Five plaintiffs had brought the case against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March.

A judge has thrown out the US government’s bid to prevent SNAP benefits from being used to buy soft drinks and confectionery.

Five plaintiffs had brought the case against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March.

Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.

A conclusion of the proceedings was made by judge Amy Berman Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday (22 June) covering the states of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

As part of the Trump government’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign under the auspices of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., authorities had sought to prevent SNAP benefits from being used to buy certain food and drinks products deemed as unhealthy.

The plaintiffs receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – aimed at low-income households – in those five states had launched the court challenge against the pilot projects.

According to Politico, citing the USDA, 23 states are seeking waivers to allow them to limit certain foods in the SNAP programme such as soda or confectionery.

The court document of the proceedings said the US government’s move was aimed at the “health, nutrition, and obesity issues prevalent in the low-income population”.

However, Jackson ruled the “defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public”.