Analysis: New SNAP restrictions in Iowa

Coles never met a candy they weren’t at least willing to try. My sweet tooth craves it while my 40-year-old female waistline tells me I should despise it. I can’t keep candy in my house. I’ll eat it.

But if I had no self-control and started buying big cartons of Milk Duds and a case of Coca-Cola (my other great sugar-loaded love) every time I went to the grocery store, my finances are enough that doing so would not hinder my ability to afford to buy chicken breast or a rump roast or a dozen eggs. Call me fortunate.

A person or household receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, however, does not have that same room in their food budget. By its very design, a monthly SNAP allotment equals only what is needed to pay the minimum cost of a nutritionally sound diet for one who cannot otherwise afford enough food. That means every SNAP dollar spent on pop and candy is one less dollar the user has to buy ground beef and romaine lettuce and taco shells.

It is not only the right but the duty of those who facilitate SNAP benefits — i.e. each state — to ensure that beneficiaries receive what they are intended to provide. Iowans facing food insecurity deserve more than just calories. They deserve nutrition.

In April, the state of Iowa sought a waiver from the USDA permitting a prohibition on using SNAP dollars to purchase candy and sugary beverages. Such restrictions are neither a new idea nor solely a template red-state objective. Solidly blue New York applied for (and was denied) a SNAP exemption on sugary beverages in 2010. Even the administration of former President Joe Biden (or whoever was holding the autopen) proposed a total ban on chocolate and other flavored milk in elementary schools to curb sugar consumption by young children.

Iowans facing food insecurity deserve more than just calories. They deserve nutrition.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ previous waiver requests were unsuccessful, rejected by both the Biden administration and the first administration of President Donald Trump. But what seemed futile only months ago is now reality: On May 23, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins signed waiver requests for both Iowa and Indiana to become the second and third states to exempt soft drinks and candy from eligible SNAP purchases. The waivers will begin on Jan. 1, 2026 and last for two years, potentially up to five.

Iowa SNAP recipients have seven months to brush up on what they will and will not be able to purchase with their benefits starting next year. They should expect a learning curve.

Which foods and beverages will be restricted?

Here are some of the items Iowans will no longer be able use SNAP benefits to purchase beginning Jan. 1, 2026, according to a list of taxable foods from the Iowa Department of Revenue:

What purchases will still be permitted?

The list of tax-exempt foods from the Iowa Department Revenue, for the purchase of which SNAP benefits may continue to be used, includes:

This is a lot of detail. And these lists by your friendly neighborhood opinion columnist are not exactly definitive.

Far from perfect, but it makes sense

So, SNAP can’t be used to buy chocolate chips, but it can buy chocolate syrup. It can buy marshmallow fluff but not marshmallows. Butterscotch syrup is OK, butterscotch candy is a no-go. A Twix or Kit-Kat bar can still be purchased with SNAP — they contain flour, after all — but the flourless Milky Ways, Mounds bars and most others can’t.

At first glance, this all seems bizarre. How exactly did these determinations of what’s acceptable and what’s not get made? Can we make it make sense, at least?

Believe it or not, we can. According to a press release from Reynolds’ office, the waiver that was submitted — and granted — specifically sought for Iowa to align its allowable SNAP purchases with the list of foods that are exempt from taxation under Iowa law. It happens that Iowa’s taxable food items are mostly the sugary junk with no nutritional benefit.

“Using the non-taxable foods list is a clear-cut, common-sense way to implement the new guidelines,” said Reynolds’ press release.

Every SNAP retailer in Iowa already has point-of-sale and inventory systems programmed for what is taxable and what is exempt. Making the SNAP-eligible list mirror the tax-eligible list will prevent retailers from having to distinguish between two differing sets of qualifying items. That’s a plus.

Add these to your list of things to Google later

Iowa’s long and detailed list of rules for determining what constitutes taxable and non-taxable foods is, let’s face it, pretty wonky. For example, the rules define “candy” as a “preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces.” Importantly, “’candy’ shall not include any preparation containing flour and shall require no refrigeration.”

Candy is a taxable food in Iowa — unless, that is, it requires refrigeration or contains flour per the aforementioned rule. Candy that contains flour (or requires refrigeration) is a non-taxable (or exempt) food.

Twix bars have cookies in them. Kit-Kats have wafers. Each contain flour, making Twix and Kit-Kats non-taxable foods.

Don’t ask me who came up with these rules. It was likely not even someone from Iowa. Since 2005, our state has participated in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, under which we and 23 other member states abide by more uniform sales tax rules to cut down on problems with collecting and remitting taxes that arose when state policies notably differed. For taxation purposes, Iowa’s goofy definition of “candy” is uniformly shared by 23 other states. (Maybe one of them can explain that silly flour rule. And then follow up with the marshmallow contradiction.)

Most foods not affected by new SNAP purchase restrictions

Nevertheless, it’s a simple picture: whether an item remains SNAP-eligible comes down to whether the item is exempt from sales tax.

Most food items in Iowa are non-taxable and will therefore remain SNAP-eligible. Meats, fruits and vegetables, whether fresh, frozen, dried or canned are all non-taxable. As a matter of fact, aside from pop and beer, virtually anything sold in a can or a jar is non-taxable (including cake frosting, apparently.)

So is bread. And cheese. Milk. Doritos. Easy Mac. Go-Gurts. Oreos. Raisins. Maraschino cherries. Blue Bunny ice cream. Cereal — even the really sugary stuff like Lucky Charms, the first ingredient in which is whole grain oats. Virtually anything containing flour, like a heckin’ TWIX BAR. If I go any further, I risk making the case that Reynolds’ SNAP waiver doesn’t go far enough.

Finally, an attempt to improve SNAP buys

But the important thing is not how far the waiver goes, but that it goes somewhere in the first place, finally addressing long-standing flaws in the process while leaving important aspects untouched. The waiver won’t touch the dollar amount SNAP users receive. It won’t change where SNAP can be used. Retailers would not currently be eligible to accept SNAP if they only sell items set to be prohibited in January.

Won’t it be nice to find a year from now that the learning curve has been rounded — that SNAP users and retailers are carrying on with business as usual; that no one stopped using their SNAP dollars because they couldn’t find ways to spend them; that no retailers posted big losses from a drop in pop and candy sales.

If those things do happen, critics - especially Iowa Democrats - would be unwise to trumpet the problem. The last thing Democrats should do in an election year is point out that Republicans’ concerns about SNAP use were justified all along.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com