SNAP Act Bans Snacks and Desserts, Gives States Power to Define and Restrict 'Unhealthy Food'

The newly introduced Nutritious SNAP Act of 2025 aims to reshape what people can buy using federal nutrition benefits, and it’s doing it in two major ways. First, the bill explicitly updates the definition of "food" in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude "snack and dessert food items." This exclusion is being added right alongside the existing ban on tobacco products. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the bill requires the Secretary to grant waivers allowing state agencies to prohibit the use of benefits for purchasing any food that the state defines as "unhealthy food" for home consumption (SEC. 2).

The Federal Ban on Snacks and Sweets

Let’s start with the federal change: the definition of eligible food is being tightened to specifically cut out snacks and desserts. This means that if this bill passes, items like cookies, cakes, candy, and chips—even if they were previously allowed because they weren't explicitly banned—would be off the table nationwide. For a working parent trying to stretch a budget, this provision means less flexibility at the grocery store and potentially having to use cash funds for things like birthday party treats or quick, inexpensive energy sources. The goal here is clearly to steer purchases toward whole foods, but the immediate impact is a reduction in recipient purchasing power and choice.

The State-Level ‘Unhealthy Food’ Power Grab

The bigger change is the new authority granted to states. Under this bill, a state agency can request a waiver to block the purchase of anything it deems "unhealthy food." Think about that: a state public health agency could decide that a certain type of juice, a processed meat, or even certain inexpensive starches are "unhealthy" and block people from buying them with their benefits. The bill provides no federal definition or objective criteria for what constitutes "unhealthy food," handing broad, subjective power to state-level bureaucrats (SEC. 2. Allowing States to Ban Unhealthy Purchases).

Who This Impacts and Why It Matters

For participants in the program, this could result in a confusing patchwork of rules. If you live near a state line, what’s allowed in your home state might be banned in the next county over. This lack of clear, consistent standards could lead to arbitrary restrictions, potentially targeting low-cost staples that families rely on, especially if those foods are processed. While the intention may be to promote better nutrition, the practical challenge is that low-income families often rely on inexpensive, calorie-dense foods to make ends meet, and restricting those options without increasing the benefit amount simply reduces the total amount of food they can afford. The risk here is that states could impose overly restrictive rules that don't account for cultural diets, cost, or convenience, making it harder for people to feed their families effectively.