SNAP bans cut soda purchases by 12%

SNAP bans on sugary drinks have produced a 12% drop in soda purchases, a new working paper finds, challenging the idea that assistance limits simply shift spending to cash.

Study shows measurable cut in sugary drink intake

The analysis, prepared by researchers at Stanford University, MIT and the University of Chicago, examined the first half of 2026 in ten states that enacted waivers prohibiting soda purchases with food‑assistance dollars.

Data indicate an average reduction of about 34 fewer 12‑ounce cans per person each year. The decline appears across the board, with no sign that recipients compensated by buying the drinks with their own money.

In states where only soda was barred, while fruit juices and energy drinks remained eligible, the study found “no evidence of such substitution.”

When other sugary beverages stayed covered, shoppers redirected up to 39% of their consumption toward those items.

Economic context and policy implications

SNAP accounts for roughly 12% of total grocery outlays, according to the National Grocers Association. Recipients tend to spend about 19% more on groceries each month than non‑participants, a figure reported by Numerator.

Policymakers have long considered restrictions or sugar taxes as tools to curb diabetes and related illnesses. The same research estimates that a full ban on sugary drinks from the program could yield about $1.1 billion in annual benefits, with 70% stemming from lower health‑care costs.

Beyond soda, about a dozen states also limit candy purchases under similar waivers, a trend that earlier Numerator work linked to a $300 million sales dip for the confectionery sector.

Hershey’s chief executive, Kirk Tanner, noted in July that early‑adopting states showed some impact on sales, though overall figures remain within expectations. The company is collaborating with retailers to monitor shelf placement and consumer response.

Legal challenges have already surfaced. A recent court decision reversed the bans in five states after lawsuits filed by SNAP users, suggesting further litigation may shape the program’s future.

Related: Eight Grocery Leaders Reshuffle in August

For families relying on the assistance, the reduction means fewer sugary drinks entering the household, which could translate into modest health improvements and a slight easing of monthly food budgets.

Critics argue that the bans may limit personal choice, yet the data so far do not reveal a surge in out‑of‑pocket purchases to replace the prohibited items.

Future research will need to track whether the observed decline persists as more states adopt or abandon the waivers.

At least 23 states have obtained waivers that bar SNAP participants from buying sugary drinks with program funds, indicating a growing national interest in leveraging nutrition policy within the assistance framework.

All states that have secured such waivers impose some form of restriction on sugary beverages, showing a consistent policy approach even though the specific product lists differ from state to state.

The study’s findings directly challenge a long‑standing economic hypothesis that SNAP restrictions would simply shift purchases to cash, a notion previously held across the food industry as a reason to avoid tightening program rules.

The legal setting remains fluid; the recent reversal in five jurisdictions demonstrates how court rulings can quickly alter the implementation of nutrition‑related waivers, and further lawsuits are expected as stakeholders test the boundaries of federal assistance law.

Public‑health experts point to the potential for long‑term reductions in chronic‑disease incidence, noting that even modest decreases in sugary‑drink consumption can contribute to lower rates of diabetes and related conditions over time.

Hershey’s ongoing partnership with retailers involves detailed shelf‑placement audits and consumer‑behavior monitoring, aiming to understand how the bans affect product visibility and purchasing patterns without compromising overall sales performance.