Restaurant chains across the U.S. have spent the past several years cutting labor costs, redesigning service models, and pushing more orders through kiosks and apps. At Steak ‘n Shake, that shift has become a defining change, with longtime fans increasingly tying their decision to stop visiting to the brand’s move away from its traditional diner-style service.

Steak ‘n Shake’s dining room overhaul changed how customers order

Steak ‘n Shake publicly confirmed its service reset in early 2021, when parent company Biglari Holdings said dining rooms would reopen with self-service kiosks instead of table-side ordering. In his shareholder letter dated March 4, 2021, Chairman and CEO Sardar Biglari said guests would initiate transactions at kiosks, a move later echoed in company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Restaurant Business also reported in 2021 that the chain was embracing kiosks after a financial rescue led by Biglari.

That change was not limited to a handful of stores. In its 2025 annual report, Biglari Holdings said its restaurant businesses included 435 company-operated and franchise units as of December 31, 2025, and that seven of the 131 company-operated Steak ‘n Shake stores were closed at year-end. In a separate 2025 shareholder letter, Biglari said the company had converted 179 company-operated units into single-unit franchise operations by the end of 2025.

The company has presented the changes as part of a larger operating transformation rather than a short-term experiment. Biglari wrote in prior communications that the old business model was no longer suited to current economics, and the company’s public reporting shows the chain has continued adjusting store ownership and operations in the years since kiosks were introduced.

Customer frustration is visible, but the full scope is not publicly measured

What is confirmed is the model change itself; what is not publicly quantified is how many customers have stopped visiting because of it. Steak ‘n Shake has not released a national customer-retention figure tied to kiosks, nor has it published a comprehensive breakdown of complaints by market. Still, public feedback collected in reviews, forums, and app-store comments shows recurring concerns about self-ordering, tip prompts, slower service, and a different in-store routine.

The reference material behind this story points to that pattern. NewsBreak, citing customer comments posted on Reddit and Yelp, highlighted complaints about shrinking burger portions, inconsistent shake quality, and confusion over how service now works inside some restaurants. Some customers described not knowing where to sit, when to pick up food, or how to get assistance if an order went wrong. Others focused on being asked to tip during a kiosk transaction with limited staff interaction.

Those complaints do not amount to a scientific survey, and they should not be read as representative of every location. Some customers continue to report solid visits at individual stores. But the consistency of the feedback across public platforms suggests that for at least part of Steak ‘n Shake’s customer base, the company’s new service format has become a deciding factor in whether they return.

The company says the reset was driven by economics and a broader turnaround

The clearest documented reason for the changes is financial pressure. Biglari Holdings’ filings state that most Steak ‘n Shake dining rooms reopened during 2021 with a self-service model, and company reporting has framed the shift as part of a broader turnaround after a period of distress. Restaurant Business described the move as following a last-minute rescue, while Biglari later said the previous operating model was ill-suited for the modern restaurant environment.

Recent company documents indicate the strategy has improved financial performance, even as it changed the customer experience. In his 2024 shareholder letter, Biglari said Steak ‘n Shake produced $20.1 million in pre-tax operating earnings in 2024. The 2025 annual report and 2025 shareholder letter also point to continued refranchising and tighter operating control as major parts of the brand’s strategy.

For customers, that means the Steak ‘n Shake they remember may not be the one they encounter now. The company has continued to describe the business as fast and focused, and its filings show the transformation remains active rather than complete. For diners, the practical reality is that service style, staffing levels, and store operations may differ from the chain’s earlier full-service model, even as the brand remains in expansion and conversion mode.

Across the U.S., restaurants increasingly rely on strong themes, historic settings and destination-worthy experiences to stand out in a crowded dining market. In Iowa, that strategy is visible in five restaurants that pair food service with unusually specific identities, from pro wrestling and zombie decor to truck-stop scale and a counter tucked beneath a parking ramp. What sets these places apart is that the concepts are supported by verifiable local history, operating records and long-running public interest.

Five restaurants with unusually specific identities

In Marshalltown, The Flying Elbow built its concept around professional wrestling and burgers, and that identity has been matched by statewide recognition. The Iowa Beef Industry Council announced on May 2, 2022, that The Flying Elbow at 229 N. 13th Street won the Iowa’s Best Burger contest, a statewide competition run with the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association. The council said the restaurant’s traffic increased after the award, and owner Garrett Goodman told the group the business was serving more than 400 pounds of beef during the post-award rush.

