New restrictions on the use of food benefits to purchase soda and candy have been one of the biggest changes enacted by the Make America Healthy Again movement. But a key question has been how profoundly the bans would affect public health, with some economists arguing that people would just use other funds to buy Coke and other sugary drinks instead.
Now a new study shows that soda purchases did indeed fall by about 12% among people who receive Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits after the bans went into effect in 10 states. The study, which was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and has not yet been peer-reviewed, says this translates to a person drinking about 34 fewer 12-ounce cans of soda per year.
That’s not huge, according to the study’s authors, but it’s far from nothing.
“If the goal is to reduce obesity, reduce the cases of diabetes caused by people being overweight and overconsuming sugary beverages, this is probably one part of a broader set of policies,” said Matt Notowidigdo, an economics professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business who co-authored the study.
The study was supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has worked to tax sugary beverages in the U.S. and elsewhere. Bloomberg Philanthropies also contributes funding to STAT but is not involved in STAT’s editorial decisions.
So far, 23 states have received waivers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement restrictions on soda, candy, and other so-called junk food, though the restrictions vary by state. The bans are currently suspended in five of those states under orders from a federal judge.
Soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages are responsible for about 1 million new cases of heart disease and 2 million new cases of type 2 diabetes worldwide each year, according to a 2025 study published in Nature Medicine. The NBER study’s authors estimate that the drop in soda consumption because of the restrictions would reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 2.6% over the next 10 years, amounting to about 34,000 fewer new cases in the U.S.
“It leads to a billion dollars of savings for the health care system,” Notowidigdo said. “Given how big the health care system is, it’s a drop in the bucket. On the other hand, it’s $1 billion a year.” The U.S. spent about $5.3 trillion on health care in 2024.
The study’s authors used data from the first six months of 2026 on grocery purchases in 15,000 households using SNAP benefits, of which 3,291 were in 10 states that had implemented new restrictions. That data, while useful, may not be representative of the broader population of SNAP recipients, said Benjamin Chrisinger, an assistant professor of community health at Tufts University, via email.
Another important caveat noted by the study’s authors: SNAP recipients used up to 39% of the money that they didn’t spend on soda to purchase other sugary drinks and fruit juices that didn’t fall under states’ restrictions. “If the goal is to reduce sugar consumption, you want the ban to be more comprehensive, not less,” Notowidigdo said.
A survey of SNAP recipients, conducted as part of the study, also found that the restrictions made them more likely to report feeling judged or disrespected.
That finding is “concerning,” Chrisinger said. “Unfortunately, stigma is difficult to compare to other health indicators, which complicates any assessment of trade-offs.”
The study looks sound, said Robert Paarlberg, a professor emeritus of political science focused on food policy at Wellesley University, via email. But he added that a 12% cut in soda purchases, for the 12% of Americans who use SNAP, “doesn’t add up to a huge national health gain. I wonder if it is worth the stigma.”
A better alternative could be to tax sugary beverages, Paarlberg said. “When Philadelphia did this, they got a 31% cut in consumption across all groups, not just SNAP recipients, along with some revenue they could use for neighborhood projects, to offset the regressive nature of the tax.”
The Philadelphia policy also avoided the problem of stigma, because the mayor never mentioned concerns about health or obesity, Paarlberg said. “He claimed he was doing it for the revenue.”
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.