ScienceNot yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher2 min readPublished
SNAP soda bans cut purchases 12%. The exclusion list decides what that is worth
An NBER working paper puts the effect at about 34 fewer cans a year per recipient. The substitution argument economists made survives, but not in the form they made it.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- An NBER working paper, not yet peer-reviewed, finds SNAP recipients bought about 12% less soda after bans took effect in 10 states.
- The authors put that at roughly 34 fewer 12-ounce cans a year for each recipient.
- They estimate a 2.6% lower 10-year risk of type 2 diabetes, or about 34,000 fewer new US cases.
- Twenty-three states have USDA waivers to restrict soda, candy and other items, with the rules differing state by state.
- In five of those states the restrictions are suspended under a federal judge's orders.
Why it matters
- contradiction The prediction that recipients would fund soda from other pockets was wrong about the destination but right about the money: it reappeared in unrestricted juices, which turns the objection from a...
- constraint A benefits rule can only reach purchases made with benefits, so this instrument has a hard ceiling and cannot carry an obesity or diabetes agenda by itself.
- decision The live question for the 23 waiver states is no longer whether to restrict but where the excluded-item line sits, because that boundary now has a measured price.
- cost The measurable savings accrue to payers while the reported cost falls on recipients who feel judged, and no mechanism forces anyone to reconcile the two ledgers.
Run the study's two headline numbers against each other and the baseline they imply is about 283 cans a year, a little over five a week [1][2][18]. The restriction takes roughly one can every eleven days out of that [19]. It is a real change in a purchasing habit, and it is small enough that a household can undo most of it by reaching for something the state left off its list.
Which is close to what the data show. The authors report that up to 39% of the money not spent on soda went to other sugary drinks and fruit juices that the state restrictions do not cover [6]. On a dollar basis that leaves about 61% of the nominal reduction standing, putting the effective cut in sugary-drink spending nearer 7% than 12% [20]. Notowidigdo's own reading is that scope is the binding variable: "If the goal is to reduce sugar consumption, you want the ban to be more comprehensive, not less" [7]. The leakage economists predicted did happen [16]. It went sideways into juice rather than back into soda bought with cash.
The national figures inherit the same shape. Paarlberg, who called the study sound, notes it is a 12% cut for the 12% of Americans who use SNAP [14]. If those households buy soda at roughly the national rate, the bans move about 1.4% of US soda purchases [21]. The billion dollars a year in health system savings Notowidigdo cites works out to about 0.02% of the $5.3 trillion the US spent on health care in 2024 [4][5][22]. He calls it a drop in the bucket himself, then points out that it recurs annually [4].
His alternative, per Paarlberg, is a tax: Philadelphia's cut consumption 31% across all groups rather than benefit recipients alone, and raised revenue that could offset the regressivity [15]. Worth registering that the study was funded by a Bloomberg Philanthropies grant, and Bloomberg Philanthropies has worked to tax sugary beverages in the US and elsewhere [17]. That does not make a 12% estimate wrong. It does mean the comparison the finding invites is the funder's preferred instrument.
The evidence is thin in the ways early working papers are thin: six months of 2026 purchase data covering 15,000 SNAP households, of which 3,291 were in restricted states, about 22% of the sample [10][23]. Chrisinger, at Tufts, cautions that it may not represent SNAP recipients generally [11]. And the survey finding sits outside the ledger entirely. His point is that stigma cannot be compared with health indicators, which means the trade-off this policy asks for is one nobody can price [13].
What to watch
- Whether peer review leaves the 12% estimate intact, and whether the diabetes and savings projections survive with it.
- Whether the five states whose restrictions a federal judge suspended get them reinstated, and on what reasoning.
- Whether any state extends its excluded list to fruit juice and non-carbonated sugary drinks, where the study says the unclaimed effect sits.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence52
- Adoption70
- Hype gap+20
- Incentives60
- Confidence50
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
A National Bureau of Economic Research study, not yet peer-reviewed, found soda purchases fell about 12% among SNAP recipients after bans took effect in 10 states.
- [2]
The study says the 12% drop translates to a person drinking about 34 fewer 12-ounce cans of soda per year.
- [3]
The authors estimate the drop would reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 2.6% over the next 10 years, about 34,000 fewer new US cases.
- [4]
Co-author Matt Notowidigdo of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business said the reduction "leads to a billion dollars of savings for the health care system," adding that it is "a drop in the bucket" but "on the other hand, it's $1 billion a year."
- [6]
The study's authors note SNAP recipients used up to 39% of the money they did not spend on soda to buy other sugary drinks and fruit juices not covered by state restrictions.
- [7]
Notowidigdo: "If the goal is to reduce sugar consumption, you want the ban to be more comprehensive, not less."
- [8]
So far 23 states have received USDA waivers to restrict soda, candy and other junk food purchases with SNAP benefits, though the restrictions vary by state.
- [9]
The bans are currently suspended in five of those states under orders from a federal judge.
- [10]
The authors used data from the first six months of 2026 on grocery purchases in 15,000 SNAP households, of which 3,291 were in 10 states that had implemented new restrictions.
- [11]
Benjamin Chrisinger, assistant professor of community health at Tufts University, said the data, while useful, may not be representative of the broader population of SNAP recipients.
- [12]
A survey of SNAP recipients conducted as part of the study found the restrictions made them more likely to report feeling judged or disrespected.
- [13]
Chrisinger called the stigma finding concerning and said stigma is difficult to compare to other health indicators, which complicates any assessment of trade-offs.
- [14]
Robert Paarlberg, professor emeritus of political science at Wellesley, said the study looks sound but 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," and questioned whether it is worth the stigma.
- [15]
Paarlberg said Philadelphia's sugary beverage tax produced a 31% cut in consumption across all groups, not just SNAP recipients, plus revenue that could offset the tax's regressive nature.
- [16]
Some economists had argued that people would simply use other funds to buy soda and other sugary drinks instead.
- [17]
The study was supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has worked to tax sugary beverages in the US and elsewhere and also funds STAT's chronic health coverage without involvement in editorial decisions.
- [18]
A 34-can annual reduction representing a 12% cut implies a baseline of about 283 12-ounce cans a year per recipient, a little over five a week.
- [19]
Thirty-four fewer cans a year is about one fewer can every eleven days.
- [20]
If up to 39% of the money freed by not buying soda is recycled into unrestricted sugary drinks, about 61% of the nominal reduction remains, an effective cut of roughly 7% in sugary-drink spending rather than 12%.
- [21]
A 12% cut among the 12% of Americans on SNAP moves about 1.4% of US soda purchases, if SNAP households buy soda at roughly the national average rate.
- [22]
One billion dollars a year is about 0.02% of the $5.3 trillion the US spent on health care in 2024.
- [23]
The 3,291 households in restricted states are about 22% of the 15,000-household sample.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- statnews.comAmericans bought 12% less soda under new SNAP restrictions, study says
1 article · August 23, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
Entities
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ProgramFollow
- National Bureau of Economic ResearchFollow
- U.S. Department of AgricultureFollow
- Bloomberg PhilanthropiesFollow
- Matt NotowidigdoFollow
- Benjamin ChrisingerFollow
- Robert PaarlbergFollow
- University of Chicago Booth School of BusinessFollow
- Tufts UniversityFollow
- Make America Healthy AgainFollow
- Philadelphia Sugary Beverage TaxFollow
- STATFollow