What do you think?

 

 

You can generally buy junk food with Food Stamps (SNAP), but this is changing in 2026 as 18 states (like TX, FL, LA, CO) have received USDA waivers to restrict sodas, candy, energy drinks, and sugary snacks, targeting high-calorie, low-nutrient items to promote healthier eating, though exact rules vary by state. Traditionally, almost any food with a nutrition label was allowed, but these new "Make America Healthy Again" waivers limit specific processed snacks and sugary drinks, impacting millions of recipients. 

What's Generally Allowed (But May Change):

• Snacks: Chips, cookies, popcorn, candy, ice cream, chocolate.
• Drinks: Soda, energy drinks, sweetened beverages (often restricted).
• Prepared Foods: Some frozen meals or desserts (often restricted). 

New Restrictions Starting in 2026 (Examples):

• Prohibited Items: Soda, energy drinks, candy, prepared desserts, drinks with added sugar or artificial sweeteners, and fruit drinks with less than 50% natural juice.
• Targeted States: Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 

How It Works:

• SNAP Waivers: The USDA empowers states to manage their own programs by approving these waivers, which restrict "non-nutritious items".
• State-Specific Rules: Each state defines its banned items differently, so check your state's specific list for accurate information. 

In Summary: If you're in one of the 18 states implementing these rules, expect less availability for typical junk foods like soda and candy with your EBT card starting in 2026. 

Popcorn if just the kernels to pop is not junk food.

I don't like demonizing people needing food assistance.

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Now you want to dictate like Big Brother Karens to people what they're allowed to eat?

Make up your minds.

Of course I would hope everyone on assistance or not makes healthier food choices. But this policy just sounds mean and another way to trash poor people.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Popcorn if just the kernels to pop is not junk food.

I don't like demonizing people needing food assistance.

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Now you want to dictate like Big Brother Karens to people what they're allowed to eat?

Make up your minds.

Of course I would hope everyone on assistance or not makes healthier food choices. But this policy just sounds mean and another way to trash poor people.

Folks on SNAP benefits have a higher rate of obesity.

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Folks on SNAP benefits have a higher rate of obesity.

I wouldn't be surprised.

What else do you want to dictate to poor people?

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What else do you want to dictate to poor people?

 

Safe and effectives ?

Yeah, you could put a negative spin on this.

But why waste taxpayer money on junk food? junk food is not a basic necessity. 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I wouldn't be surprised.

What else do you want to dictate to poor people?

Drug screen for benefits 

There was a time when folks were ashamed using food stamps. Now it's looked upon as a right. Taxpayers owe me.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Yes, but they disagree with foodstamps anyway.

 

It sounds good to me. If you need food assistance, which can happen so i agree with the stamps, make sure it's healthy.

As the billionaires move towards being trillionaires, its poor folk on SNAP that are the problem.

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As the billionaires move towards being trillionaires, its poor folk on SNAP that are the problem.

Exactly.

The cruel double standard hypocrisy is epic.

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As the billionaires move towards being trillionaires, its poor folk on SNAP that are the problem.

Not everyone is a billionaire in the USA. Majority are hard working folks who maybe tired of their taxes going to support the obese SNAP recipients buying frozen meals and all the things which many hard working adults can't afford.

Since SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), I think it should only allow whole foods, raw ingredients only to be purchased under the program.  

 

No processed foods, or alcohol & cigarettes or such, that may or may not be keyed in the computers as such.

 

Living among Section 8 dwellers in the past, I know first hand how the program was abused, both Sec 8 & Food Stamp (SNAP's previous name) program.

16 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Yeah, you could put a negative spin on this.

But why waste taxpayer money on junk food? junk food is not a basic necessity. 

 

 

i'd hazard a guess that these folks aren't eating junk food as luxury but as their basic staple diet, while not in favour generally of the nanny state sometimes people have to be saved from their own laziness, ignorance and/or stupidity

21 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Not everyone is a billionaire in the USA. Majority are hard working folks who maybe tired of their taxes going to support the obese SNAP recipients buying frozen meals and all the things which many hard working adults can't afford.

