FRAC Chat

Published March 6, 2026

Colorado has received federal approval to implement a statewide restriction prohibiting the purchase of certain “soft drinks” using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Summer EBT benefits starting April 30, 2026. Amid a surge of Republican governors imposing SNAP restrictions, Colorado’s governor stands out as unlike other Democratic governors who have explicitly rejected SNAP choice restrictions as a violation of the dignity and economic freedom that should be enjoyed by all grocery shoppers.  

Such a sweeping change to the nation’s largest anti-hunger program demands a rigorous evidentiary foundation, operational clarity, and a robust evaluation design. Colorado’s approach falls short on all three fronts. The central weakness lies in the research foundation used to justify the policy. Beyond that, the design, communications, evaluation structure, and fiscal implications pose significant risk, especially in light of the budget reconciliation law’s (H.R. 1) new cost-sharing rules and Colorado’s substantial budget deficit.

I. Study and Methodological Flaws

Colorado’s restriction relies on a single, limited modeling study and ignores extensive evidence that SNAP recipients’ diets mirror those of similar households and that SNAP improves food security and health. 

1. Modeling is not evidence: The study uses microsimulation, which depends on assumptions and does not reflect real SNAP purchasing behavior. It cannot account for substitution, food access, or short SNAP participation, making it an unreliable basis for statewide policy. 

2. Undefined beverage category: “Sugar-sweetened beverages” is not clearly defined. Ambiguity around items like sweetened coffees, flavored teas, electrolyte drinks, and chocolate milk undermines both the study’s projections and practical enforcement. 

3. Weak SNAP-specific data: The study applies National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data without clearly distinguishing SNAP-funded beverage purchases from total consumption, creating questionable assumptions and unreliable projections. 

4. Single foreign pediatric study: The study relies heavily on a Dutch pediatric sample with no SNAP participants and different socioeconomic and food environments, making it unsuitable for predicting outcomes for U.S. SNAP households. 

5. No substitution modeling: The study does not assess how SNAP participants would replace restricted beverages, an essential factor in determining whether the policy would improve or worsen dietary outcomes. 

6. Unrealistic administrative costs: The study assumes minimal implementation burdens that ignore real-world complexities such as constant product changes, consumer confusion, and retailer workload. Retailer analyses indicate significantly higher costs.

II. The Restriction Design: Definitional Chaos and Nutritional Incoherence

Colorado defines “soft drinks” as nonalcoholic beverages with sweeteners, excluding milk, milk-based drinks, certain substitutes, and those with over 50 percent fruit or vegetable juice. This creates inconsistencies, as products with similar calorie and sugar levels are treated differently based on ingredient details rather than nutrition, for example.  *

* Based on FRAC’s interpretation of the waiver language and supporting materials.  

The “Beverage Matrix” requires shoppers and retailers to: 

• Read ingredient lists for artificial sweeteners. 

• Determine added sugar presence. 

• Verify juice percentage by volume. 

• Identify milk content. 

This will create checkout confusion, inconsistent enforcement, and increased stigma, particularly for households with limited English proficiency or literacy challenges. 

III. Insufficient Justification for Targeting SNAP 

Colorado’s waiver lacks research or data justifying targeting SNAP participants, choosing specific beverages, or expecting health benefits. Studies show SNAP users’ purchasing patterns resemble nonparticipants. Reviews find limited or mixed evidence for restricting SNAP purchases, which was designed to combat hunger, not chronic disease. SNAP already enhances food security, diet, and health.

IV. Evaluation Weaknesses and Limited Federal Oversight

Colorado’s waiver outlines an evaluation plan using a convenience sample, risking selection bias. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval requires certain data elements but allows broad discretion without standardized metrics; it only advises, not approves, project materials. Past USDA denials (Minnesota, 2004; New York, 2011; Maine, 2016, 2018) cited administrative, evaluation, and operational issues. The move to approval without detailed review raises concerns about oversight rigor.

V. Fiscal Exposure Under H.R. 1 and Colorado’s Budget Deficit

H.R. 1 significantly alters SNAP’s financial structure. State and county administrative cost- shares increase from 50 to 75 percent and Colorado​ ​becomes responsible for benefit costs associated with payment errors. These changes heighten fiscal risk as administrative complexity grows. 

Despite an existing budget deficit, Colorado must implement a highly complex beverage restriction that requires substantial IT updates, expanded retailer oversight, staff training, enhanced customer service capacity, and a system for managing complaints. 

Colorado is taking on a complicated statewide ban at the same time federal policy is shifting more program costs to states. 

​​ ​VI. It Expands Racial and Socioeconomic Inequities   

Colorado’s waiver also reinforces racialized and socioeconomic inequities under the guise of public health. Evidence repeatedly shows that SNAP reduces food insecurity and stabilizes families during economic downturns; yet, instead of strengthening benefit adequacy or investing in programs that expand food access, policymakers are leaning into a “personal responsibility” trope. 

By shifting attention away from structural factors that influence health outcomes, such as wage gaps, housing costs, food deserts, and health care access, the blame is placed on individual behavior. By prioritizing behavioral control over structural investment, Colorado’s waiver worsens historical inequities, diverts and reinforces harmful narratives about poverty, and directs scarce administrative resources toward regulating grocery carts rather than addressing the root causes that shape health initially 

Conclusion 

Colorado’s SNAP choice restriction rests on a fragile evidentiary foundation. And beyond the study’s flaws, the policy design introduces definitional confusion, operational risk, communication gaps, weak evaluation safeguards, and heightened fiscal exposure under H.R. 1.   

A statewide transformation of SNAP requires rigorous, SNAP-specific, real-world evidence and a robust evaluation infrastructure. Colorado’s approach instead proceeds from modeling assumptions and limited empirical grounding, creating significant risk to participants, retailers, program integrity, and state finances. 

If policymakers seek to improve health outcomes, they should act based on solid evidence — which supports strengthening SNAP benefit adequacy, improving program access, and investing in nutrition education — rather than imposing complex restrictions based on uncertain evidence and a single foreign study.