Six More States Can Now Ban Junk Food Purchases With SNAP Benefits
USDA officials approved waivers for six more states to restrict junk food purchases with SNAP benefits. Beginning in 2026, recipients in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Colorado will no longer use SNAP cards for soda, candy, prepared desserts, or energy drinks.
The policy change expands an initiative first launched under Trump's 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign—aimed at curbing diet-related illnesses among low-income households. State Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins praised the move as a public health victory.
With the new approvals, a total of 12 states now have USDA waivers in place. Earlier approvals covered Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah. Each state sets its own rules on restricted items.
We care about your data. See our privacy policy.
Supporters say the new rules help steer taxpayer funds toward nutritious foods. Critics argue they unfairly limit choices and do little to address food deserts. SNAP still covers staples like fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains, meats, and many non-processed foods.
The move will impact more than 8.5 million Americans who rely on SNAP statewide. SNAP currently benefits over 40 million people nationwide. Retailers in impacted states will need to update item-level systems by 2026 to enforce the bans.
This shift marks a growing trend toward state control of SNAP policy. As more states explore behavioral nutrition requirements, local communities and grocery programs may need to adjust quickly.
Trump Demands Probe Into Beyoncé, Springsteen Campaign Appearances
Trump's Tarriffs Force Stocks Into Freefall
Donald Trump Claims Jeffrey Epstein 'Stole' His Young Mar-A-Lago Spa Workers
SEE ALSO
Six More States Can Now Ban Junk Food Purchases With SNAP Benefits was originally published on newstalkcleveland.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
I'm 54 and sleep 8 straight hours a night — the top 6 things you need to do for better rest
Americans, by and large, are starved for sleep. While seven to nine hours of sleep a night is generally recommended, a survey by US News revealed 58% of us sleep six to seven hours a night, while one in five is only clocking four to five hours of shut-eye. To close that yawning gap, one woman is sharing her tips for getting a solid eight — even in her 50s, when sleep can often be tougher to come by. Advertisement 'How do I at 54 and a half years old, sleep through the night for 8 hours without even getting up to go pee?,' questioned Heather Gordon. 'Let me tell you the top things that you need to do.' 3 To maximize rest, Gordon recommends going to bed and waking up at the same time every day. tiktok/@prettysickheather_ Say no to co-sleeping Gordon's number one rule for a peaceful night's sleep? Solo slumber. 'If you want to sleep through the night, don't co-sleep if possible. It's disturbing to everybody. Sleep by yourself. Sorry, that's the truth.' Advertisement According to a recent survey by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), an estimated one in three Americans is regularly sleeping in a separate bed from their partner — a move dubbed 'sleep divorce.' Research from the University of Michigan finds that it's more beneficial for couples to sleep apart than together, if a disruption-free eight hours is the goal. 'We know that poor sleep can worsen your mood, and those who are sleep deprived are more likely to argue with their partners,' said Dr. Seema Khosla, a pulmonologist and spokesperson for the AASM. Maintain a consistent sleep routine Advertisement To maximize rest, Gordon recommends going to bed and waking up at the same time every day, advice echoed by others. 'Consistency is a huge key,' Dr. Dylan Petkus, a sleep specialist and founder of Optimal Circadian Health in Florida, previously told The Post. 'Going to bed at the same time every night helps your body find its rhythm.' Figuring out your ideal bedtime is 'part science, part self-awareness.' He suggests using your desired wake-up time to calculate your perfect lights-out time. If you need to wake up at 7 a.m. and you want to get eight hours in, aim for a bedtime of 11 p.m. — and stick to it. Advertisement 3 Darkness helps the body maintain its circadian rhythm through the production of melatonin. Tyas Indayanti – Black out the bedroom In addition to blackout curtains, Morgan recommends covering any light sources in the bedroom. 'I am such a crazy person that I even put black electrical tape over the television power button and the smoke detector,' she said. Darkness helps the body maintain its circadian rhythm through the production of melatonin. Light can interfere with this process, making it harder to fall asleep and stay asleep. One study found that using a night light sparks shallow sleep and frequent awakenings, while another determined that street lamps can lead to less sleep. Take magnesium glycinate before bed Gordon recommends taking two capsules, the equivalent of 200 milligrams of magnesium glycinate, before bed. Advertisement Magnesium glycinate is a type of magnesium that binds to the amino acid glycine, which helps your body absorb it more easily, and which in itself has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Magnesium plays a crucial role in hundreds of bodily functions, including reducing stress, relaxing muscles, and regulating your sleep-wake cycle. Some studies have found that supplementation improved sleep quality in older adults and people with insomnia, especially those with magnesium deficiencies. Have a dash of salt water Advertisement Gordon chases that magnesium glycinate with a shot of salt water. 