Iowa’s new SNAP rules are not asking too much

Gov. Kim Reynolds took a victory lap on Dec. 22 with the announcement that Iowa will opt into the SUN Bucks program in 2026.

Also known as Summer EBT, the pandemic era-turned-permanent federal program provides $120 per child in EBT benefits for food purchases eligible under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), during the months school is not in session.

To the ire of anti-hunger advocates, Reynolds had made the gutsy decision to opt out of SUN Bucks in 2024 and 2025, citing concerns with rising childhood obesity rates that the program would not have addressed.

After two years of “no,” what has changed that now has Reynolds willing to say “yes” to SUN Bucks? A new green light from the USDA, which governs the federal SNAP program.

The state was notified Dec. 19 that the USDA has approved Reynolds’ request to align allowable SUN Bucks purchases with Iowa’s new SNAP purchasing guidelines. Thus, SUN Bucks will not be able to be spent on pop, candy and a few other items with little to no nutritional value.

IOWA MEETS ANTI-HUNGER ADVOCATES IN THE MIDDLE

Now able to set parameters for healthier purchases, the Big Kim Energy has jumped back on board with SUN Bucks — without yielding or folding on her original concerns.

Anti-hunger advocates who opposed Reynolds’ previous opt-outs are happy … to an extent.

“Today’s announcement is a huge win for every single Iowan,” said Paige Chickering, Iowa state director for the Save the Children Action Network and vice-chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition.

That goodwill comes with a firm line drawn, though. Lest Reynolds get too much credit for focusing on nutrition and not merely sustenance, Luke Elzinga, chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition said that while the organization was “overjoyed” at Iowa’s rejoining the SUN Bucks program, it “remains opposed to SNAP food and beverage restrictions.”

Elzinga is presumably referring to the waiver Iowa sought and received late last spring, allowing the state to restrict the purchase of sugary drinks, candy and certain other junk foods with all SNAP dollars, not just SUN Bucks. The new SNAP restrictions took effect in Iowa and four other states on Thursday.

Often citing phrases such as “stigma” and “barriers to access,” hunger advocates are treating the prohibition on purchasing pop and candy as an affront to the recipients of SNAP — people who are, statistically speaking, more likely to purchase those items than non-recipients, and who are, as some studies have shown, more likely to experience obesity and its related health issues.

Poverty is a condition with many causes, of which decision-making is but one. Studies from point of sale data indicate that while most Americans don’t make great decisions when it comes to their diets, SNAP recipients are less likely than non-SNAP recipient households to purchase healthy foods — and tend to spend more of their monthly grocery budgets on sugary drinks.

Reform in SNAP purchasing has been badly needed. But advocates’ resistance to necessary purchasing reforms has let change become the enemy of improvement.

Until now, that is.

RETAILERS GRUMBLE

Retailers and their big advocacy organizations aren’t thrilled with new SNAP purchase restrictions, either. The National Grocer’s Association, the Food Industry Association and the National Association of Convenience Stores commissioned a report saying it would cost the industry nationwide — small grocery stores, supermarkets, supercenters and convenience stores — up to $1.6 billion up-front to implement, with about $1 billion of that borne by convenience stores.

Inventory systems and point-of-sale terminals will need to be updated to properly charge products to SNAP EBT cards, yes. In the beginning, retailers also will need to put extra man-hours into training employees and resolving customer confusion at checkout terminals, which should reduce as the customer familiarizes itself with the new restrictions.

Retailers who feel it unfair to have to do all these updates might want to keep in mind that a portion of their revenue is being remitted directly to them by the government. It should be considered a standard operating procedure to have to update equipment and do other compliance measures to keep the privilege of making significant money from those government — originated dollars.

Speaking of revenue, the report put out by the food retailer industry groups suggested that stores would experience lost sales revenue from changing customer behavior.

