FRAC Chat

In just days, Iowa is set to implement the most restrictive food purchasing rules in the country for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Effective January 1, 2026, SNAP participants will only be able to use their benefits to purchase foods and beverages that are not subject to the state sales tax.  

The Iowa Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) has framed this change as a way to “limit SNAP-eligible purchases to healthier foods.” In reality, these restrictions will do nothing to make healthy food more affordable for the 260,000 Iowans who rely on SNAP to feed their families. Instead, it will increase stigma for SNAP participants, create confusion at checkout counters, raise grocery prices for us all, and harm Iowa’s local economies, especially in rural areas and border counties. 

What Do SNAP Customers Need to Know? 

Iowa, unlike any other state, chose to align its SNAP choice restrictions with its state sales tax code. Only non-taxable foods and beverages will be able to be purchased with SNAP benefits (seeds and food-producing plants will still be SNAP-eligible). 

According to a notice sent to all SNAP households, the following items will no longer be SNAP-eligible: 

• soda, including those with 50 percent or less fruit or vegetable juice 

• candy and candy-coated items 

• vitamins and minerals 

• chewing gum 

The items list does not provide enough specific information to prepare a SNAP participant to go to the grocery store. Many additional items — including certain prepared foods — will also be disallowed, even though they are not clearly identified in the notice to households. The definitions of “soda” and “candy” are inconsistent and difficult to interpret, making it nearly impossible for participants to know, with confidence, what they can buy. In addition to all varieties of soda being banned (even zero-sugar options), SNAP households will also be prohibited from purchasing lemonade, sweet tea, fruit punch, and other “soft drink” beverages with 50 percent or less juice. 

What Retailers Need to Know 

Retailers will bear the primary burden of implementing and enforcing these restrictions. In a December 12, 2025, letter, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS) confirmed additional restrictions for Iowa’s SNAP waiver, including banning certain prepared foods, information that was not shared with SNAP households. This interpretation departs from the framework Congress established in the Food and Nutrition Act. Under Section 3(k), SNAP-eligible foods are defined as foods for home consumption, with only limited exclusions, and USDA’s regulations at 7 CFR 271.2 reflect that definition without creating additional carve-outs for prepared foods. By treating some prepared foods as ineligible despite meeting the statutory definition, the guidance narrows SNAP eligibility in ways that go beyond longstanding law and policy. Whether a food item is no longer SNAP eligible will depend on factors such as:  

• whether or not a retailer has a public microwave;  

• whether there is a place to sit and eat;  

• whether free plastic utensils are provided; and  

• whether an item is priced by weight or by unit. 

For example:   

• A fruit cup sold with a spoon attached is not SNAP-eligible, but a slice of cake with a fork is.  

• A salad with a dressing packet included is not SNAP-eligible. 

• A cold deli sandwich is no longer SNAP-eligible, if a retailer with a publicly available microwave decides the item is not SNAP-eligible at that store.  

This will clearly impact most gas stations and convenience stores, but could also impact grocery stores that have a public area for sitting, even a picnic table outside.  

The state’s suggestion to retailers facing confusion is to “consult the Iowa Department of Revenue or independent counsel for definitive guidance.” That may be feasible for large chains like Walmart, Hy-Vee, and Fareway, but it is unrealistic and costly for small, independent grocers and convenience stores, particularly in rural areas. 

A national SNAP Restrictions Impact Analysis Report estimates that implementing SNAP restrictions will cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion in upfront costs and $759 million on an annual ongoing basis. The report finds that individual retailers are likely to lose thousands of dollars in revenue every week. The final line of the report offers a real kicker: 

“Ultimately, some of the higher costs must be passed onto consumers in the highly-competitive food retailing industry, so consumers stand to ultimately see higher food prices and reduced purchasing power.” 

That’s right: punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store. 

What All Iowans Need to Know 

This policy will not only affect SNAP participants and retailers; it will have broader economic, public health, and administrative consequences for the state as a whole.  

Nearly 88,000 Iowans on SNAP live in a border county — one in three of all SNAP participants in the state. Collectively, those Iowans receive a total of $15 million in SNAP benefits every month, generating roughly $23 million in monthly local economic activity through SNAP’s economic multiplier. And all of that money for our local economies is at risk of shifting to neighboring states, weakening Iowa’s local food economies. 

SNAP food choice restrictions overlook the root cause issue. People on SNAP want to have more healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables and protein sources in their diets. The high cost of nutritious food is the number one barrier SNAP participants face in eating healthier. SNAP restrictions will only drive food prices higher, limiting access even more. This will only deepen the underlying systemic inequities of poverty and food insecurity. 