In Des Moines, Zombie Burger + Drink Lab has marketed itself as a “post apocalyptic chic” burger restaurant in the East Village, according to the company’s official description. The business confirmed that its downtown location at 300 E. Grand Ave. combines a quick-service counter with a full-service drink lab, using horror-themed branding and specialty shakes as a central part of the concept rather than a seasonal promotion.

Fong’s Pizza, also in Des Moines, tied its identity directly to the history of its building. On its official site, the company said the restaurant opened in the former King Ying Low location and built its menu around Asian, Italian and Polynesian influences, including the now-signature Crab Rangoon pizza. The company also said it intentionally preserved the legacy of the prior Chinese restaurant while turning the space into one of the city’s best-known themed dining rooms.

Why these places matter in Iowa

The local impact is clearest in the way each restaurant is tied to a specific Iowa city rather than a broad regional chain strategy. Marshalltown’s Flying Elbow is a locally rooted independent restaurant whose statewide burger title came through an Iowa contest, while Zombie Burger and Fong’s have become part of Des Moines’ identity as destination dining in the East Village and downtown core, according to their official materials and regional tourism listings.

Ottumwa’s Canteen Lunch in the Alley is unusual because its defining feature is structural, not decorative. Reference material provided for this article states the restaurant has operated since 1927 and has been in its current location beneath a downtown parking ramp since 1936, with roughly 16 counter stools surrounding a horseshoe-shaped service area. That makes the setting itself part of the dining experience in a way few modern restaurants can replicate.

In Walcott, Iowa 80 Kitchen operates inside the Iowa 80 Truckstop, which the company identifies as the World’s Largest Truckstop. Iowa 80 said the broader complex opened in 1964 and now includes seven restaurant options, a trucking museum, barber shop, dentist, movie theater and other services. The company also confirmed the Iowa 80 Kitchen is a 300-seat full-service restaurant that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The broader context behind Iowa’s weirdest dining rooms

What connects these restaurants is not novelty alone but a business model built on specificity. The Flying Elbow uses wrestling culture as a permanent brand language, while Zombie Burger relies on immersive decor and menu naming to create a recognizable identity in a competitive burger category. Fong’s Pizza combines food fusion with building history, giving it both a menu hook and a preservation story.

Canteen Lunch in the Alley represents a different form of distinctiveness: endurance. Its appeal comes from continuity, with the hidden location and compact counter remaining central to the experience over decades, based on the source material provided. That kind of operational consistency is increasingly rare in a restaurant industry where redesigns and relocations are common.

Iowa 80 Kitchen shows how scale can become a dining identity. Iowa 80 said the truckstop occupies 225 acres, offers parking for 800 tractor-trailers and 250 cars, and has not closed since opening day in 1964. For customers, that means these five restaurants are not simply odd places to eat; they are established Iowa destinations whose unusual features are confirmed parts of how they operate today.

Federal grocery policy changes do not always show up first on store shelves. This summer, one of the clearest shifts for shoppers has been at checkout, where bag fees and related charges are being handled more strictly for households using SNAP benefits.

Bag fees are still separate, and the rule is not new to shoppers seeing it now

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service said in a retailer notice dated July 23, 2025, that grocery bag fees charged under state or local policy cannot be paid with SNAP benefits. That means shoppers using EBT for eligible food can still complete the food purchase, but any bag fee must be paid with cash, a credit card, or a non-SNAP debit card, according to the agency. USDA also said the same principle applies even when bag charges are added automatically at checkout.

The federal guidance did not create bag fees on its own. Instead, it clarified for SNAP retailers and cashiers that these fees remain outside the food benefit, even as more states and cities adopted charges for paper or plastic bags. USDA’s separate guidance on eligible foods also states that state-required bottle and can deposits may be covered in some cases, but grocery bag fees may not.

That distinction matters at the register. A shopper may have enough SNAP funds for the food in the basket but still need another payment method to cover a small bag charge. The Federal Trade Commission, in separate guidance on fees, has said businesses may pass through some payment-related charges if law allows it, but those charges must be clearly disclosed before payment.

The effect depends on where shoppers live, and the full local reach is uneven

The impact is most visible in places where stores are already charging for checkout bags under state or local law. USDA’s retailer notice said some states have begun charging customers a fee for each shopping bag provided by a grocery store, making the out-of-pocket issue a routine part of checkout for some SNAP households. The result is not a nationwide new fee, but a stricter interaction between existing local bag-fee laws and federal SNAP payment rules.

