By: Rachel Cahill, Gaby Halligan, and Sofia Charlot
Key findings
- As of June 2025, nearly 10,000 grocery retailers in Ohio accept SNAP benefits, yet just over 1,000 grocery retailers accept WIC benefits. Our analysis found stunningly large gaps in retail access, especially in Ohio’s rural areas and central cities.
- Adding complexity to SNAP could result in grocery retailers across Ohio no longer accepting SNAP benefits and leaving SNAP recipients without sufficient stores to spend their benefits.
- Rather than restricting what SNAP benefits can purchase in Ohio, lawmakers should invest in nutrition education, Produce Perks, and other proven interventions to incentivize the consumption of fruits and vegetables, and avoid risking the unintended consequence of driving large numbers of grocery retailers away from SNAP.
Some states propose limiting what low-income families could purchase using SNAP benefits
There is a policy trend spreading across state capitals in 2025 – the idea of restricting what types of food and beverages low-income families can purchase with their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. As of June 1, 2025, 46 bills have been introduced across 25 states; so far, four have become law.
At face value, these proposals seem like a reasonable approach to encourage Americans to eat healthier diets. Proponents share statistics on the harms of diet-related diseases, which plague all Americans, not just those with the lowest incomes.
Congress designed SNAP to function like any other form of payment to make participation simple for grocery retailers and to minimize stigma for shoppers—and for good reason.
What these proposals misunderstand is that, unlike other nutrition assistance programs, SNAP was designed to operate in a free-market economy through the “normal channels of trade.” This means SNAP operates in large and small grocery stores, corner stores, farmer’s markets, drug stores, andevery other place Americans can shop for basic groceries. By creating the program this way, Congress designed SNAP to function like any other form of payment to make participation simple for grocery retailers and to minimize stigma for shoppers—and for good reason. SNAP is a powerful economic driver in Ohio, generating nearly $5billion in economic activity each year, and a key policy lever for fighting economic recessions.
What we found was a stunningly large gap in retail access for SNAP vs. WIC participants, especially in Ohio’s rural areas and inner cities.
Issues with the ineligible food framework
For starters, the list of “unhealthy” food and drinks to restrict is inconsistent and arbitrary, without clear definitions, causing significant confusion. The proposal doesn’t include any details on how this framework would be operationalized to define eligible and ineligible foods.
Proponents of SNAP purchase restrictions say grocery retailers are exaggerating the disruption their proposals would cause. If eligible product labeling can be done for a much smaller nutrition program—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)—proponents say, it could be done for SNAP.
But could it?
What could happen if the “free market” decides that it’s not worth it for mainstream grocery retailers to participate in SNAP? And how would this impact Ohio’s rural and urban communities?
