Montana wants to ban ‘junk food’ from SNAP. Experts warn the waiver could backfire.
Researchers say many of the costs for SNAP waivers fall on individual grocery stores, and that the restrictions don’t help improve health outcomes for low-income people.
This article was originally published in Montana Free Press. Read it here.
In late March, Montana became one of nearly two dozen states aiming to limit which foods low-income families can purchase with SNAP, the food assistance program funded by the federal government. Like other states, Montana is proposing for SNAP benefits to be used for “healthy, nutritious food instead of soft drinks, junk food and candy.”
State leaders, including the administration of Gov. Greg Gianforte, say the restrictions will promote healthy eating and improve health outcomes. But implementing the changes — and trying to avoid unintended consequences — may be easier said than done.
As of Thursday, the USDA had approved waivers outlining changes to SNAP for 22 states. But many states with approved waivers are still trying to clear administrative hurdles and have not yet implemented the changes. And in March, a group of SNAP recipients in states with restrictions filed a lawsuit against the USDA, challenging the government’s approval of SNAP restriction waivers on the grounds that the USDA cannot allow states to redefine what foods are eligible for the program.
Though Montana might be months or years away from putting the new food limitations into effect, experts say that SNAP restrictions threaten to place a significant administrative burden on grocery store owners, and could ultimately cut off access to affordable food.
Iris Sharp, co-director of Food Access and Sustainability Team (FAST) Blackfeet, a nonprofit that works to expand food security, said she wasn’t surprised to see Montana “follow suit” with the other states that sought waivers.
“I think it comes with good intentions,” she added. “We want to make sure people are eating healthy. I can see the vision there. But as someone working at a food pantry and trying to transform food systems and knowing what it’s like to live in a food desert, I can see this is going to cause issues before it benefits anybody.”
WHAT COULD CHANGE ABOUT MONTANA’S SNAP PROGRAM?
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a federal program that helps low-income individuals and families buy groceries. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees SNAP, state agencies are responsible for implementing it. As of February, 72,705 Montanans, or about 7% of the state’s population, participated in the program, according to state data.
While alcohol and tobacco purchases are restricted under SNAP, the program has not previously restricted access to certain foods. And while Congress has the legal authority to make changes to SNAP, states can submit waivers to pilot new projects that also alter the program.
In his March press release, Gianforte’s office said Montana’s waiver would prohibit SNAP dollars from being used to purchase candy and prepared desserts (like snack cakes), while “protecting access to protein bars and fresh baked goods.” It would specifically restrict beverages that exceed 10 grams of sugar per 8 ounces, as well as energy drinks.
The Gianforte administration did not include information in its announcement about when the waiver, if approved, might be implemented. A spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the timeline.
MTFP submitted a public records request for the waiver but did not receive a response by press time.
The changes to SNAP come amid other federal cuts to the program. House Resolution 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed last July, expanded work requirements for certain individuals receiving SNAP. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the budget bill would reduce federal spending for the program by about $187 billion through 2034. And when the federal government shut down last fall, SNAP was thrown into limbo, prompting local governments and organizations to scramble to prevent hunger in their communities.
Another part of H.R. 1 provides $50 billion to states to support rural health care providers, and states can earn more points in their applications for that funding by applying for a SNAP waiver to curb purchases of certain junk foods.
Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the Food Research and Action Center, a national food access advocacy group, said the incentive in H.R. 1 may motivate states to apply for a waiver in an effort to claw back other federal funds.
“States feel pressured because they have been left by federal disinvestment and real fiscal strain to apply for this and just try to do their best because they need this money,” she said.
DO SNAP RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES?
Gianforte and other supporters of SNAP waivers argue that the restrictions will “reduce consumption” of certain high-sugar foods and, in turn, improve health outcomes.
In a letter about his request to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brook Rollins, Gianforte said the changes would “promote healthier diets, reduce diet-related chronic disease and support families in achieving healthier, more independent futures.”
The argument isn’t new. During the 2025 Legislature, state Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings, introduced a bill that would require the state to apply for a waiver to prohibit the purchase of soft drinks and candy with SNAP benefits. The bill was ultimately voted down in the House. A similar bill, brought by Rep. Sherry Essmann, R-Billings, also failed last session.
During a committee hearing on his bill, Zolnikov argued that SNAP restrictions would promote nutritious food and help address Montana’s rates of obesity. In another committee hearing, Essman said she hoped “the days of pop and donuts on a SNAP card are coming to a rapid end.”
Plata-Nino, of the Food Research and Action Center, said research does not suggest that SNAP restrictions improve health outcomes.
