In a sweeping move aimed at reshaping the American diet, six additional U.S. states have secured federal waivers to ban the purchase of certain processed junk foods with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, starting in 2026. The decision, backed by the Trump administration and lauded by public health advocates, marks a significant escalation in the nation’s ongoing struggle with childhood nutrition and chronic disease. At the same time, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that ultraprocessed foods make up a staggering 62% of the calories consumed by American children and teens, underscoring the urgency—and controversy—surrounding these policy shifts.
According to The Economic Times, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Texas, and Florida received approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement new SNAP restrictions, which will roll out in early 2026. The bans will target foods high in sugar, fat, and sodium, such as soft drinks, sweets, and ultra-processed snacks. Each state has outlined its own timeline and specific list of restricted products. For instance, Colorado will prohibit soft drinks beginning March 1, 2026, while Texas will block the purchase of sugary drinks and sweets starting April 1, 2026. Florida’s restrictions, which take effect January 1, 2026, will be among the most sweeping, banning soft drinks, energy drinks, sweets, and prepared desserts.
“SNAP is a supplemental nutrition program meant to provide health food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated during the waiver signing. “That is the stated purpose of the SNAP program, the law states it and President Trump’s USDA plans to deliver on it.”
The policy is rooted in mounting concerns over the impact of poor dietary habits on children’s health. As The Defender reports, the CDC’s latest data, collected from August 2021 to August 2023, shows that children ages 6-11 consume the highest proportion of ultraprocessed foods—65% of their total calories. The most common items? Sandwiches (including burgers), sweet bakery products, savory snacks, pizza, and sweetened beverages. U.S. adults are not far behind, with 53% of their diet derived from ultraprocessed foods.
Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, a prominent voice in food safety, is throwing his support behind Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign to address what the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) Commission calls the “chief driver of the childhood chronic disease epidemic.” Kessler told The New York Times, “This is the great public health challenge facing us. … Twenty-five percent of American men are going to develop heart failure. Thirty to 40 percent of us are going to be diabetic. Twenty-five percent of us are going to have a stroke. And the primary driver of that is our diet and what we are eating.”
In a bold move, Kessler submitted a citizen petition to the FDA on August 6, 2025, urging the agency to reconsider the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status of key ingredients found in ultraprocessed foods—such as high-fructose corn syrup, dextrose, maltodextrin, and corn solids. If the FDA acts on his request, manufacturers could soon face mandates to reformulate products or add warning labels to a wide array of grocery staples, from breakfast cereals and breads to protein bars, yogurts, and plant-based meats. Kessler’s petition, as reported by The Defender, argues that scientific evidence now links these refined carbohydrates to weight gain, heart and kidney diseases, and certain cancers, making it untenable for the FDA to ignore their risks.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been vocal about the stakes, connecting the dots between SNAP policy and broader public health outcomes. “U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to feed kids foods, the poorest kids in our country, with foods that are going to give them diabetes. And then my agency ends up, through Medicaid and Medicare, paying for those injuries,” Kennedy said. “We’re going to put an end to that, and we’re doing it step by step, state by state.”
Yet, the effort to define—and regulate—ultraprocessed foods is far from straightforward. The CDC’s report relies on the NOVA Food Classification System, a Brazilian-developed method that sorts foods based on processing level. However, critics have called NOVA “confusing and controversial,” noting that it can lump together items as disparate as whey protein, tofu, and fortified cereals with soda and candy. In response, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FDA, and the USDA launched a joint initiative in July 2025 to develop a uniform federal definition of ultraprocessed foods. According to an HHS press release, a clear definition “will allow for consistency in research and policy to pave the way for addressing health concerns associated with the consumption of ultra-processed foods.”
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, speaking to The New York Times, emphasized that the agency does not view ultraprocessed foods as something to be banned outright. “We do not see ultraprocessed foods as foods to be banned. … We see them as foods to be defined so that markets can compete based on health.” He suggested that a clear definition would empower consumers and encourage companies to tout healthier alternatives, much as they now advertise products as “free from added sugars.”
The political landscape has shifted, too. As Helena Bottemiller Evich, founder of the newsletter Food Fix, observed in a recent New York Times op-ed, bipartisan momentum is building to tackle junk food consumption in the U.S.—a far cry from the partisan battles that surrounded Michelle Obama’s school lunch reforms. “This attitude gives the Trump administration a rare political opportunity to make once infeasible policy changes to improve our diets,” she wrote. “It’s not just that Mr. Kennedy has the backing of the president. He also has an energized grass-roots ‘Make America Healthy Again’ army that could be unleashed to defend his boldest policies.”
Still, the new SNAP restrictions have not escaped criticism. Some argue that limiting food choices for low-income families is paternalistic and could stigmatize recipients. Others contend that moderate consumption of “junk” food does not pose significant harm, and that education, not prohibition, is the better path forward. Yet, many public health advocates and ordinary citizens have welcomed the changes, seeing them as a critical step toward healthier eating habits for future generations.
With the MAHA Commission set to release a follow-up report later this month outlining strategies to combat the childhood chronic disease epidemic, and with bipartisan support coalescing around junk food reform, America stands at a pivotal moment in its long-running food fight. Whether these measures will shift the needle on public health remains to be seen, but the debate over what Americans eat—and who gets to decide—has never been more intense or consequential.
