A National Bureau of Economic Research study found that soda purchases declined among SNAP households after 10 states barred benefits from being used for sugary drinks, with researchers finding an even larger reduction among families that could have substituted cash for restricted purchases.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Restrictions preventing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits from being used to buy soda were followed by a roughly 13% decline in soda purchases among participating households, according to new research examining the first states to impose limits on sugary drinks and other low-nutrition products.
The August study from the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed purchasing behavior after 10 states implemented SNAP food-restriction waivers in 2026. Although the research has not yet undergone peer review, its findings provide an early look at how recipients changed their shopping habits after certain products could no longer be purchased with federal food benefits.
Researchers examined Nielsen consumer data covering approximately 5,000 SNAP households between July 2025 and June 2026.
Before the restrictions took effect, an average household in the program purchased approximately 185 ounces of soda each month, equivalent to roughly 15 standard cans.
After the policies were implemented, monthly soda purchases fell by approximately 24 ounces per household, or about two cans, producing an overall reduction of roughly 13%.
Energy drink purchases also declined, falling by approximately 4 ounces per household per month.
The policies were established through state waivers approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The waivers allow participating states to prevent SNAP funds from being spent on items such as soda and candy.
USDA has described the restrictions as an effort to ensure taxpayer-funded nutrition assistance is directed toward foods that provide nutritional value and contribute to improved health outcomes.
One of the study’s most notable findings involved SNAP households with enough available cash to continue buying the same amount of soda even after federal benefits could no longer be used for those purchases.
Rather than simply substituting cash, those households reduced their soda purchases by an even greater amount.
Researchers found that soda purchases among financially capable households declined by 18.5%, equivalent to approximately 40 fewer ounces each month.
The results led researchers to examine whether the policy was influencing consumer behavior beyond the direct financial restriction.
Their analysis suggested that formally designating soda as an ineligible SNAP purchase may have functioned as a psychological signal about the product itself.
Instead of automatically paying cash for restricted beverages, some households appeared to reconsider whether they wanted to purchase them at all.
The study concluded that the designation of soda as an unapproved SNAP product changed perceptions about which foods were appropriate to buy, contributing to a broader decline in overall purchases rather than merely shifting the payment method.
That behavioral effect suggests relatively straightforward administrative policies may influence dietary decisions even when consumers remain financially capable of purchasing restricted products independently, according to the researchers.
The authors said the findings indicate such restrictions could potentially improve public health by steering consumers away from sugary beverages.
How much the policies ultimately reduce total sugar consumption, however, remains uncertain.
A separate 2024 study examining prospective SNAP soda restrictions projected that soda purchases could decline by as much as 20% after bans took effect.
That analysis also predicted an unintended substitution effect: juice purchases were expected to rise approximately 7%.
Because many juices also contain significant amounts of sugar, researchers estimated that the net reduction in sugar consumed through beverages could ultimately be only about 7%.
Current data showing whether SNAP households have increased juice purchases following the 2026 restrictions are not yet available.
The distinction is important because a decline in soda alone does not necessarily produce an equivalent decline in total dietary sugar if consumers replace it with other sweet beverages.
Longer-term research will therefore be necessary to determine whether the changes observed in the NBER study translate into meaningful reductions in sugar consumption or measurable health improvements.
The findings come as SNAP remains one of the country’s largest federal nutrition-assistance programs.
During fiscal year 2025, the program distributed approximately $102.6 billion in benefits to more than 42 million Americans, representing nearly one in eight people nationwide.
That amounted to roughly $2,400 in annual benefits per participant.
Historically, recipients were permitted to use SNAP benefits to purchase nearly all grocery foods and beverages, with major exclusions including alcoholic beverages and hot prepared foods.
That framework began changing this year.
As of August, 23 states had implemented SNAP restriction waivers prohibiting the use of benefits for designated junk-food products, including certain sugary beverages and candy.
The policy shift marks the first time in SNAP’s history that the Department of Agriculture has approved state waivers specifically allowing governments to restrict which otherwise eligible grocery products recipients may purchase with federal benefits.
The early evidence from the first 10 states suggests the effect may extend beyond simply determining how soda is paid for.
Households purchased less soda overall after the restrictions took effect, and the largest decline appeared among families that could have used their own cash to avoid the limitation.
Whether those changes persist, translate into lower overall sugar intake and ultimately improve health outcomes will require additional research as more states implement the restrictions and longer-term purchasing data become available.
Original article
Comments