Of the five states whose new rules went into effect Thursday, most are banning only candy and/or pop and energy drinks. From this, convenience stores expect to lose over $1,000 per store each week. Supermarkets and supercenters expect to lose $8,000 to $10,000 every week.

Mind you, a SNAP user’s overall dollar allotment won’t change; most eligible foods from before will remain eligible for purchase with SNAP dollars. I can’t fathom that recipients wouldn’t find other eligible items to spend their money on at a SuperTarget.

Convenience stores might lose $1,000 per week — if the bulk of their SNAP-eligible sales up until Dec. 31 really were pop and candy.

If that’s the case, though, I struggle to feel any regret that some that some people will no longer pay $2.79 for a 20-ounce Mountain Dew with SNAP dollars.

(But I’m told that never happens.)

SNAP doesn’t exist to protect a store’s business model. If a convenience store should fold because they couldn’t sell enough Monster energy drinks and Skittles without being able to swipe an EBT card, let it serve as anecdotal evidence of how far the program has strayed from its original purpose.

IOWA’S RESTRICTIONS MIGHT BE EASIER FOR STORES TO IMPLEMENT

Iowa’s new restrictions are considered the most stringent of any state who has received a waiver to date. Ironically, the restrictions were chosen in part to make the transition easier on retailers.

In states like West Virginia and Utah, who are only banning the purchase of pop with SNAP benefits, retailers will have to uniquely identify those individual items in their point-of-sale software, creating a special “ineligible” classification to distinguish it from other taxable and non-taxable items that qualify for SNAP.

Iowa’s restriction applies to all items described as “taxable” under Iowa law, meaning more than just pop and candy will be prohibited for SNAP purchases. But it also means that identifying newly SNAP-ineligible items for recoding in the POS system will be much easier, as the systems already had to distinguish between taxable and non-taxable items.

It will mean a learning curve for SNAP consumers in Iowa, as the taxable items list gets slightly complicated.

The condensed version, which I wrote about last summer: No candy, gum, mints or fruit snacks such as Gushers or Fruit Roll-Ups. No pop, sweet tea or Kool-Aid or juice with less than 50% real juice. No marshmallows, sweetened coconut or chocolate chips.

As a reminder, all of this stuff can be purchased using private dollars, just not one’s EBT card.

Non-taxable food in Iowa therefore remaining eligible for SNAP purchases: Cereal is safe; as are potato chips, ice cream, cakes, cookies and jars of frosting on the shelf in the baking aisle. Juice with a minimum of 50% real juice, chocolate milk and other flavors; marshmallow fluff and peaches canned in heavy syrup are still SNAP-eligible.

The reality is that most food on store shelves will still be SNAP-eligible food. Some are nevertheless unsatisfied. Speaking with KWQC in Davenport, Chickering acknowledged that some SNAP recipients within driving distance of Illinois, where there are no increased purchase restrictions, may opt to do all their shopping across the river.

I do not recommend that. It could be a good way to get yourself flagged by the state, as SNAP recipients are required to apply for benefits in their state of residence. An abundance of transactions in Illinois or Wisconsin might earn you some questions from the state of Iowa about your true residency and whether you should actually be receiving SNAP benefits.

Here’s what I do recommend: Understand that the sky is not falling. Changes to what you can buy with SNAP benefits are minimal in the grand scheme of the items that remain eligible, and store shelves will still be lined with products you and your kids will be willing to eat and enjoy.

Critics say the USDA waivers that allow for purchase restrictions will enable other problems of food insecurity to be ignored.

Anand Parekh, chief policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Health, told the Associated Press, “This doesn’t solve the two fundamental problems, which is healthy food in this country is not affordable and unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous.”

Indeed, Reynolds’ new SNAP restrictions will not solve that problem.

But letting people spend their SNAP dollars on pop and candy wasn’t getting it done, either. Maybe now that we’ve taken a first step on something, we can take a few more in a better direction.

Althea Cole is a Gazette opinion contributor. Comments: 319-343-8222; althea.cole.writer@gmail.com