Published October 1, 2025

Food insecurity is one of the major drivers of poor health outcomes in the U.S., making the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) indispensable. Research shows that hunger is the most damaging health consequence of poverty, contributing to chronic disease, impairing child development, and adding billions in avoidable health care costs each year. 

At a time when states should be focused on lowering SNAP error rates and strengthening program efficiency, some are being asked to divert scarce administrative resources into implementing SNAP choice restrictions. These proposals are not supported by evidence: SNAP participants’ diets mirror those of other households with low incomes not on the program. Restricting food choices ignores the real drivers of poor diets — insufficient income, affordability, and proximity to healthy food —while adding costly administrative burdens that destabilize the program. 

The consequences extend beyond individuals and administrators. Retailers, especially small and rural grocers, will bear significant costs from implementing such restrictions. 

Retailer Cost Analysis 

In this newly released SNAP Restrictions Impact Analysis: Report, the National Grocers Association (NGA), FMI — The Food Industry Association, and the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) surveyed members in 2025 to estimate compliance costs under proposed SNAP restrictions. The study disaggregated costs by store type —conventional supermarkets, convenience stores, small-format groceries, and supercenters — and distinguished between one-time (up-front) costs and ongoing annual expenses. 

Key Findings 

  • Up-front costs: $305.1 million for supermarkets, $1.0 billion for convenience stores, $11.8 million for small-format groceries, and $215.5 million for supercenters — a total of $1.6 billion. 
  • Ongoing annual costs: $281.4 million for supermarkets, $378.6 million for convenience stores, $18.0 million for small-format groceries, and $81.1 million for supercenters — a total of $759.1 million annually. 
  • Because estimates assume the same per-store cost within each format, the large number of convenience stores and supermarkets drives the aggregate totals. 

Cost Drivers and Distribution 

  • Technology investments: One-time point-of-sale (POS) software updates dominate costs for supermarkets and supercenters. Supercenters also face steep integration costs due to differing state rules. 
  • Ongoing technology costs: Supermarkets and supercenters will shoulder the highest costs from continuous software updates and inventory adjustments. 
  • Labor burden: Smaller stores will bear disproportionate labor costs for stocking, labeling, and compliance monitoring. Supercenters project the heaviest weekly labor requirements, exceeding 100 hours per store. 
  • Lost sales: Supermarkets and supercenters expect per-store weekly revenue losses of nearly $10,000. Convenience stores anticipate more than $1,000 per week in losses — an acute hit for small operators. 

Aggregate Impact 

  • Total up-front costs: $1.558 billion 
  • Total ongoing annual costs: $759.1 million 
  • Distribution of costs: 65.8 percent of up-front costs and 49.9 percent of ongoing costs fall on convenience stores, reflecting their prevalence. 

For some convenience stores — often the only retailer in rural communities — these burdens may make SNAP participation financially unsustainable. In some cases, stores may close altogether, reducing both food access and local tax revenue. 

Broader Challenges for Retailers 

This problem highlights a key issue: Restrictions raise prices rather than improving diets. Evidence supports affordability-focused strategies instead. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) found that a 30 percent price reduction on fruits and vegetables increased consumption among SNAP participants by 20 percent. Other studies show that the primary barrier to healthier eating for 61 percent of SNAP participants is the affordability of nutritious food.

This problem highlights a key issue: Restrictions raise prices rather than improving diets. Evidence supports affordability-focused strategies instead. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) found that a 30 percent price reduction on fruits and vegetables increased consumption among SNAP participants by 20 percent. Other studies show that the primary barrier to healthier eating for 61 percent of SNAP participants is the affordability of nutritious food. 

Act Now — Protect SNAP Choice, Strengthen SNAP   

Advocates, here are four steps you can take to protect access, protect SNAP choice and strengthen SNAP: 

  1. Use this data to counter misleading narratives from states and USDA that downplay the real harms and costs of SNAP choice restrictions. 
  2. Highlight that SNAP food restrictions would impose substantial costs on U.S. food retailers, especially small and rural stores. The most significant burdens come from POS technology upgrades, compliance monitoring, reduced checkout productivity, and lost sales. Given the industry’s slim margins, many retailers will be forced to raise prices, cut back on SNAP participation, or, in the case of small rural stores, shut down completely. 
  3. Share with elected officials that restrictions on SNAP are not only economically damaging but also fail to address the root causes of poor diets. A healthy diet can only be achieved when adequate resources, affordable food, and support are available where people live, work, and gather. Policymakers need to recognize that access to healthy food is affected by factors like proximity to food retail outlets, the ability to prepare meals independently, transportation, and socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods — all of which can impact a person’s ability to access nutritious food. 
  4. Remind states that they should focus on dealing with the fallout of HR1—budgeting for higher administrative costs and, for the first time in history, being required to cover a share of SNAP benefit costs based on error rates. Their focus needs to be on lowering error rates. Furthermore, implementing the new provisions of HR1 will already be administratively burdensome, requiring additional staff time and resources. Asking states to also take on food restrictions—requiring costly retailer system updates, expanded staff training, and further budget strain—is simply not fiscally responsible. 
  5. Have policymakers focus on real solutions. Instead of implementing costly and unworkable restrictions that threaten food access and retailer sustainability, policymakers should pursue proven, long-term solutions. Expanding full-time, living-wage employment, strengthening SNAP benefits, improving access to affordable, healthy foods, and investing in transportation networks are strategies that genuinely reduce food insecurity, improve health outcomes, and support households and communities.