“What does improve outcomes is a price reduction and distance to where you may be able to purchase these items,” she said.
Christopher Bosso, professor of public policy and political science at Northeastern University, said economists who have studied the issue say SNAP restrictions don’t often limit people’s consumption of certain foods. Ultra-processed foods and high-sugar beverages, he said, are typically cheap and convenient, even if they’re not covered by federal food benefits. Because SNAP is a supplemental program, people rarely rely on it completely for all of their grocery needs. That means if families are in a hurry or need something quick and convenient, he said, people “will use their own dollars for it.”
Sharp, from FAST Blackfeet, said that the waiver could hit food deserts — or places with limited access to affordable and nutritious food — particularly hard. Foods are already highly priced on the Blackfeet Reservation where she lives due, in part, to higher transportation costs.
“If people have to buy healthy foods [with SNAP dollars], it means they’re having to buy more expensive foods,” she said. “It’s the difference between paying $18 for a pack of grapes or $4 for a frozen pizza. It means that SNAP money is not going to stretch as far for people as it normally would.”
‘CONFUSING AND DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT’
Doug Kantor, general counsel for the National Association of Convenience Stores, said for retailers, SNAP restrictions are “confusing and difficult to implement.”
He said the waivers offer vague definitions for items, making it difficult to distinguish the difference between, for example, a candy bar, which would be restricted under the waiver, or a protein or granola bar, which may not be restricted.
Distinguishing items, he said, “often requires looking in detail at what the relative ingredients are of these different products.”
“That is time consuming and it leaves stores and store owners with very difficult decisions,” he said.
Stores with soda foundations add another “tricky” element to the equation, Kantor added. Convenience stores typically charge customers based on the size of the cup, not by which drink they choose at the fountain, he said, but that method can become complicated when some sodas in the fountain are restricted under SNAP and some are not.
“And how are [stores] going to know what you put in there?” he said. “You probably don’t want the clerk to taste it and try to figure it out. It becomes difficult, and all of these things also can lead to difficult and fraught customer interactions.”
The USDA enforces SNAP compliance, and if retailers are found to have violated new restrictions, experts say, they could be prohibited from accepting SNAP benefits altogether. Kantor said the administrative burdens are so great that he’s already heard from “quite a few stores that they are evaluating whether it’s worth it for them to continue to accept SNAP or not.”
A fiscal analysis of the bill proposed last legislative session by Zolnikov stated that changes to SNAP “would fall to the retailer to update their system” and that “retailers would be responsible for the cost of the updates.”
In his testimony before the Senate Public Health, Welfare, and Safety Committee, Zolnikov argued that changing SNAP requirements could incentivize stores to “adjust what’s being sold to make sure those who need it can get what is actually nutritious.” Essmann, the representative sponsoring a similar bill, echoed that argument when introducing her legislation. Convenience stores, she said, “certainly could carry some canned vegetables and some canned fruits and some tuna fish and allow people to make those choices in their store.”
But Kantor said that SNAP sales account for a small portion of convenience store revenue, “so on a certain level, it’s not worth the cost.”
“Every store would have to make that decision for themselves,” he added. “It creates this real risk that people in the program may suddenly find it much more difficult to find places to buy the things they need.”
A spokesperson for the USDA did not answer questions about how the agency would enforce new SNAP restrictions or how it would evaluate the effectiveness of various pilot programs that vary state by state.
Asked if the state would work to find ways to ease administrative burdens on stores, a spokesperson for Gianforte referred MTFP to the state Department of Public Health and Human Services. A spokesperson for that agency directed MTFP to a statement from Director Charlie Brereton, which did not reference how the policy would be implemented in specific stores.
HUMAN TOLL
Several experts told MTFP that SNAP restrictions could further the stigma already associated with receiving food assistance and potentially cause recipients to feel shame or embarrassment if they are turned away at the register.
“It’s a dignity thing,” said Kiera Condon, an advocacy specialist with the Montana Food Bank Network. “Ultimately, people know what’s best for their families and what works for their households. We need to trust them.”
In March, several SNAP recipients, along with the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP, filed a lawsuit against the USDA, alleging the waivers from various states are unlawful and have caused “irreparable harm” to people trying to meet basic food needs. Responding to the complaint, lawyers on behalf of the USDA argued that the agency “acted well within its authority” in granting the waivers. Government lawyers added that, because SNAP is a supplemental program, plaintiffs “may use other funds to purchase” foods they desire.
A hearing is set for May 1, and the outcome of the case could have implications for how, or if, waivers are implemented in other states, including Montana.
