New research indicates that by the end of 2026, state-specific restrictions on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are projected to impact one-third of all participants, leading to an estimated $830 million in lost sales across key beverage and confectionery categories. These changes, driven by a growing number of states seeking to limit the purchase of certain items with food assistance benefits, are poised to fundamentally alter consumer spending habits and create significant ripple effects for grocers nationwide.

Published May 29, 2026

By Catherine Douglas Moran, Food Dive

A significant transformation is on the horizon for the nation’s largest food assistance program, SNAP. As of late May 2026, a growing number of states are implementing or seeking waivers to restrict the purchase of specific items using SNAP benefits, most notably sugary drinks, candy, and energy drinks. This shift, driven by a desire to promote healthier eating habits among recipients, is anticipated to have a profound impact on the grocery industry, with new research from market intelligence firm Numerator projecting substantial sales losses and a notable alteration in consumer purchasing patterns.

Numerator’s latest findings reveal that by the close of 2026, approximately one-third of all SNAP participants will be subject to these new restrictions. This widespread implementation is expected to translate into a significant financial hit for retailers, with an estimated $830 million in sales declining in the targeted categories. Broken down further, soda purchases are predicted to decrease by $430 million, candy by $300 million, and energy drinks by $100 million, collectively impacting the 19 states that will have these waivers in place by year’s end.

The urgency and scope of this policy change are underscored by recent developments. Montana emerged as the latest state to submit a waiver request, a move applauded by officials aiming to promote healthier lifestyles. While Numerator noted that this addition would only marginally increase the overall projected sales loss, it signifies a continuing trend of states actively seeking to redefine what SNAP benefits can be used for. This trend is further evidenced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, which indicates that three other states have also received waivers, with two slated to take effect in 2027 and another in 2028.

The Road to Restriction: A Chronological Overview

The conversation around restricting SNAP purchases of certain food items has been gaining momentum over the past few years. Initially, these discussions focused on the potential health implications of high-sugar, low-nutrient foods and their accessibility through federal assistance programs. The waivers represent a tangible step in addressing these concerns.

• Early Discussions and Pilot Programs: Prior to widespread waiver adoption, smaller-scale initiatives and debates about healthy food incentives within SNAP programs were common. These often explored the feasibility and impact of steering recipients toward more nutritious options.
• Growing State Interest in Waivers: Over the past two to three years, an increasing number of states began exploring the formal waiver process offered by the USDA. This process allows states to implement specific purchasing restrictions if they can demonstrate that these changes will likely improve the nutritional quality of the food purchased by SNAP participants.
• The 2026 Surge: The current year, 2026, marks a significant inflection point, with a substantial number of states either having their waivers in effect or anticipating their implementation by year’s end. This concentration of state action is what has prompted Numerator’s updated projections.
• Montana’s Recent Action: The recent waiver request from Montana highlights the ongoing nature of this policy shift. This indicates that the number of states implementing restrictions may continue to grow beyond the initial 19 projected for 2026.
• Future Implementations: The USDA’s confirmation of waivers for additional states, with staggered start dates in 2027 and 2028, suggests that the impact of these restrictions will be felt for years to come, solidifying a new paradigm for SNAP purchasing.

Data-Driven Insights: Quantifying the Impact

Numerator’s research, a comprehensive analysis based on a survey of 1,016 SNAP households conducted in late January 2026 and granular purchase data, provides a detailed look at the projected consequences of these evolving SNAP regulations. The firm’s methodology aims to capture both the direct sales impact and the nuanced behavioral shifts among SNAP beneficiaries.

The core of Numerator’s findings centers on the projected revenue loss for retailers. The $830 million figure is derived from an estimation of how much SNAP spending would be diverted from or eliminated for specific product categories. This is a significant sum, particularly for grocers who rely on consistent sales volumes across all product lines.

• Category-Specific Projections:
  • Soda: $430 million in lost sales. This category, often a staple for many consumers, faces a substantial reduction in SNAP-funded purchases.
  • Candy: $300 million in lost sales. The popular confectionery market will also experience a significant downturn in SNAP-driven revenue.
  • Energy Drinks: $100 million in lost sales. While a smaller segment, the impact on energy drink sales is still considerable.

These projections are not static. While Montana’s recent waiver is expected to have a minimal impact on the overall estimate, it underscores the dynamic nature of this policy rollout. Furthermore, the USDA’s data points to a longer-term trend, with waivers extending into 2027 and 2028, suggesting that the cumulative impact on the grocery sector will likely exceed the current 2026 projections.

Navigating the Shift: Consumer Awareness and Behavioral Adaptations

A critical aspect of Numerator’s research is the assessment of SNAP household awareness and their planned responses to these impending restrictions. The findings suggest that a significant portion of SNAP recipients are not only aware of the changes but are also strategizing how to adapt their purchasing habits.

• High Awareness Levels: The survey revealed that nearly two-thirds of SNAP households in states with approved waivers indicated they would use non-SNAP funds to purchase soda if it became ineligible. This demonstrates a clear understanding of the restrictions and a willingness to continue purchasing these items, albeit with personal funds.
• Planned Adaptations for Other Categories: Similar intentions were observed for other restricted items:
  • Candy: 60% of households stated they would use non-SNAP funds.
  • Energy Drinks: 45% of households expressed similar intentions.