Precisely.

 

The very few Billionaires have convinced you that poor recipients of SNAP are the problem.

 

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

9 minutes ago, it is what it is said:

 

i'd hazard a guess that these folks aren't eating junk food as luxury but as their basic staple diet, while not in favour generally of the nanny state sometimes people have to be saved from their own laziness, ignorance and/or stupidity

How about what’s marketed to them by the junk food producers.

 

Do you think that might play a role?

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How about what’s marketed to them by the junk food producers.

 

Do you think that might play a role?

 

 

 

 

If you are easily fooled by slick marketing, that's your problem. 

 

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Popcorn if just the kernels to pop is not junk food.

I don't like demonizing people needing food assistance.

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Now you want to dictate like Big Brother Karens to people what they're allowed to eat?

Make up your minds.

Of course I would hope everyone on assistance or not makes healthier food choices. But this policy just sounds mean and another way to trash poor people.

 

People with lower incomes tend to have higher obesity rates, which negatively impacts both their health and the funding for their healthcare. If they prefer not to receive dietary guidance, they can use their financial resources to purchase food.

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/snap-obesity

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Precisely.

 

The very few Billionaires have convinced you that poor recipients of SNAP are the problem.

 

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Oh yea, it's the fault of of the Billionaires.  Oh yea. 

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Exactly.

The cruel double standard hypocrisy is epic.

It's cruel to attempt to to push people into a better diet?  Really? 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How about what’s marketed to them by the junk food producers.

 

Do you think that might play a role?

                  The power of advertising is well known,  of course marketing plays a role in what people are going to eat, lets face it , if it wasn't for marketing very few people would choose to eat a lot of the rubbish that they do.                         

                  Whether the "challenged" recipients of free food coupons are more susceptible to these marketing techniques is another matter, but placing this junk out of their reach  effectively negates the effects of such marketing on them

                   If people are going to receive free food from the state they should expect to be given only  healthy nutritious food and not the processed crap they have developed a taste for , after all, as they say beggars can't be choosers.  ( you won't like that bit for sure)

                   This is actually a win win situation for the poor, they will be eating healthily, and buying the basic raw ingredients and cooking a meal from them will of course work out a lot cheaper too, a valuable skill will be learnt ,which will help them enormously if they ever come off benefits, which should of course be the long term aim 

                     I honestly cannot find anything negative about this, it comes down to "cruel love" sometimes people need helping to help themselves. It's no different to anti smoking regs or drink driving regs , 

                    It's pretty obvious any objection you might have to this is based purely on your fanatical  dislike of the current administration and its leader. Your delirious ranting about billionaires and trillionaires is nothing short of bizarre 

                     Had this change regarding the use of food coupons occurred under the direction of a Kamala Harris lead administration you would be hailing it as the best thing since "sliced bread"  and  don't insult my or anybody else's  intelligence by trying to claim otherwise,

                    A classic case on your behalf of "credibility lost"

           

17 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

What do you think?

 

 

You can generally buy junk food with Food Stamps (SNAP), but this is changing in 2026 as 18 states (like TX, FL, LA, CO) have received USDA waivers to restrict sodas, candy, energy drinks, and sugary snacks, targeting high-calorie, low-nutrient items to promote healthier eating, though exact rules vary by state. Traditionally, almost any food with a nutrition label was allowed, but these new "Make America Healthy Again" waivers limit specific processed snacks and sugary drinks, impacting millions of recipients. 

What's Generally Allowed (But May Change):

• Snacks: Chips, cookies, popcorn, candy, ice cream, chocolate.
• Drinks: Soda, energy drinks, sweetened beverages (often restricted).
• Prepared Foods: Some frozen meals or desserts (often restricted). 