What is confirmed is the federal payment restriction. What is not fully known is how many stores have recently retrained staff or reprogrammed point-of-sale systems in response, because USDA has not released a public store-by-store list of operational changes. Grocery chains also have not released a comprehensive national tally of locations where shoppers may newly notice the separation more clearly this summer.

That makes the experience highly local. In one city or state, a shopper may see no bag charge at all. In another, the same shopper may need a few extra cents or dollars at the register even when the food itself is fully SNAP-eligible, depending on how many bags are used and what the local ordinance requires.

The broader context is tighter oversight of grocery compliance and fees

The bag-fee issue is surfacing as federal regulators are paying closer attention to grocery compliance more broadly. On May 8, 2026, USDA published a final SNAP retailer stocking standards rule requiring participating stores other than specialty shops to carry at least seven varieties in each staple food category: dairy, vegetables or fruits, grains, and protein. USDA said the standards are intended to expand access to more nutritious food and will take effect in fall 2026.

That rule is separate from bag fees, but together they show a larger pattern: grocery rules that affect low-income shoppers are becoming more specific, and stores are being asked to follow more detailed federal standards. USDA said the new stocking rule more than doubles some product requirements and closes loopholes that allowed certain snack foods to count toward staple-food standards.

For customers, the practical takeaway is narrow but immediate. SNAP can still be used for eligible groceries, but not for grocery bag fees, and shoppers in places with bag-charge laws may need a second form of payment at checkout. USDA has said additional retailer guidance on other SNAP compliance changes is continuing as the 2026 standards roll out.

Fast-food chicken remains one of the most competitive segments in U.S. dining, with major chains investing in speed, digital ordering, and repeat traffic. At Popeyes, the food still commands attention, but the issue customers most often say they cannot stand is the service experience. That gap between product demand and store-level execution has become a recurring theme in public complaints and in broader customer-satisfaction data.

Public complaints point to service, not the core food product

The specific issue appearing most consistently in recent customer discussion is poor customer service, including long waits, order inaccuracies, and inconsistent handling of mobile and in-store orders. A recent NewsBreak report compiling posts from the r/Popeyes subreddit said commenters repeatedly described delays, missing items, and stores that were not reliably prepared for online pickup. In those posts, criticism centered on the transaction experience rather than the taste of the food.

That distinction matters because Popeyes remains a large chain with significant scale. Restaurant Brands International, Popeyes’ parent company, said in April 2026 that the brand has more than 5,000 restaurants in the U.S. and around the world, placing operational consistency at the center of the customer experience. The company also said on April 24, 2026, when it announced Chris Padoan as chief operating officer for Popeyes U.S. and Canada, that strengthening restaurant operations is a key priority for the brand’s next phase of growth.

Third-party satisfaction data also shows some pressure. The American Customer Satisfaction Index restaurant and delivery study published in 2025 listed Popeyes at 75, down from 77 in the prior reading shown in that report. That two-point decline aligns with the kind of complaints customers have continued to post publicly about wait times and service reliability, even as the chain’s food remains a draw.

What that means locally, and what is still not publicly broken out

For customers in the United States, the practical impact is that service complaints appear to be broad rather than tied to one officially identified market. The available public reporting does not provide a verified state-by-state or city-by-city breakdown of the most problematic Popeyes locations. The company has not released a comprehensive list of stores associated with the complaints described in social posts and aggregated coverage.

That limits what can be confirmed at the local level. It is possible to say that customers across multiple markets have described similar issues in public forums, but it is not possible from the available source material to verify which individual restaurants, counties, or metro areas account for the largest share of complaints. No official filing in the reviewed materials identifies a specific U.S. state as uniquely affected by the service concerns.

What is confirmed is that Popeyes’ operating footprint is large, and that any inconsistency can affect a wide range of diners. RBI’s latest corporate materials describe Popeyes as one of the world’s largest chicken quick-service chains, and that scale can make staffing, throughput, and order accuracy especially visible to customers during peak meal periods.

Operations, labor pressures, and throughput remain the main context

The reasons behind the complaints appear to be operational rather than product-driven. The NewsBreak summary, drawing on customer and former employee commentary, said one recurring explanation is that Popeyes chicken is often cooked fresh to order, which can improve product quality but also create bottlenecks during busy periods. That helps explain why customers expecting a quick handoff can still encounter delays, even with digital ordering.