'You need salt. You need to drink salt water before bed. I take some Baja Gold sea salt in a little bit of warm water, and I take my magnesium with my salt water,' she said. She claims that salt water boosts blood volume, hydrates the body, and eliminates the need to pee in the middle of the night. 'It's going to take any liquids and push them into your tissues and your cells instead of into your bladder.' Advertisement 3 For those who need a wake-up call, she suggests setting an alarm on your phone and placing it in the bathroom or wrapping it in a t-shirt or blanket. Andrey Popov – Take your clock out of your room Morgan insists that a clock in the bedroom operates as the enemy of sleep: 'You're gonna take your clock out of your room. You don't need to know what time it is. It's f–king time to sleep.' For those who need a wake-up call, she suggests setting an alarm on your phone and placing it in the bathroom or wrapping it in a t-shirt or blanket. Advertisement She explained that if you do wake up in the middle of the night, looking at the clock is a stress trigger. 'You start stressing yourself out. Like, oh, it's 4 in the morning, I'm gonna be so tired tomorrow if I don't fall back to sleep.'
Buzz Feed
4 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Voter Regrets Vote Due To Rising Medication Prices
A Facebook post written by a self-proclaimed MAGA voter who says she and her partner can no longer afford their imported medications due to Donald Trump's tariffs is going viral. At the start of the post, the MAGA voter expressed her anger with President Trump and his ongoing tariff war that has increased the prices of imported goods in the US. She said, "He should take his tariffs and shove them up his ass!" She then broke down the cost of her and her partner's medications in the US, which amounts to over $500 for each of them with Medicare. She said they'd been buying their medications from Canada or the UK to save money.... But that changed when the Canadian company purportedly increased its prices by $80-100 per month to offset Trump's tariffs. "I voted for Trump, I truly wish I had not making America Great Again, but he sure is making it more expensive," she wrote. In response to the posts, people had a range of opinions, with some defending President Trump... "You can't blame the president for the high drug pricing," one person commented on the original post. "It is not Trumps fault you cannot figure this out," another wrote. While others blamed the original poster for her voting decisions... "If you cannot afford your medications, why would you vote for any Republican ever??? The Democratic platform has been lowered costs for healthcare FOR DECADES," one user questioned. "I wish I had more sympathy. That went away in Nov. They are getting exactly what they voted told them this time was different," another person wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Claiming to fight waste, Trump administration slashes potentially cost-saving research
Harvard researchers had spent five years and some $3.8 million from the National Institutes of Health trying to answer this question when Mueller heard that the study might never yield results. In May, amid a feud with the university, the Trump administration abruptly terminated the grant that was funding it with one year and some $734,000 still to go. Without that time and money, pulmonologist Mary Berlik Rice and her team couldn't collect the final bits of data or analyze what they'd found. The clinical trial needed outcomes from a minimum number of participants to be able to conclude anything with any statistical significance. Advertisement 'It's a waste,' said Mueller — of taxpayer money, of everyone's time, of blood and tissue samples. N. Mueller sat beside the air purifier he was loaned as part of the study, which may or may not be functional. Lucy Lu for STAT That alone might seem to conflict with President Trump's stated goal of fighting 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' But scientists and participants like Mueller see another irony. The entire premise of this sort of study is that it might curb future waste. Advertisement It's a pillar of public health: Healthier people cost less. Figure out what could keep them well, and the government money spent on the discovery may well be dwarfed by the amount saved in hospitalizations and prescriptions averted. One of the most famous examples involves central venous catheters, thin tubes that intensive care doctors put into a patient's neck, chest, or groin to give fluids and medications or to draw blood. Those lines allow access to the bloodstream — but also pose an infection risk, creating a conduit that bacteria can take from the outside world into the veins. Such complications were both scary and common. In the early 2000s, they killed some 28,000 American ICU patients and cost $2.3 billion dollars every year. But then in 2006, a paper came out showing that the infections were avoidable. Led by intensive care specialist Peter Pronovost, a team of researchers tried out a simple solution in Michigan hospitals, instituting a checklist of risk-reducing hacks. These included clinicians washing their hands before inserting central lines; cleaning the patient's skin with a disinfectant called chlorhexidine; wearing sterile hair-coverings, masks, gowns, and gloves; using blood vessels in the neck or chest rather than the groin; and taking out catheters when they were no longer needed. Duh, you might say. But the infection rate fell dramatically. Within 18 months, it was near zero, and the intervention was estimated to have saved $100 million and 1,500 lives. 