New Restrictions Starting in 2026 (Examples):

• Prohibited Items: Soda, energy drinks, candy, prepared desserts, drinks with added sugar or artificial sweeteners, and fruit drinks with less than 50% natural juice.
• Targeted States: Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 

How It Works:

• SNAP Waivers: The USDA empowers states to manage their own programs by approving these waivers, which restrict "non-nutritious items".
• State-Specific Rules: Each state defines its banned items differently, so check your state's specific list for accurate information. 

In Summary: If you're in one of the 18 states implementing these rules, expect less availability for typical junk foods like soda and candy with your EBT card starting in 2026. 

They should ban this kind of junkfood world wide!

The world would be a much healthier place and billions of dollars can be saved on health care.

How ever the "food" lobby is very powerful! 

25 minutes ago, TedG said:

It's cruel to attempt to to push people into a better diet?  Really? 

Its not the first time that attempts to improve diet , with the intention of making the American people healthier, has been met with opposition from the leftists and Trump haters.   Tells us a lot

7 minutes ago, jvs said:

They should ban this kind of junkfood world wide!

The world would be a much healthier place and billions of dollars can be saved on health care.

How ever the "food" lobby is very powerful! 

its impossible for anybody , left or right to disagree with a word of what you wrote, and not appear to be stark raving mad.    Why is it even possible for a "food lobby" to be allowed to exist?   Nobody would entertain the existence of a pro drink driving lobby or a hard drugs lobby    

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Precisely.

 

The very few Billionaires have convinced you that poor recipients of SNAP are the problem.

 

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

What are you on about? Your hatred of the rich is evident. It's the working class who are upset. You'd know if you had ever stood in line at a US grocery store.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How about what’s marketed to them by the junk food producers.

 

Do you think that might play a role?

 

 

 

it's always someone else's fault with you. 

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Exactly.

The cruel double standard hypocrisy is epic.

what hypocrisy is evident in helping people make healthy choices,  choices that they themselves have difficulty  making   when faced with the onslaught of marketing and advertising by the food industry ?  the only thing epic is your refusal to accept that this is a positive move 

 

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Popcorn if just the kernels to pop is not junk food.

I don't like demonizing people needing food assistance.

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Now you want to dictate like Big Brother Karens to people what they're allowed to eat?

Make up your minds.

Of course I would hope everyone on assistance or not makes healthier food choices. But this policy just sounds mean and another way to trash poor people.

So by your argument "let them eat popcorn  (and burgers) if that's what they want "  would be an acceptable message to send out ? just as long as it did not come from the current administration of course

Ps   no poor people are getting trashed , quite the opposite

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I wouldn't be surprised.

What else do you want to dictate to poor people?

 

Procreation rights 

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Popcorn if just the kernels to pop is not junk food.

I don't like demonizing people needing food assistance.

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Now you want to dictate like Big Brother Karens to people what they're allowed to eat?

Make up your minds.

Of course I would hope everyone on assistance or not makes healthier food choices. But this policy just sounds mean and another way to trash poor people.

Judging from what I have seen at checkout, many people using SNAP to pay for junk food are horribly overweight.  If they qualify for Food Stamps they most likely qualify for Medicaid.  Why should my tax dollars pay for this?

3 minutes ago, Celsius said:

 

Procreation rights 

That has been voiced on here before by a very extreme liberal. 555

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Popcorn if just the kernels to pop is not junk food.

I don't like demonizing people needing food assistance.

I thought right wingers were for freedom and smaller government.

Now you want to dictate like Big Brother Karens to people what they're allowed to eat?

Make up your minds.

Of course I would hope everyone on assistance or not makes healthier food choices. But this policy just sounds mean and another way to trash poor people.

Bs. It is a very good idea. Stop the fatties bearing down on the system so much. Why should my hard-earned dollars pay for some layabout (yes, many of them are) to stuff their face with junk? But why would one even bring politics into it—left, right blah blah? Hate to say it, well not really, but only a left wing mindset would take issue with this kind of thing. Incredible.