RBI’s own public statements place operations at the center of the issue. In its February 2026 full-year results and March 2026 growth update, the company said franchisee financial stability, inflation, affordability pressures, labor and employment regulation, commodity costs, and the effectiveness of restaurant operations all remain material business factors. Those are broad corporate disclosures, but they provide context for why service consistency can be difficult to maintain across a nearly fully franchised system.

For customers, the current takeaway is straightforward: the food remains a major reason people visit Popeyes, but service reliability is still the point of friction most often cited in public discussion. The company has publicly signaled that restaurant operations are a priority, and that makes execution, speed, and order accuracy the areas customers are most likely to watch next.

Federal regulators are taking a closer look at how caffeine is disclosed on packaged drinks as the energy beverage category continues to grow across the U.S. That broader policy push now intersects directly with Celsius and Alani Nu, two widely sold brands that have come under fresh scrutiny over labeling, marketing, and youth safety concerns. The FDA’s latest agenda does not single out those companies by name, but it arrives as both brands are central to the current debate.

FDA adds caffeine labeling to its 2026 priority list

The FDA said on June 29, 2026, that “Labeling Caffeine Content in Foods and Beverages” is part of its 2026 Human Foods Program guidance agenda, according to the agency’s published priority list. The action does not amount to a recall or enforcement order, but it signals that the agency is considering draft guidance for industry on how caffeine content should be presented on food and beverage labels. That matters for a fast-growing category in which many drinks already disclose caffeine voluntarily, while federal rules do not generally require brands to print the actual amount of caffeine on the package.

The timing is significant because Celsius Holdings and Alani Nu are already under the microscope from regulators and litigants. Food Dive reported on July 2 that the FDA disclosure came as energy drinks and other high-caffeine beverages face rising scrutiny over whether they provide adequate warnings, especially for children. Celsius became a focal point after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into the company earlier in June.

Current FDA rules require caffeine to appear in the ingredient list when it is added as a standalone ingredient, but not necessarily as a numeric amount on the label. If a product contains ingredients that naturally include caffeine, such as coffee or chocolate, consumers may see only the ingredient name rather than a caffeine total. The FDA also said its guidance agendas identify priorities, but do not guarantee that every listed guidance will be issued on a fixed timetable.

Texas is the clearest flashpoint, but the full retail impact is not yet public

Texas is the clearest confirmed state-level flashpoint in this story. On June 4, 2026, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that his office had opened an investigation into Celsius Holdings, which owns Alani Nutrition, over whether the company marketed high-caffeine beverages to teens and children and misrepresented their safety, according to the attorney general’s office and multiple local news reports. Coverage of the probe said Alani Nu drinks cited in the investigation contain 200 milligrams of caffeine per can.

What is confirmed is the existence of the Texas investigation and its focus on youth marketing and caffeine-related risk disclosures. What is not yet known is whether any specific Texas retailers, grocery chains, convenience stores, or school-adjacent outlets will change product placement, signage, or sales practices as a result. Celsius and Alani Nu remain broadly available, and neither the FDA nor Texas officials have announced a product recall tied to this matter.

The company also has not released a comprehensive public list of Texas locations where any merchandising, warning, or promotional practices might be reviewed or changed. There is likewise no publicly confirmed state-by-state breakdown showing whether Texas faces different store-level actions than other states. For consumers, the state impact is therefore regulatory and informational at this stage, not a confirmed withdrawal from shelves.

The pressure reflects a wider debate over youth marketing, labeling gaps, and energy drink oversight

The immediate reason this is happening is the convergence of two issues: limited federal labeling specificity for caffeine and growing concern over how energy drinks are marketed to younger consumers. The FDA said in its 2026 priority materials that rising consumption of caffeinated foods and beverages is driving new attention to industry best practices. That framing suggests the agency sees a broader labeling issue, not just a dispute involving one or two brands.

At the same time, Texas officials tied their investigation to alleged safety and marketing concerns involving minors. Reports citing the attorney general’s office said the probe followed the death of a 17-year-old Alani Nu consumer, with attorneys for the family alleging excessive caffeine consumption contributed to an enlarged heart. Those allegations remain part of an active legal and regulatory dispute, but they have intensified scrutiny around how prominently high caffeine levels and related risks are disclosed.

For shoppers, the practical takeaway is that Celsius and Alani Nu are still on the market while regulators examine whether clearer caffeine labeling is needed. No recall number exists because no FDA recall has been announced in connection with this development. What customers should expect next is policy movement rather than an immediate product disappearance: the FDA has signaled that caffeine labeling guidance is now an official 2026 priority, and that places the energy drink aisle under closer federal review.