'I don't know how to describe how jaw-dropping this was,' said Leora Horwitz, a hospitalist in New York who studies how health care can be improved. 'This was like a shockwave of a paper.' Advertisement Pronovost says none of that could have happened without a grant of $500,000 a year for two years from a federal bureau called the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is dedicated to improving the delivery of medical care to patients and represents about 0.04 percent of the government's spending on health care. 'AHRQ pays for itself over and over again with studies like that,' said Horwitz. But the agency hasn't been spared in the Trump administration's slashing of federal research funding and the employees who administer it. Over a third of its employees were laid off in April, and the administration said it would be merged with another office within the Department of Health and Human Services. The effects of such cutbacks have been felt in the last few weeks. 'As a result of recent reduction in force at HHS, AHRQ's grants management staff were separated from Federal service on July 14, 2025,' one of the agency's directors wrote in an email to recipients of a grant for training new researchers, 'We are currently unable to process grant awards.' Signage for the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters was seen on April 2 in Washington, D.C. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Pronovost, now the chief quality and clinical transformation officer for the University Hospitals Cleveland, worries about the agency's decimation. His landmark 2006 paper can seem almost dull. It was partially about handwashing reminders and antiseptic usage. It was neither rocket science, nor a blockbuster drug. Nor, for that matter, does it sound like the 'edge science.' But it worked. When Pronovost sees package-delivery companies providing nearly flawless services, he knows that doesn't happen by accident; it happens through a management system. Every time there's a breakdown in what's supposed to happen — a box falling off a conveyor belt, say — there's a notification and an action taken, and if an action isn't taken, then there's an escalation. That was how he helped reduce his hospitals' Medicare expenditures by around 30 percent in 2023, a model that might save estimated $250 billion if applied nationwide. Advertisement Duke University hematologist Charity Oyedeji is pursuing research into measuring and hopefully preventing the functional impairment of adults with sickle cell disease. It started when she noticed just how dramatically her patients' biological ages outstripped their chronological ones. A 50-year-old reported difficulty getting on and off the toilet. A 20-something told her it was hard to reach up and get cups from the cupboard. She wondered whether tailored-to-your-ability exercise programs that have been shown to reduce frailty in older adults might help these people, too. It could improve quality of life and save money at the same time. 'We're trying to intervene early so we can improve their health span,' said Oyedeji, who was speaking in her personal capacity and not on behalf of her employer. 'We want to increase the number of good years that they have.' Oyedeji was in the second year of five — and had spent $300,000 of the $750,000 the NIH had allotted her — when her grant was terminated in June, years before she'd be able to reach any helpful conclusions. When asked about the cancellation of Oyedeji's grant, an HHS spokesperson wrote that the study has 'value,' but that 'it was funded under an inappropriate and ideologically driven — rather than scientifically driven — DEI program under the Biden administration.' Advertisement Researchers don't want to see their work — and participants' time — go to waste. Rice, the Harvard pulmonologist, has been able to scrape together enough money from the university to answer only a third of the questions that the NIH funded her to address. Spending $3.8 million to study how air purifiers could improve a specific type of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease might sound like a lot — and yet the illness itself costs some $24 billion a year in the US, which includes $11.9 billion in prescription drug expenses and $6.3 billion in hospital stays. 'We're throwing a lot of drugs at this,' said Rice, 'but I've found in my prior work that this group is especially susceptible to air pollution, and that led me to propose this trial to see if we could prevent some of the noxious exposures that trigger this severe disease.' To Mueller, 65, the idea made sense. Regular oil changes are ultimately cheaper than needing to get your engine replaced. He didn't want his breathing to worsen if he could help it, but that wasn't why he'd signed up for this trial. He hoped that by giving his time and nasal tissue, the benefits might be multiplied, spread out among others with the same disease, such that the scarring in their lungs could be held at bay. Of course, there might not be any benefit. That was the whole point, the reason for the trial, for the $3.8 million and five years of work. The researchers would only know at the end — if there was an end.
