The Great MAHA Experiment Begins: Five States Ban Junk Food SNAP Purchases

Over 1.4M Americans who receive SNAP benefits will no longer be poisoned by government subsidy. It's a start, but it's only 3.5%. Why is YOUR state not doing this?

By James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Popular Rationalism
January 1, 2026

---

On January 1, 2026, the most aggressive nutrition-linked reform in the history of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) took effect in five U.S. states. Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia have officially banned SNAP purchases of specific categories of food widely associated with obesity and chronic disease: sweetened beverages, candy, and, in Iowa’s case, all foods deemed taxable under state law. Together, these five states represent a test case for the sweeping policy agenda of the Kennedy-Rollins HHS-USDA partnership, better known under the reform umbrella of Make America Healthy Again (MAHA).

This is not a pilot in rhetoric only. These states are not “encouraging” healthier choices. They are altering the legal definition of what counts as food under SNAP, via USDA demonstration project waivers governed by Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act. This means the bans are codified into law, enforced at checkout by point-of-sale (POS) software, and fully binding on 1.4 million low-income Americans across these states. The waivers run for two years with possible three-year extensions—enough time to scale or fail in dramatic fashion.

Not Just One Ban: A Patchwork of State Definitions

Each state has its own operational definitions of the banned products:

• Indiana bans “soft drinks” and “candy,” defining them based on sweetener content and excluding milk-based drinks and refrigerated confections.

• Iowa applies the most sweeping restriction by aligning with its own Department of Revenue’s list of taxable foods, including prepared and snack foods.

• Nebraska targets both “soda/soft drinks” and “energy drinks,” defined by carbonation and stimulant ingredients like caffeine, taurine, or guarana.

• Utah bans sweetened carbonated beverages unless they contain over 50% real juice or milk.

• West Virginia adopts a narrow ban on sweetened carbonated sodas, excluding unflavored carbonated waters.

Retailers in each state are now responsible for programming their POS systems to enforce these granular distinctions, many of which hinge on subtle product characteristics that may not be reflected clearly on product barcodes.

A National Test of Real-World Health Outcomes

What matters now are measurable health outcomes. The MAHA reforms are no longer aspirational. They are law. And that turns five states into five data laboratories.

There are primary outcome metrics that will determine policy success include:

• New diagnoses of type 2 diabetes (incidence rates)

• Reduction in HbA1c levels among diagnosed diabetics

• Number of diabetes medication discontinuations due to clinical reversal

• New diagnoses of metabolic syndrome, hypertension, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and reversals of diagnoses.

• BMI and waist-to-hip ratio distributions across SNAP households

• Cost-of-care reductions tied to prevention and reversal of metabolic disorders

These are the outcomes that matter. Purchasing patterns, dietary surveys, or self-reported behavior changes are proxies—useful only insofar as they predict longitudinal clinical gains.

Every state that adopted the waiver promised evaluation. Now, it must deliver. That means pairing EHR data from Medicaid and Federally Qualified Health Centers with SNAP eligibility flags and tracking these health endpoints over 12, 24, and 60 months.

Trials and Models: Supportive, Not Definitive

A handful of studies demonstrate that purchase restrictions reduce purchases. But few, if any, have connected that to clinical reversal of disease. For example:

• A 2017 RCT by French et al. (PMID: 28915844) found a reduction in soda purchases under restricted benefits.

• Harnack et al. (PMID: 38052304) observed changes in purchase behavior but no improvement in overall nutrition.

• Basu et al. (PMID: 24889953) used modeling to project improved obesity and diabetes rates under a beverage ban scenario.

No study to date has produced a measurable decline in diabetes incidence or reversal through SNAP restrictions alone. The current waivers offer the first chance to assess those real-world effects across a statewide population.

Success = Reversal

The MAHA reforms should not be judged by ideological preference or proxy data. They should be judged by a simple outcome test:

Do these bans lead to fewer cases of metabolic diabetes, fewer amputations, fewer strokes, fewer prescriptions, and fewer deaths from chronic disease?

If the answer is yes, the policy justifies expansion. If the answer is no—if the bans simply shift purchases to other channels, increase stigma, or reduce program participation without improving metabolic outcomes—then the approach fails.

The stakes are that high for America, as we stand to learn a lot.

Why is your state not doing this?

---

References

French SA, Rydell SA, Mitchell NR, Oakes JM, Elbel B, Harnack L. Financial incentives and purchase restrictions in a food benefit program affect the types of foods and beverages purchased: Results from a randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):127. doi:10.1186/s12966‑017‑0585‑9. PMID: 28915844.

This RCT randomized 279 participants to incentive, restriction, incentive + restriction, or control arms using a study‑specific debit card; compared with control, restrictions were associated with significantly lower weekly purchases of sugar‑sweetened beverages and sweet baked goods.

Harnack LJ, Oakes JM, Elbel B, Beatty T, Rydell S, French SA. Effects of inclusion of food purchase restrictions and subsidies on nutrition in a food benefit program: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1610‑1618. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5633. PMID: 38052304.

In this study, purchase of restricted foods like sugar‑sweetened beverages and sweets was lower in restriction conditions, but there were no statistically significant differences in overall nutrition or diet quality measures, indicating restricted purchase did not translate into better nutritional outcomes.

Basu S, Seligman HK, Gardner C, et al. Ending SNAP subsidies for sugar‑sweetened beverages could reduce obesity and type 2 diabetes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(6):1032‑1039. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1246. PMID: 24889953.

Using nationally representative data and simulation modeling, this study projected that a ban on sugar‑sweetened beverage purchases with SNAP benefits would be expected to reduce obesity prevalence and type 2 diabetes incidence.

Specifically, they predicted that banning SNAP purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages would reduce intake by about 15%, leading over 10 years to roughly 130,000 fewer new cases of type 2 diabetes nationwide—about 13,000 prevented cases per year, with no expectation of diabetes reversal. They also projected a ~0.6 percentage-point absolute reduction in obesity prevalence and downstream reductions in cardiovascular events, all accruing slowly at the population level. These were modeled, not observed, effects, and the study explicitly did not predict rapid clinical improvement or remission.