Food and beverage manufacturers across the U.S. have continued to reshape plant networks as companies respond to shifting demand and operating costs. In Ohio, Refresco is moving ahead with the permanent closure of its manufacturing facility in Carlisle, a decision tied to more than 60 lost jobs. The company, one of the world’s largest independent beverage manufacturers, said the move followed a review of its production footprint.

Refresco confirms a permanent shutdown and 63 affected jobs

Refresco is permanently closing its Carlisle, Ohio, production facility, with 63 positions affected, according to a WARN notice filed with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and details reported by NewsBreak. The filing said manufacturing operations were expected to cease on or about June 24, 2026, while warehousing activity was scheduled to end on or about July 11, 2026. After those dates, the site was set to close permanently.

The company also said some workers would not necessarily be separated from the business entirely. NewsBreak reported that about seven employees were offered transfers to other Refresco locations, reducing the number of workers facing a full job loss if those transfers are accepted. Refresco also said affected employees would be offered severance packages, on-site job fairs, and resume assistance as part of the transition.

Refresco is a major contract manufacturer and bottler for retailers and beverage brands. On its corporate site, the company says it operates 80-plus production locations globally and more than 35 beverage facilities across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The closure therefore affects a single Ohio operation within a much larger North American manufacturing network, rather than representing a full exit from the U.S. market.

What the Carlisle closure means locally in southwest Ohio

The confirmed impact is centered on Carlisle in southwest Ohio, where the affected facility has been identified in public reporting as a Refresco manufacturing plant. NewsBreak said the job cuts are tied specifically to that Carlisle operation, and the state filing sets out the production and warehouse wind-down dates. The notice indicates this is a permanent closure, not a temporary layoff or short-term pause in operations.

What has not been publicly detailed is the full breakdown of which job categories are being eliminated at the site. The company also has not released a comprehensive public list of individual employees affected, nor has it publicly outlined whether any additional Ohio support measures beyond severance, job fairs, and resume help will be offered. Those gaps are common in WARN-related announcements, but they leave some local details unresolved.

For Carlisle and the surrounding area, the closure removes a manufacturing employer from the local economy at a time when food and beverage production remains an important part of regional industrial employment. Refresco’s annual reporting has previously identified Carlisle, Ohio, as part of its North American footprint, confirming the plant’s place in the company’s broader operating system. The immediate local effect, however, is the loss of 63 jobs tied to one facility.

Company cites costs and changing customer needs behind the move

Refresco said in its WARN filing, as summarized by NewsBreak, that the Carlisle shutdown followed an extensive review of its manufacturing network. The company cited high operating costs and changing customer needs as the reasons for discontinuing production at the plant. Those explanations align with broader pressures affecting packaged food and beverage manufacturers, which have been adjusting capacity, plant locations, and logistics strategies.

The company’s broader corporate materials show a business still investing in North America even as it closes selected facilities. Refresco said on its website that it completed the acquisition of SunOpta’s supply chain solutions business on May 1, 2026, expanding its North American capabilities in plant-based, nutritional, and aseptic beverages. That suggests the Carlisle closure is part of a network optimization strategy rather than a retreat from beverage manufacturing.

For Ohio residents and customers, the main immediate effect is on employment rather than product availability. Refresco manufactures beverages for a wide range of retailer and brand partners, and the company still maintains a large North American production base. Based on the company’s public statements and the state notice, the next concrete milestone is the completion of the Carlisle shutdown after warehouse operations end in July.

Independent grocers across the U.S. have faced years of pressure from larger chains, higher operating costs and changing shopping habits. In South Texas, that shift has now claimed one of the Rio Grande Valley’s oldest family-run supermarket names. M. Rivas Supermarket closed its last remaining store in Pharr on June 30, ending a business that dates to the 1930s.

M. Rivas shut its final Pharr store at the end of June

M. Rivas Supermarket confirmed on social media on June 24 that it would close its doors at the end of the month, and KRGV later reported the Pharr store was expected to close by June 30, depending on remaining inventory. The final location was at 836 N. Cage Blvd. in Pharr, according to MySA and the company website. That closure reduced the chain’s store count from one to zero after decades of operating in Hidalgo County.

