SNAP Recipients Fight Back In Junk Food Crackdown

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Mar 12, 2026 at 06:43 AM EDT updated Mar 12, 2026 at 08:35 AM EDT


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that new restrictions on what they can purchase with the benefits are unlawful and harmful to people who rely on the program.

Five plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, seeking to halt and then overturn SNAP "waivers" that block benefits being used to purchase foods considered low in nutritional value, such as candy and as sugary drinks. The USDA told Newsweek on Thursday it will "not comment on pending litigation."

Why It Matters

New food restrictions waivers have been approved in 22 states, with several already implementing the new blocks. The changes impact millions of low- and no-income Americans who depend on benefits to buy groceries.

The case challenges a policy shift backed by officials in the Trump administration that supporters say is intended to promote healthier diets. The plaintiffs argue the restrictions make it harder for families to access food and manage health conditions, while also creating confusion for shoppers at grocery store checkouts.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/snap-recipients-fight-back-junk-food-ban-waiver-lawsuit-11664497

---

Link to SUIT (PDF viewer) is here

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Sugar may not be the main problem

There are dozens of other additives that amount to some altered form of sweetener ... polysaccharides, gums of many varieties, modified food starch to name a few. They alter gut bacteria. We weren't meant to eat this stuff.

[niyad]

20. see post 15

[twodogsbarking]

2. Just give them the fucking money. They spend more money "discussing" it than it costs.

Maybe it isn't even about the money.

[niyad]

11. It is, and always has been, about control, shaming, and, to a great degree, misogyny,

since it is assumed that women do most of the grocery shopping. And we KNOW women cannot make intelligent decisions on their own.

[FadedMullet]

3. My sympathies would revolve around a better understanding of "access food", "manage health conditions" and......

......"create confusion". Call me a reactionary, but there is nothing wrong with the public buying good food for the poor, instead of "All-American" junk food.

[choie]

5. Do we get a say in what type of food the military is served?

Why should we do so with SNAP? Or is it because snap benefits “the poors”?

[SunSeeker]

9. These rules would prevent a family from using SNAP to buy a birthday cake for their kids.

I survived on food stamps as a kid, I know it was humiliating enough for my mom to pay with food stamps. To not even be able to buy your kid a birthday cake is just too much.

[niyad]

19. see post 15

[Jacson6]

4. I don't know...

I receive a small stipend of SNAP each month as a retired OM that I use to buy chicken, hamburger and staple to last through the month. IME.

[niyad]

21. See post 15

[Torchlight]

6. I'll pay attention to the counter-arguments when healthy food

is as affordable as many junk foods. Until then, they sound little more like sanctimonious attempts to tell others how to better live their lives than rational, thought-out positions. As long as luxury jets with bedrooms for officials are so common, I'll look at cutting costs there rather than scrutinizing the dining tables of people whose circumstances I don’t know.

[quaint]

7. You nailed it "when healthy food is as affordable as many junk foods"

[niyad]

18. THANK YOU!!!

[cstanleytech]

8. I'm not against junk food restrictions but I support an increase in the amount provided as eating healthy isn't cheap.

I'd say an increase of an minimum of 200 a month per child for produce would probably help a lot.

[niyad]

17. See post 15.

[BaronChocula]

10. "The five plaintiffs--who live in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia..."

I'll just put that there.

[niyad]

12. Really.?? What, exactly, are we to understand by that?

[BaronChocula]

13. With the exception of Colorado

these are "red states" going back at least three presidential elections. Simpleton magas would probably least expect this much pushback from ordinarily "safe zones."

[niyad]

16. Then why include Colorado?

[BaronChocula]

22. It was taken verbatim from the article

That's why it was in quotes.

[niyad]

23. Thank you.

[BaronChocula]

24. ...

[70sEraVet]

14. The story they want to push with these restrictions,

is that poor people are undeserving. New restrictions, but an old tradition.

[niyad]

15. Before I start screaming about the self-righteous sanctimony and

virtue signalling that seems to surround every discussion about "healthy eating" and "junk food restrictions", wherever they occur, I would like people to keep in mind one little fact. Many people live in the "food deserts", meaning there are no grocery stores within ten miles. The ONLY access to any kind of food in those areas is convenience stores, with their limited choices. And before I hear anything about "just get on a bus", as one pontificator snarled at me several years ago in a meeting, many of those same areas do not have decent public transit, either. And, even if there is, hauling bags of groceries on and off buses, particularly if one has to transfer, or has mobility isssues, is not a picnic.

When one defends all these restrictions, whatever one's stated reason, one must ask oneself why it is okay to tell these people what they may, or may not, purchase with OUR money. Does one tell the military how to spend the trillions they get? Does one restrict the oil companies? Big AG? Big Pharma? And then think about what those answers say about oneself.

[electric_blue68]

25. If I remember correctly in NYS/C...

when I had food stamps we couldn't buy soda, or candy. Not that I bought a lot anyway. Probably not chips, etc, either. Again, only bought a small to modest amount.