When US states barred people from using food-assistance benefits to buy soda, soda purchases fell — but much of the money simply moved to other sugary drinks, a new study finds.
Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), led by the University of Chicago’s Matt Notowidigdo, analyzed grocery records from about 15,000 households using SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Among 3,291 households in 10 states that added new restrictions, soda purchases dropped 12% — roughly 34 fewer 12-ounce cans per person per year. Twenty-three states have received USDA waivers to restrict soda, candy and other junk food from SNAP purchases.
The catch: substitution
The effect had a big loophole. SNAP recipients redirected up to 39% of the money they would have spent on soda to other sugary drinks and fruit juices not covered by the restrictions. “If the goal is to reduce sugar consumption, you want the ban to be more comprehensive,” Notowidigdo said. The study also found increased stigma reported by some SNAP recipients.
Why it matters — and the caveats
Sugary-drink restrictions are an increasingly common policy lever against diet-related disease, so evidence on whether they actually cut sugar intake is valuable. But this analysis is a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, the sample may not represent all SNAP users, and the large substitution effect suggests narrow bans may move consumption more than they reduce it. This summarizes an early-stage study, not settled policy evidence.