MySA reported that M. Rivas once operated as many as nine stores across the Rio Grande Valley. The company was founded in the 1930s by Magin Rivas in Donna, and over time expanded into other Hidalgo County communities, including Edinburg and South McAllen. By summer 2026, however, the Pharr store was the only remaining location still in operation.

In its farewell message, the company said customers who stopped in for a purchase, a conversation or a smile had become part of the business’s history. KRGV described the store as a Rio Grande Valley staple, and local coverage framed the closing as the end of a long-running neighborhood institution. The official closing date identified in reporting was June 30, 2026.

The closure leaves Pharr without the chain’s last remaining outpost

The confirmed Texas impact is concentrated in Pharr, where the company’s final operating store was located. MySA identified the address as 836 N. Cage Blvd., and KRGV’s local report focused on the shutdown of that single remaining market. Because this was the last active M. Rivas store, the closure also marks the chain’s full exit from the Texas grocery market.

The broader footprint of past closures stretched across Hidalgo County, where the family business had previously operated multiple locations. MySA reported that stores in Edinburg and South McAllen were among the best known. Still, the company has not released a comprehensive public list of every former store location or the exact timeline for when each earlier Texas store closed.

For Rio Grande Valley shoppers, the immediate effect is the loss of a locally owned supermarket that served generations of families in the region. KRGV interviewed longtime customers and employees who described the Pharr store as a regular stop for daily needs and a place where staff knew shoppers personally. Those accounts help explain why the closing carried unusual local significance beyond the loss of a single storefront.

Competition and industry pressures were cited as the reason

The clearest reason publicly stated for the closure came from Maria Rivas Castillo, who told KRGV, “It’s simply a matter of the business. You just can’t compete with those huge stores anymore.” That explanation aligns with how MySA and other regional reports described M. Rivas: a smaller independent grocer operating in a market increasingly dominated by larger supermarket operators.

Coverage of the chain’s history shows what made the business distinct and what became harder to sustain. MySA reported that M. Rivas built its reputation on low-priced fresh meat, produce from local growers and close relationships with customers, including bilingual service and, at times, informal credit tabs rooted in trust. Those are strengths for a neighborhood grocer, but they do not remove the scale advantages larger chains have in pricing, logistics and inventory.

For customers, the practical outcome is straightforward: the Pharr store has closed, and there are no remaining M. Rivas supermarket locations in operation. The company’s public farewell message did not announce a reopening, sale process or replacement location. As of the end of June 2026, the family’s nearly century-long run in Rio Grande Valley grocery retail had come to a close.

For millions of households, SNAP is primarily associated with weekly grocery basics bought at checkout. But federal USDA guidance also allows recipients nationwide to use benefits for a lesser-known item: seeds and plants that produce food for the household to eat. That rule remains on the books in the Food and Nutrition Service’s current eligibility guidance, which was updated June 4, 2025.

USDA says SNAP benefits can be used for seeds and edible plants

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service states that SNAP benefits may be used to buy “seeds and plants, which produce food for the household to eat,” according to the agency’s public eligibility guidance updated on June 4, 2025. In a separate food determinations policy page, the agency says eligible purchases include seeds for edible plants, edible plants themselves, fruit trees, food-producing roots and bulbs, and seeds used to produce spices for cooking.

That means the covered item is broader than many shoppers expect. Eligible examples listed by USDA include tomato and green pepper seeds or plants, asparagus crowns, onion bulbs, and fruit trees intended to grow food for human consumption. The rule applies under national SNAP policy, not as a limited seasonal pilot or store-specific promotion.

The same federal guidance also draws a clear line around what is not covered. SNAP cannot be used for general nonfood household items, and USDA does not classify decorative or non-edible plants as eligible food purchases. Retail treatment can vary by how stores code merchandise, but the governing federal standard is whether the seed or plant will produce food for the household.

What the rule means at grocery stores and farmers markets

For shoppers, the practical effect is that seed packets and food-producing starter plants may be purchased anywhere they are sold by SNAP-authorized retailers and correctly coded as eligible items. USDA’s SNAP program materials say benefits are meant for food and for plants and seeds to grow food for the household to eat, making the policy relevant in both supermarkets and other approved sellers.

That can include spring seed displays at chain grocers, neighborhood food retailers, and some farmers markets that process EBT transactions. What is confirmed at the federal level is the eligibility standard. What is not publicly standardized nationwide is which specific stores stock edible seeds or starter plants year-round, or how prominently those items are merchandised in each state or city.

