FMI Tells USDA to Drop State SNAP Food Restriction Waivers

FMI has formally urged the USDA to drop SNAP food restrictions approved through state-specific waivers, arguing the agency lacks the authority to grant them in the first place.

The trade group laid out two objections in its pushback. First, it said the state-specific waivers exceed the USDA's authority. Second, it said the restrictions unduly burden retailers and consumers who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The dispute centers on a growing pattern. States have sought waivers that narrow what SNAP dollars can buy, and the USDA has entertained those requests. Each waiver applies only to the state that requests it, which is exactly what worries FMI.

Why does a state-by-state patchwork matter?

Grocers operate across state lines. One set of rules in one state and a different set next door means separate product files, separate shelf tagging, separate staff training and separate checkout logic for every restricted item. That's the practical burden FMI says the waivers impose on retailers.

Consumers face friction too. A shopper eligible for SNAP in one state can buy items that a shopper in a neighboring state cannot. The trade group says this burden falls on the people the program is designed to feed.

The legal argument is the sharper one. FMI contends the USDA does not have the statutory power to approve these state-level restrictions at all. If that reading holds, the waivers aren't just inconvenient. They're ultra vires — actions taken beyond an agency's delegated authority.

What does this change for marketers and retailers?

For brands and retailers in the grocery channel, the immediate question is compliance cost. Every new state waiver multiplies the rules a chain must encode at the register. A national retailer doesn't get to pick one policy; it inherits fifty possibilities.

There's also an assortment question. If restrictions spread, manufacturers of products that fall outside the permitted list face shrinking SNAP-eligible demand in those states. Retailers must decide whether to remerchandize around a restriction that affects only part of their customer base.

FMI's position gives retailers and suppliers a unified argument to press: the USDA should withdraw the restrictions rather than continue approving waivers one state at a time.

The USDA has not, in the material FMI released, signaled whether it will pull back from the waiver approvals or defend them. The next move belongs to the agency, and every additional state request will test whether FMI's authority argument slows the patchwork or simply documents it.