This data suggests that while sales of these specific items via SNAP benefits will decline, overall consumption might not disappear entirely. Instead, it points to a potential shift in the funding source for these purchases, which could have downstream effects on household budgets and other spending categories.

Beyond simply shifting payment methods, Numerator’s research also indicates a potential for a positive health impact, with many SNAP shoppers considering healthier alternatives.

• Shift Towards Healthier Beverages: Approximately 30% of surveyed consumers indicated they might switch to beverages like tea, juice, or coffee if soda and energy drinks become ineligible. This represents a significant opportunity for these alternative beverage markets.
• Alternative Snack Choices: Similarly, 30% of respondents suggested they would consider healthier snack options such as fruit, ice cream (potentially a more premium option or a treat rather than a daily snack), or fruit snacks in place of restricted candy items.

These behavioral adaptations are crucial for retailers to understand. Grocers can leverage this information to strategically adjust their product assortments, marketing efforts, and in-store promotions to cater to these evolving consumer preferences.

Echoes of Past Disruptions: Lessons from the Government Shutdown

While the focus of the current research is on the impact of SNAP restrictions, Numerator also provided insights into how SNAP spending can be affected by broader economic disruptions. Their analysis of the government shutdown in the fall of 2026 offered a relevant case study.

During the shutdown, average weekly grocery spending among SNAP households saw a notable decline.

• Spending Reduction: Spending dropped by 10%, from $233 the week of October 5th to $210 the week of October 26th. This illustrates the immediate and tangible impact that federal government disruptions can have on the purchasing power of vulnerable populations.
• Stabilization and Recovery: The data also indicated a period of stabilization in early November, followed by a recovery in spending during the latter half of the month. This suggests that while disruptions can cause short-term shocks, household budgets and spending patterns tend to adjust and rebound over time, albeit with potential delays or compromises.

This historical data provides a valuable backdrop for understanding the resilience and adaptability of SNAP households. While the current restrictions are policy-driven rather than crisis-driven, the underlying principle of shifting spending patterns and potential budget adjustments remains relevant.

Official Responses and the Future of SNAP

The implementation of SNAP restrictions is not occurring in a vacuum. It is a response to evolving policy priorities and public health objectives. Federal and state officials have articulated the rationale behind these changes, emphasizing the goal of promoting healthier diets and addressing the rising rates of diet-related illnesses.

The USDA, as the administering body for SNAP, plays a crucial role in approving and overseeing these state-level waivers. Their stance, as indicated by the USDA’s own press releases and policy statements, is generally supportive of initiatives that aim to improve the nutritional quality of food purchased by SNAP participants. Officials often highlight the program’s dual mandate: to provide food security and to encourage healthier eating habits.

However, these policy changes also face scrutiny and potential criticism. Advocates for low-income families often express concerns that such restrictions could disproportionately affect those struggling to afford adequate food, potentially forcing difficult choices between essential nutrition and the purchase of desired, albeit less healthy, items. The argument is often made that SNAP should provide flexibility to meet diverse dietary needs and cultural preferences within budget constraints.

The research from Numerator, by quantifying the economic impact and detailing consumer behavior, provides valuable data for policymakers, retailers, and advocacy groups alike. It offers a clear picture of the tangible consequences of these policy shifts, allowing for more informed discussions and potential adjustments to future strategies.

Broader Implications for the Grocery Sector

The widespread implementation of SNAP restrictions is poised to "structurally change" the SNAP program, as noted by Numerator. This structural change will reverberate throughout the grocery industry in several key ways:

• Product Assortment Adjustments: Retailers will need to re-evaluate their product mix. This might involve reducing shelf space for restricted items like sugary sodas and candies, and potentially increasing inventory of healthier alternatives that are now seeing increased demand.
• Marketing and Promotions: Marketing strategies will need to adapt. Promotions that previously targeted SNAP shoppers for specific categories might become less effective or require modification. Conversely, campaigns highlighting healthier options or alternative products could see a boost.
• Supply Chain Realignments: Manufacturers of affected products may need to adjust production levels or explore new product development to align with changing consumer demand and SNAP eligibility.
• Impact on Different Retail Formats: The impact may vary across different types of grocery stores. Larger chains with diverse product offerings might be better equipped to absorb the changes, while smaller, independent grocers or convenience stores that heavily rely on sales of these specific categories could face greater challenges.
• Data Analytics and Consumer Insights: The ability to track and understand evolving consumer behavior will become even more critical. Retailers that can leverage data to identify emerging trends and adapt quickly will be better positioned for success.

In conclusion, the coming years will witness a significant recalibration of the SNAP program and its impact on the food retail landscape. The data from Numerator serves as a stark reminder that policy decisions, even those intended to promote public health, carry substantial economic consequences. As states continue to implement these restrictions, grocers and manufacturers must be prepared to navigate these shifts, understand the evolving needs of SNAP participants, and adapt their strategies to thrive in this new environment. The potential for healthier outcomes is present, but the economic adjustments required will be considerable.