The federal policy also does not extend to every gardening purchase. Soil, fertilizer, pots, and other garden supplies are not identified by USDA as SNAP-eligible foods. For customers, the key distinction is simple: the benefit can cover the edible seed or plant itself, but not the broader gardening setup unless another item separately qualifies under SNAP food rules.

Why the little-known rule matters as food costs stay elevated

The rule has drawn renewed attention because it offers a way to turn a short-term food benefit into a longer food supply, especially during peak planting months. USDA has long treated food-producing seeds and plants as eligible because they directly contribute to household food consumption, placing them alongside other allowable grocery items rather than outside the program’s food mission.

That context matters as retailers and policymakers continue to focus on food access, nutrition, and the range of items available through SNAP. In May 2026, USDA announced updated retailer stocking standards for SNAP-authorized stores, saying the changes are intended to expand access to “real food” for participating households. Those rules do not create seed eligibility, but they reflect the department’s broader emphasis on food access and nutritious options.

For customers, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: a SNAP balance may cover edible seeds and food-bearing plants if the retailer is authorized and the item is coded correctly. USDA’s current public guidance continues to list those purchases as eligible, meaning the option remains available for households looking to supplement their food budget with homegrown produce.

Summer grocery spending typically rises around backyard cookouts, graduation parties, and holiday gatherings, when shoppers often buy more food than they ultimately use. That broad seasonal pattern is putting new attention on a practical issue for hosts: whether unopened leftovers, custom desserts, or extra drinks can actually be returned after the event. The key rule is simple but easy to miss before checkout: return rights vary sharply by product type, retailer policy, and in some cases state law.

Perishable foods are where the rules get strict

The biggest point of friction is fresh and refrigerated food. Sam’s Club states in its perishable item return policy that members can request a refund or replacement if they are dissatisfied, but that policy applies as a satisfaction guarantee rather than a blanket approval for unused post-party returns, according to the company’s customer help materials published online. That distinction matters for shoppers buying trays of deli food, produce, meat, or dairy for a large event on short notice.

The practical issue for stores is food safety once a refrigerated item leaves the building. Retailers generally cannot verify whether meat, cheese, prepared salads, or cut fruit stayed at a safe temperature in a customer’s car or kitchen, and that is why perishable items often face tighter scrutiny than shelf-stable pantry goods, according to retailer policy language and food-safety guidance cited by warehouse clubs in their customer materials. The result is that an unopened item is not always treated the same way as a returnable nonfood product.

Warehouse clubs remain more flexible than many conventional grocers in some categories. Sam’s Club says members dissatisfied with perishable purchases may seek a refund or replacement, while Costco says members are guaranteed satisfaction on merchandise with listed exceptions, according to the companies’ official policy pages. But neither policy should be read as a universal promise that every party-food purchase can be returned simply because too much was bought.

Bakery orders and alcohol can be handled differently

Custom bakery items are a separate category, and that is where shoppers can run into another hard stop. Cakes, decorated cupcakes, catering trays, and other special-order foods are often produced for a specific event and cannot easily be resold, which is why return eligibility may be narrower than for standard packaged groceries, according to retailer ordering terms and customer-service guidance. Costco’s same-day ordering information, for example, states that custom cake orders cannot be rescheduled, underscoring how tightly these purchases are managed once placed.

Alcohol is even more restricted because retailer policy may be overridden by state law. Costco states that it does not accept returns on alcohol where prohibited by law, according to the company’s alcohol return policy and member conditions. California alcohol retail guidance similarly says consumer alcohol returns are generally limited to products that are spoiled, deteriorated, contaminated, or otherwise unfit for human consumption, rather than simply unwanted after a gathering.

That means the rule a shopper encounters can vary depending on where the purchase was made. A warehouse club may have a broad satisfaction policy on food, but beer, wine, and spirits can be subject to legal restrictions that do not apply to chips, soda, or paper plates. For shoppers in the United States, especially those buying for large summer events, the retailer has not issued one universal national standard that overrides those state-by-state alcohol limits.

What shoppers should expect before and after checkout

For customers, the most useful expectation is that receipt retention and item category matter as much as store loyalty. Retailer policies commonly require proof of purchase for the clearest refund path, and official customer-service materials at major clubs direct members to return items through their account history or at the club location where policies can be reviewed. Without that documentation, a refund decision can become more complicated, especially for time-sensitive food items.

