- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Decatur Today
By the People, for the People
Alabama Proposes SNAP Ban on Soda, Candy to Target 'Obesity in Medicaid'
The state Senate passed a bill to request a federal waiver to remove sugary items from the list of eligible SNAP purchases.
Published on Mar. 4, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
The Alabama Senate has passed a bill that would require the state's Department of Human Resources to request a federal waiver to remove candy and sodas from the list of foods eligible for purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Arthur Orr, says the main reason for the proposed ban is to address health problems caused by sugary foods and drinks, particularly among SNAP participants who are also on Medicaid.
Why it matters
Alabama is one of the most obese states in the country, and supporters of the bill hope that restricting SNAP recipients from buying candy and soda could have a small but meaningful impact on obesity rates, especially among children. However, critics argue that the bill unfairly targets low-income mothers who rely on SNAP benefits.
The details
The bill passed the Alabama Senate by a vote of 23-2, with Sen. Rodger Smitherman opposing the measure, arguing it was wrong to tell SNAP recipients they can't buy candy and soda for their kids. Sen. Orr noted that the state's physician, Sen. Larry Stutts, had seen a significant increase in obesity among his patients over the decades. Orr believes this is 'a very small step' that could help address Alabama's high obesity rates.
- The Alabama Senate passed the bill on Tuesday night.
The players
Sen. Arthur Orr
The Republican state senator from Decatur who introduced the bill to ban the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP benefits.
Sen. Rodger Smitherman
The Democratic state senator from Birmingham who opposed the bill, arguing it was wrong to restrict what SNAP recipients can buy for their children.
Sen. Larry Stutts
The Republican state senator from Sheffield who is also a physician and noted the significant increase in obesity among his patients over the decades.
Alabama Department of Human Resources
The state agency that administers the SNAP program and would be required to request a federal waiver to remove candy and soda from the list of eligible purchases if the bill becomes law.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service
The federal agency that has approved similar waivers for 18 states to restrict the purchase of certain items with SNAP benefits.
What they’re saying
“It's primarily about obesity and particularly in the Medicaid program, we find a lot of SNAP participants are on Medicaid.”
— Sen. Arthur Orr (al.com)
“This is just a very small step that may help the obesity rate in our state. We're one of the most obese states in the country and hopefully, particularly among children, it might have a small impact.”
— Sen. Arthur Orr (al.com)
“The biggest change I saw in my practice over several decades was the increase in the obesity of my patients.”
— Sen. Larry Stutts, Physician (al.com)
“It was wrong to tell mothers who depend on SNAP, formerly called food stamps, that they can't buy candy and sodas for their kids.”
— Sen. Rodger Smitherman (al.com)
What’s next
The bill now moves to the Alabama House of Representatives for consideration.
The takeaway
This proposed SNAP restriction on sugary items highlights the ongoing debate over how to address obesity and health concerns among low-income populations, with supporters arguing it could have a positive impact while critics say it unfairly targets vulnerable families.


