SNAP Soda Bans: 18 States Open for Comment After a 12% Sales Drop

On September 15, 2026, the USDA published notices inviting public comment on SNAP demonstration waivers from 18 states that restrict soda and other sweetened products. Comments are due October 15, 2026. The notices land weeks after an August 2026 working paper found a 12.4 percent drop in purchases of the restricted drinks in the first states to try it.

Key takeaways:

• The USDA opened a 30-day public comment period on September 15, 2026, running through October 15, 2026, across 18 proposed state demonstration projects.
• A working paper by economists at Stanford and MIT, published by the University of Chicago's Becker Friedman Institute, found a 12.4 percent decline in purchases of restricted drinks in early 2026 across the first 10 participating states, representing about 34 fewer 12-ounce cans per recipient annually.
• The economic model projects approximately 1.1 billion dollars in annual net benefits under a nationwide policy, with roughly 70 percent attributed to predicted health-care savings.
• Product definitions differ by state: most states with restrictions also exclude diet drinks, so a zero-sugar soda is not automatically SNAP-eligible.
• Participants reported increased checkout stigma, alongside partial category substitution toward non-restricted sweetened beverages.

What happened

On September 15, 2026, the USDA published 18 official notices in the Federal Register inviting public feedback on state-level SNAP demonstration project requests. The state proposals under review originate from Ohio, South Carolina, Louisiana, Indiana, Utah, Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Hawaii, Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Wyoming, Nevada, Virginia, and North Dakota. Members of the public, retailers, and public health advocates have until October 15, 2026, to submit formal comments.

Filing instructions are in each notice; see, for example, the South Carolina Federal Register notice. Until 2025, USDA policy did not allow states to limit what SNAP could buy beyond the statutory exclusions such as alcohol and hot prepared foods; these waivers are framed as demonstrations to test whether excluding sweetened drinks changes diets. Each state design operates as an independent demonstration waiver rather than a single unified federal rule.

Anyone can comment, by following the instructions in the notice for the state they care about, before the October 15, 2026 deadline.

What changed?

Alongside the federal notices, an August 2026 working paper from the Becker Friedman Institute (BFI Working Paper No. 2026-115) provided the first empirical look at how these restrictions function in practice. Co-authored by economists Hunt Allcott, Amy Finkelstein, Anna Grummon, and Matthew Notowidigdo, the analysis used grocery purchase panel data from about 15,000 SNAP households from January 2025 to June 2026, covering the staggered roll-out in the first 10 states during the first half of 2026, plus surveys of about 9,000 panelists. The authors pre-registered their analysis plan.

As documented in the BFI working paper, the authors determined that overall purchases of targeted drinks dropped by 12.4 percent in those initial states. That works out to about 404 fluid ounces, or roughly 34 twelve-ounce cans, per covered person per year. The authors could rule out substantial substitution to soda bought at restaurants or to sugary foods bought at retail.

However, the paper identified notable unintended consequences. When waiver rules excluded traditional carbonated soft drinks but left other categories untouched, consumers engaged in partial substitution. In states that excluded only some sugary drink categories (for example soda but not energy drinks or fruit drinks), recipients diverted up to 39 percent of the calorie reduction to non-excluded sugary drinks and fruit juices.

Additionally, the working paper modeled national economic outcomes, estimating roughly 1.1 billion dollars in net annual benefits if such restrictions were expanded across the entire country. The researchers projected that approximately 70 percent of those quantified gains would stem from reduced long-term healthcare expenses associated with lower refined sugar consumption, with the remaining 30 percent coming from consumer welfare gains from drinking fewer sugary drinks.

Who is affected?

This policy landscape directly impacts grocery retailers, packaged beverage manufacturers, and the more than 40 million Americans who receive SNAP, including those in the 18 named states. Legal challenges are part of the picture: trade reporting in June 2026 described a court ruling that vacated restrictions in several states.

Retailers carry much of the operational load, because the register has to decide item by item whether a product can be paid for with SNAP benefits under that state's definition.

Shoppers also face practical and psychological adjustments. The BFI surveys found small increases in SNAP recipients' perceptions of stigma after the restrictions took effect; the same surveys found that about 60 percent of recipients reported wanting to consume fewer sugary drinks.

What it means for shoppers?

For shoppers on the grocery floor, the central challenge is that beverage eligibility criteria vary significantly by jurisdiction. There is no single national list of approved or unapproved drinks. Instead, the boundary line depends on how each state drafted its waiver application.

For example, South Carolina's approved waiver language explicitly excludes candy, energy drinks, soft drinks, and sweetened beverages. In contrast, Ohio's waiver focuses narrowly on sugar-sweetened beverages. This variation creates sharp category divides:

• Regular soda: excluded in every state with a restriction, according to the BFI paper.
• Diet soda: excluded in most restricting states, but not in states whose rule targets only sugar-sweetened drinks.
• Energy drinks and fruit drinks: excluded in some states and not others; check your state's notice.
• 100 percent juice and milk: generally treated differently from sweetened drinks, but read your state's definition rather than assuming.

To determine how a drink is classified, consumers must consult the product label directly. The critical marker is the Nutrition Facts panel, specifically the "Includes Added Sugars" sub-line under Total Carbohydrates. In a state that targets sugar-sweetened beverages, a drink with added sugars is the kind of product the rule is aimed at, though each state's exact definition decides.

When a state regulates all sweetened drinks, shoppers must examine the ingredient statement for alternative sweetening agents. Ingredients like sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, stevia leaf extract, and monk fruit extract establish that a product is sweetened, even if the added-sugars line reads zero grams. Allulose is a special case, since courts and the FDA treat it differently on the label; see Court Says Allulose Is a Sugar. 'Zero Sugar' Labels Are in Trouble.

States are also changing what public programs serve; see Texas School Lunches Now Ban 17 Additives. Here Is the List. In retail grocery, navigating these boundaries requires careful attention to both the front-of-package claims and the fine print on the back.

The background

SNAP was originally designed to provide broad food purchasing power to low-income households, allowing families to select any non-prepared grocery food item intended for home consumption. Several states asked to exclude foods deemed unhealthy over the years and were refused by the federal government, partly over concerns about stigma.

Pressure to amend program rules increased over the last decade as metabolic health research focused on liquid calories. Health policy advocates argued that subsidizing sugar-sweetened beverages contradicted broader federal dietary advice, while anti-hunger advocates argued that item-level restrictions create unnecessary dignity barriers and do not resolve systemic food insecurity.

The debate has intensified in tandem with federal nutrition policy revisions, echoing broader questions analyzed in Dietary Guidelines Name 4 Things No Food Label Shows. The 18 proposals now open for comment continue that state-by-state demonstration approach.

What to watch next

The public comment window on the 18 state waivers remains open through October 15, 2026. Following the close of the docket, the USDA will review the submissions for each state's demonstration.

It is essential to note that the BFI findings represent an early working paper that has not yet completed academic peer review. The statistical models reflect early program performance from the initial 10 participating states, and the authors noted that evidence cannot yet establish long-term health outcomes, clinical markers, or behavior across populations not covered in the early dataset. Further empirical evaluation will be required to confirm whether the 12.4 percent drop in purchases persists over multi-year periods.

Shoppers, grocers, and community organizations can monitor the Federal Register for upcoming agency determinations and formal implementation dates. In the interim, verifying packaging remains the most dependable way to spot added sugars and alternative sweeteners on store shelves.

Want to see which sweeteners are in the drinks you buy? Scan them with Aurascan, a free food-label scanner in beta that explains every ingredient with cited evidence.