeing the effects of the end of the continuous coverage provisions in place during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency that paused redeterminations of Medicaid eligibility. During the 'unwinding' of continuous coverage through September 2024, close to 70 percent of those who lost coverage were disenrolled for purely procedural reasons—for example, they missed a required renewal form because of a change in address. Many of these people likely remained eligible for Medicaid." He added: "It would be particularly concerning if procedural terminations continue to underlie the latest reported decreases in Medicaid enrollment. It suggests that states can be doing more to prevent avoidable losses of coverage. Research has estimated that a large portion of individuals who have lost Medicaid in recent months have become uninsured or experienced gaps in coverage. We have consistent evidence that loss of Medicaid coverage interrupts access to care — without coverage, people forgo visiting the doctor or taking their prescribed medications due to cost. Ultimately this will hurt health outcomes." Kathleen Adams, professor of health policy and management at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health, Georgia, told Newsweek: "We are always concerned with the loss of insurance coverage, especially among the lower income and vulnerable groups traditionally served by Medicaid. If these individuals are not able to find a source of other coverage such as Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI) or through the subsidized exchanges, they will have lower access to needed health care, face higher costs if they obtain care and could impose costs on the health care system as they are forced to seek care in ERs or other publicly subsidized sources of care." She added: "The unwinding has taken place over a year and as the report notes, Medicaid enrollment is still higher now than in the pre-pandemic period. It is also important to note the differences seen across states. Some states that had not expanded Medicaid under the ACA did so recently and many of them show the largest increases in enrollment from their pre-pandemic levels. Currently, the concerns with Medicaid enrollment are with the administration's proposed changes to Medicaid eligibility which some states are already seeking to implement." What's Next Unless policies change, experts project that millions more Americans may lose health coverage through 2025, not just due to changes in eligibility requirements, but also because of bureaucratic hurdles.
