South Carolina is implementing new restrictions on what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients can purchase, with a ban on certain sugary foods and drinks set to take effect on November 1, 2026. The policy, approved by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service following a waiver request from Governor Henry McMaster, will prohibit some shoppers at major grocery stores, including Walmart, from using their SNAP benefits to buy items such as candy, energy drinks, soft drinks, and sweetened beverages.
This initiative aims to promote healthier eating habits among SNAP beneficiaries. Governor McMaster stated that the policy encourages families to purchase nutritious food, ensuring federal taxpayer dollars are used to their maximum benefit and positioning South Carolina as a leader in health initiatives. The USDA approved the waiver as part of an effort to strengthen the SNAP program and encourage healthier outcomes.
The ban will encompass a range of products, including most candies, but will exempt protein and granola bars. Similarly, while many sugary beverages will be restricted, coffee, tea, milk-based drinks, and most fruit and vegetable juices will remain eligible. Exceptions also include baby formula, sports drinks, carbonated water, and medically necessary beverages.
Shoppers attempting to purchase restricted items may encounter errors at checkout, with messages indicating that the item is not allowed when using an EBT card or shopping online. For in-store purchases, shoppers are advised to use regular checkout lanes where cashiers may offer assistance. Online shopping can also help beneficiaries verify item eligibility before completing a purchase.
This move by South Carolina follows similar restrictions implemented or planned in other states, including Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah, with several more states like Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio set to begin restrictions soon. However, the implementation of such bans has faced legal challenges. In March, SNAP participants sued the USDA, arguing that the agency lacked the authority to redefine which foods qualify for purchase under the program. A ruling in the US District Court for the District of Columbia stated that Congress defined SNAP-eligible food and did not grant the agency the power to waive or amend that definition, finding that the waivers unlawfully restricted food types allowed under the program.
Despite these legal challenges, some states are moving forward with their waiver implementations. A report by the National Grocers Association estimated that implementing SNAP restrictions could cost U.S. retailers billions in initial and ongoing losses. Advocacy groups have expressed concern that such bans could disproportionately affect SNAP recipients, while proponents argue they are a necessary step to ensure federal assistance is used for healthier food options and to curb healthcare costs associated with diet-related illnesses.