Texas Restricts SNAP Purchases of Candy and Soda

New law limits what can be bought with food assistance benefits.

Published on Mar. 8, 2026

Texas has become one of the first states to restrict the purchase of certain items, including candy and soda, using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The new law aims to promote healthier food choices for those receiving government food assistance.

Why it matters

The move is part of a broader effort by some states to shape the nutritional content of foods purchased with SNAP benefits, which are intended to help low-income families afford basic groceries. Proponents argue it will improve public health, while critics say it unfairly limits personal choice.

The details

Under the new Texas law, SNAP recipients will no longer be able to use their benefits to purchase sugary drinks, candy, and other items deemed unhealthy. The restrictions apply to the Lone Star Card, the state's SNAP debit card. Supporters of the law say it will encourage healthier eating habits and reduce obesity rates among SNAP participants.

  • The new law went into effect on March 1, 2026.

The players

Texas

One of the first states to restrict SNAP purchases of certain items deemed unhealthy, such as candy and soda.

Lone Star Card

The debit card used by SNAP recipients in Texas to access their food assistance benefits.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must do everything we can to promote healthy eating and combat obesity, especially among our most vulnerable populations.”

— Governor Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas (Texas Tribune)

“This law unfairly restricts the choices of low-income families and fails to address the root causes of poor nutrition.”

— Advocacy Group Representative (Texas Monthly)

What’s next

The new SNAP restrictions in Texas are expected to face legal challenges from advocacy groups, who argue the law infringes on personal freedom.

The takeaway

The Texas SNAP restrictions highlight the ongoing debate over the role of government in shaping the food choices of low-income populations, with proponents arguing for improved public health and critics concerned about limiting personal liberty.