Wisconsin Lags Behind on SNAP Reform

The Trump Administration’s New Waiver Program

Starting on January first of this year, the Trump administration began rolling out new SNAP Food Restriction Waivers, which allow states to gain greater control over their own Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP).

The waivers were created under the authority of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which allows for state SNAP agencies to implement new reforms, as long as these reforms are “testing” for potential improvements in the program’s effectiveness and efficiency.

When states get approved for a waiver through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), they are then permitted to place additional restrictions, beyond the ones outlined by the federal government, on the kinds of junk food that can be bought with SNAP benefits.

So far, 18 states have taken advantage of this new waiver program, placing restrictions on various unhealthy foods such as candy, sugary juices, prepared desserts, and sodas. A few of the waivers have already been rolled out, with other states implementing theirs in the coming months.

Notably, Wisconsin is not one of the 18 states that applied for a waiver and is still allowing for all junk foods to be purchased with SNAP benefits.

Wisconsin’s SNAP Program

Wisconsin’s SNAP program, known as FoodShare, is meant to aid low-income Americans in buying necessary food for their families and stop hunger in the state. FoodShare benefits can be used at most stores and farmers’ markets by using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which have a set monthly amount on them.

In 2024, Wisconsin gave out nearly $1.25 billion in FoodShare benefits to nearly 700,000 individuals across the state. Currently, the maximum amount of monthly FoodShare benefits that a family of four in Wisconsin can receive is $994.

Under current federal and state law, the only items that are restricted from purchase with FoodShare benefits are alcohol, tobacco, health products such as medicine and supplements, live animals, pet food, products containing controlled substances, non-food items, and hot foods.

An Attempt at Reform

In April of last year, Representative Clint Moses and Senator Chris Kapenga introduced a bill that would’ve taken advantage of the federal government’s waiver program and added more unhealthy food items to FoodShare’s restriction list.

Specifically, A.B. 180 would ban soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy from being purchased with benefits. In order to enforce the new restrictions, the bill requires the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to apply for a SNAP Food Restriction Waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Supporters of the bill argue that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for food that has no nutritional value and will make low-income Wisconsinites’ health worse off in the long run.

In an interview with WPR, Representative Moses noted that “it’s a double-edged sword, because not only are the taxpayers paying for this food that’s feeding illness and disease, but then also the taxpayers are paying for a lot of these people that are also on Medicaid benefits, so then we’re paying for their health care.”

However, opponents of the bill argue that this bill is unfair to low-income individuals and inconsiderate of those living in food deserts. Representative Ryan Clancy, a Democrat from Milwaukee, said in an interview with WPR that this bill insinuates that Republicans are trying to “punish people for their poverty.”

The few new food restrictions that A.B. 180 is requesting are less expansive than other waivers that states are receiving.

For example, Arkansas’s waiver restricts candy, soda, unhealthy drinks, and fruit and vegetable drinks that contain less than 50% natural juice. Additionally, Iowa’s new waiver restricts soda, juices with less than 50% fruit or vegetable juice, candy, candy-coated items, vitamins and minerals, chewing gum, and some in-store prepared foods.

Moreover, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Tennessee have all passed bills and obtained waivers with approximately the same restrictions as A.B. 180.

It is worth noting that A.B. 180 did not receive a floor vote before the end of the last calendar year, and the fate of it is unclear.

Conclusion

Limiting foods with zero nutritional value from being purchased with taxpayer dollars is a common-sense move that would align the program more closely with its original purpose: helping low-income Americans afford nutritious meals that sate their hunger and improve their health.

Wisconsin should take advantage of this waiver program while they can and modernize FoodShare to lead to healthier outcomes for its recipients. The federal government has given the tools to make this possible, and now it is up to Wisconsin lawmakers to use them.