What is confirmed is that dry goods and shelf-stable beverages are generally easier return conversations than raw meat, deli platters, or specialty cakes. What is not publicly spelled out in one comprehensive national list is how every store location or manager will handle every leftover party-food scenario, particularly when perishables and alcohol are involved. Companies publish broad policy language, but not always an item-by-item matrix covering every summer entertaining purchase.

The practical takeaway is not that party food cannot be returned, but that shoppers should expect narrower rules once an item is refrigerated, customized, or regulated as alcohol. As of July 17, 2026, the official guidance from major warehouse retailers continues to center on satisfaction guarantees with explicit exceptions and legal limits, rather than an open-ended right to return all unused celebration food after the party ends.

Fresh produce is once again putting pressure on the household grocery bill. The increase is visible at checkout, but the story starts long before fruits and vegetables reach store shelves.

Why produce prices are moving higher again

The latest federal data shows the pressure is real. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that processed fruits and vegetables rose 0.6 percent in June 2026, while USDA data also showed retail fresh vegetable prices jumped 3.1 percent from March to April after a 0.9 percent rise the month before. That is not a one-week blip. It points to a market where costs are building in layers and then passing through to consumers.

Weather remains one of the biggest drivers. According to the FAO, agricultural markets in 2026 are facing higher risk from El Niño-linked weather disruptions, shipping strain, and volatile energy and fertilizer costs. Produce is especially vulnerable because many crops are highly perishable, labor-intensive, and sensitive to heat, water stress, and storm damage. A bad growing stretch can quickly tighten supply and push prices up within days.

Labor and transportation are adding to the squeeze. Fresh fruits and vegetables require harvesting, sorting, cooling, packing, and fast delivery, which means higher wages and fuel costs ripple through the system quickly. USDA’s farm-to-consumer pricing research has long shown that even when farm values move modestly, retail prices can rise more sharply once transportation, handling, and merchandising costs are layered in.

The result is uneven sticker shock. Tomatoes, lettuce, berries, citrus, and other highly seasonal items can spike much faster than pantry staples. That is why shoppers often feel produce inflation more intensely, even when broader food inflation looks moderate on paper.

What it means for household budgets and eating habits

For families, higher produce prices create a difficult tradeoff. Nutrition guidance from USDA still recommends roughly 2 cups of fruit and 2.5 cups of vegetables a day on a 2,000-calorie diet, yet those targets become harder to reach when fresh items rise faster than other groceries. Households do not usually stop buying produce entirely. Instead, they begin substituting, stretching, and delaying purchases.

That shift shows up in shopping behavior. Consumers tend to move from berries to bananas, from bagged salad kits to whole heads of lettuce, and from fresh green beans to frozen vegetables when prices climb. USDA pricing data underscores why: many fruit and vegetable choices remain relatively affordable per cup equivalent, but shoppers need to be more selective about which forms and varieties they buy.

There is also a quality effect. When retailers face tighter supply and higher spoilage risk, displays may look less abundant, and shoppers become more cautious about paying premium prices for produce that may not last the week. That can increase food waste at home, which makes the real cost of expensive produce even higher than the shelf tag suggests.

Lower-income households feel this most acutely. Produce is one of the first categories where people “trade down,” not because they do not value it, but because it is one of the easiest line items to cut or replace when weekly budgets get tight.

The bigger picture for farms, retailers, and the months ahead

Rising produce prices are not automatically good news for farmers. In many cases, growers are dealing with their own cost inflation in fertilizer, water, packaging, labor, and financing. USDA agricultural price reports show higher prices in several fruit, tree nut, vegetable, and melon categories in recent months, but that does not guarantee wider profit margins. A grower can receive more for a crop and still come out behind if production costs rose faster.

Retailers face a balancing act as well. Grocery chains know shoppers compare produce prices closely because those items are visible, frequently purchased, and emotionally tied to value. Stores may absorb some increases temporarily, promote in-season items more aggressively, or expand frozen and private-label alternatives to protect traffic and basket size.

Looking ahead, produce prices will likely remain volatile rather than uniformly high. USDA’s broader food outlook does not point to runaway inflation across every category, but fresh vegetables and fruit remain exposed to weather shocks and supply chain disruptions. That means consumers should expect more frequent swings, not a straight line up or down.

In practical terms, the smartest response is flexibility. Buying in season, comparing fresh with frozen and canned, and planning meals around lower-cost produce can soften the blow. When produce prices climb fast, the impact reaches far beyond salad and fruit bowls; it changes how the entire food economy works.