US Iowans won't be able to buy pop, candy with SNAP dollars after USDA approves waiver request

Stephen Gruber-Miller
Des Moines Register
May 22, 2025, 8:25 p.m. CT


Gov. Kim Reynolds hopeful the Trump administration will grant Iowa a Summer EBT waiver
Reynolds says she plans to seek a waiver from the federal Summer EBT program so Iowa can set up its own summer meal program for kids.

Key Points​

  • Beginning in 2026, Iowans will be banned from using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dollars from buying certain foods, including pop and candy.
  • President Donald Trump's U.S. Department of Education granted Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds' request for a federal waiver on May 22, allowing Iowa to restrict SNAP dollars from being used for some foods.
Iowans will be banned from using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dollars to buy certain types of food after President Donald Trump's administration granted Gov. Kim Reynolds' request for a waiver.

When it takes effect, the federal waiver will only allow Iowans to use SNAP dollars to buy foods that are exempt from sales tax in Iowa. That means beginning Jan. 1, 2026, Iowans will not be able to use SNAP dollars to buy items such as candy, pop and other carbonated beverages.

"Soaring obesity rates have brought our nation and state to a crossroads," Reynolds said in a statement. "To promote healthy eating and protect future generations from disease — and to ensure SNAP fulfills its core function — we need a change. Thank you to Secretary Rollins and her team for helping make that change happen."

Reynolds, a Republican, announced May 22 that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins had approved the state's request from a waiver to exempt certain foods from SNAP, which is run by USDA. It took Rollins just 10 days to grant the request after Iowa submitted it May 12.

"President Trump has given our nation a once in a generation opportunity to change the health trajectory for our entire country," Rollins said in a statement. "On my first day as secretary, I sent a call to states to innovate, and Gov. Kim Reynolds stepped up to take action. I look forward to signing even more waivers in the days ahead as we continue to restore the health of our country."

Anti-hunger advocates have said Iowans should be trusted to make their own choices about what foods they buy.

"Iowans should be trusted to make the best food choices for their families," Sheila Hansen, a board member of the Iowa Hunger Coalition and policy advocate and government relations manager for Common Good Iowa, said when the state submitted its waiver request. "Let’s make sure all Iowans have greater access to nutritious food, not punish our low-income neighbors and deny kids a candy bar when they want a treat."

Nearly 260,000 Iowans were enrolled in SNAP as of fiscal year 2024.

Republicans in Iowa and nationally are pursuing changes to SNAP, food programs​

Earlier this month, the USDA granted a separate waiver request from Reynolds to exempt Iowa from the Summer EBT program. Instead, Iowa will start up a program called "Healthy Kids Iowa" that will allow low-income families with kids to access $40 worth of food per child each month during the summer at food distribution sites around the state.

Iowa will receive $9.1 million to run Healthy Kids Iowa and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services expects it to serve 65,000 kids.

The federal waiver comes after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass Trump's proposed tax cut bill, which includes changes to SNAP that would require states to pay part of the costs for the program, which has historically been 100% federally funded. The bill also changes work requirements and eligibility for some SNAP recipients.

Iowa Republicans have also tried in the past to limit which foods Iowans can buy with SNAP dollars. This year, the Iowa House passed a bill to do so, but it did not receive a vote in the Senate.

Two years ago, Reynolds signed a law instituting new asset limits and requiring regular eligibility checks for recipients of SNAP and other public assistance programs. Iowa is still in the process of rolling out those requirements.

Source (Archive)
 
If you have limited food money buying soda is one of the stupidest things you could do. Its expensive and does absolutely nothing positive for your body. It has no nutritional value. And if you're struggling to afford food, that matters. (Which, yknow, that struggle is greatly exaggerated for some...)
 
"Let’s make sure all Iowans have greater access to nutritious food, not punish our low-income neighbors and deny kids a candy bar"
Imagine seeing that a third the country are obese diabetics, and two thirds amongst the african women who make up the majority of your ((NGO))'s clientele, and still insisting with a straight face that Moh'Besity and Duh'Bonica still be able to use their food stamps for grape drank, Red Bull, and deep fried sugar for their obesifying keedz.

1748019222068.webp
 
Excessive government gibs have always worked out badly for society at large. They don't discourage, but in fact reward being a lazy waste of space oxygen thief. I am not saying we can't give a little bit of our taxes to help out those in far greater need, but JUST A LITTLE is all I am willing to give.

Enough to keep you breathing and working, but not in comfort. If you want comfort, get off your fatass and work for it. I think that really is the core problem, we as a society have really misunderstood the purpose of gibs. Its the bare minimum to keep the less fortunate alive and on their feet, not to keep them housed or fat or happy. Those are things you have to earn yourself.
 
I once worked at Sam's club, and saw two obese bitches buy 700 dollars worth of junk food and microwaveable frozen slop.

It irked me to no end to work two jobs at $10/hr so I could have somewhat of a decent life while these obese whores stuffed their fat faces on our dime and sat on their asses all day. Fucking sows.
 
I remember years ago when I worked at a gas station out west. A group of four twenty-somethings came in and loaded up on candy, beef jerky, and soda. "How much further is it to Vegas?" they asked as they paid with their food stamp card.

If you can afford to go to Las Vegas, why are the tax payers paying for your snacks?

"Let’s make sure all Iowans have greater access to nutritious food, not punish our low-income neighbors and deny kids a candy bar when they want a treat."
You want a treat? Here's some raisins.
 
SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Candy and soda have zero nutritional value.

this is a modern use of the phrase "nutritional value" to mean "contains micronutrients"

language changes and this is what people mean when they use these words now so I don't want to say it's wrong, but it's a problem

"nutritional value" has come to mean "contains micronutrients" because we've solved the problem of getting enough food and everyone takes getting sufficient quantities of the macronutrients entirely for granted.

candy and soda absolutely have nutritional value, they have a ton of carbohydrates. (most candy does have micronutrients also and frequently also protein, another of the three macronutrients, but that's not important). if they didn't have any nutritional value they couldn't make you fat.
 
When you see news stories about how the government is promoting nutrition, and activists are saying "that's racist/it punishes the poor", ask who's paying those activists.

For example, the NAACP took lots of Coca-Cola money, and then condemned soda laws as racist.

Soda and candy manufacturers lobby behind the scenes to keep that money coming in. They know better than to be the public face of "we want your tax dollars to pay for unhealthy luxuries", so they prop up sympathetic talking heads to talk about how kids should get treats, or "if junk food is more expensive, working families won't be able to afford healthy food", or "Latino bodega owners need to sell soda to stay in business", or whatever this week's talking point is.
 
Back