In addition, food choice restrictions will increase stigma for SNAP, negatively impacting the physical and mental health of program participants. The link between stigma and adverse health outcomes is well-researched and documented. One study even found “the mental and emotional costs of participation appear to counteract the health and nutrition benefits provided by the program.” Increased program stigma is also likely to lead to a reduced number of people applying for and participating in SNAP. But, maybe, that was the point all along? 

The restrictions are also inconsistent with evidence on dietary behavior. Research shows that the diets of SNAP participants closely resemble those of other individuals with low incomes who do not receive SNAP. Moreover, SNAP participation is associated with improved health outcomes and reduced long-term health care costs, producing measurable fiscal savings for states. 

More importantly, Americans should be trusted to make the best food choices for their children, not have government bureaucrats in Des Moines and Washington police their grocery carts. Are we really going to deny a person experiencing homelessness a cold sandwich from the gas station? Is that aligned with Iowa values? 

There is also a real risk that retailers — especially small and rural stores — will stop accepting SNAP altogether due to implementation costs and liability concerns. In the worst case, already struggling rural grocery stores could close, further worsening food access across the state. 

As of 2025, approximately 3,000 retailers participate in SNAP in Iowa, compared with about 500 retailers participating in Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), reflecting key administrative differences: USDA authorizes SNAP retailers, while states administer WIC, through item-specific food lists, specialized checkout systems, and intensive staff training. WIC’s prescriptive requirements significantly limit retailer participation, especially among convenience stores, small grocers, and rural retailers  

Iowa’s SNAP restrictions move the program toward this model by introducing complex, item-specific eligibility rules tied to tax status and prepared food classifications, requiring new coding, point-of-sale updates, and ongoing staff training. For many small and independent stores, these costs and risks are likely to outweigh the benefits of participation, making attrition predictable. SNAP retailer participation could fall from roughly 3,000 retailers to as few as 500, mirroring current WIC participation levels, a shift with serious implications, given that most SNAP retailers in Iowa are convenience stores or other small retailers that often serve as the primary food access points in rural and underserved communities. Reduced participation would increase travel distances, limit choice, raise food prices, and weaken food access statewide. 

At the same time, Iowa HHS is already stretched thin due to the major policy changes to SNAP from the budget reconciliation law (H.R. 1) passed this summer that are going into effect, including new state cost-share provisions. HHS staff play a critical role in administering SNAP and must be adequately supported to focus on core responsibilities, including implementing strategies to maintain and reduce the state’s payment error rate. Diverting staff capacity to complex SNAP food choice restrictions undermines this work and increases the state’s risk of incurring up to $25 million in costs under the new federal cost-share provisions. cost-share provisions. 

Why This Matters 

Iowa’s SNAP restriction waiver is not an isolated policy choice. It reflects a long-running effort to narrow SNAP eligibility in ways that Congress has repeatedly rejected and it carries real consequences for families, retailers, state agencies, and local economies. One of the first bills introduced in the 2023 state legislative session was House File 3, which made national news for going so far as to ban meat, sliced cheese, and a whole host of other foods. Since then, other bills have been introduced to ban meat, dairy, and egg alternatives from SNAP. 

In 2025, despite bipartisan opposition, the Iowa House passed HF 970, which sought to limit SNAP purchases “to only include healthy foods and beverages based on necessary nutrition for good health, including but not limited to healthy grains, dairy, meat, eggs, peanut butter and nuts, pasta, rice, legumes, and fruits and vegetables.” Although the bill failed in the Senate, the legislative process was effectively bypassed. Gov. Reynolds had already submitted a waiver request to USDA on March 12, 2025, without any public notice or stakeholder input. 

This approach represents a clear expansion of government control over personal food choices. Iowa’s SNAP restriction allows state and federal bureaucrats — not families  — to decide what Iowans may purchase with federally authorized benefits. 

Historically, USDA rejected similar waiver requests from states. That changed when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins penned an op-ed indicating the USDA would begin accepting these waivers and encouraged states to submit them. 

Iowa’s SNAP restriction waiver was granted by USDA FNS on May 22, 2025, with an implementation date of January 1, 2026 (read Iowa Hunger Coalition’s statement in response). The state is required to submit a number of plans to USDA prior to implementing the policy. At this time, it is unclear if these implementation conditions have been met. 

Take Action  

There is still time to prevent these harmful restrictions from taking effect on January 1. Iowa officials and USDA have the authority to delay implementation while outstanding legal, administrative, and operational concerns are addressed and while the state focuses on higher-priority SNAP changes already underway. Doing so would protect families, retailers, and local economies — and avoid locking Iowa into a costly and disruptive policy that neither improves nutrition nor reflects the will of Congress or the needs of Iowans.