Republicans are proposing a restriction on the use of federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding to buy candy and soda. However, detractors argue that their proposal is too broad and would prevent low-income families from purchasing flavored water and granola bars.
On Monday, Representative Matt Gress, a Republican from Scottsdale, told members of the Arizona House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee, “This raises a larger question about our health as a country and when we have government programs that are green lighting consumption of very unhealthy foods.”
Gress included Snickers candy bars, Coca-Cola, Redbull, and Monster energy drinks on their list of things that SNAP purchasers should not buy.
“I still buy candy, but I buy it with my own money that I’ve earned and I’m setting the incentives for myself,” Gress stated.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was chosen by President Donald Trump to be the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has argued against the use of SNAP assistance for junk food as part of his Make America Healthy Again campaign.
The bill did not pass out of the Health and Human Services Committee, where it was voted on and received a tie of 6-6. Mesa Republican Representative Ralph Heap voted against it, along with the Democrats.
Heap agreed with the advocates of the law that obesity is a significant problem in Arizona and throughout the United States. However, he also backed with the opponents of the bill, who said that the definitions in the bill were not specific enough.
“I’m not sure this solves the problem,” Heap stated.
Although the bill is currently on hold, Biasiucci has the option to make changes and return it to the committee.
The Republican Party has a lengthy history of imposing job requirements, reducing or eliminating benefits, and criticizing the purchases of those who depend on SNAP. Children, the elderly, and people with disabilities make up the majority of SNAP users in Arizona.
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides monthly payments to families with low or no income to help them pay for groceries. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that about 927,000 Arizonans are currently enrolled, with an average monthly benefit of approximately $187.
SNAP is already subject to certain limitations, such as prohibitions on the purchase of hot prepared foods, tobacco or alcohol goods, and items like diapers and nutritional supplements.
Rep. Leo Biasiucci, the sponsor of House Bill 2165, told the committee that a visit to a Circle K gas station served as the impetus for his legislation restricting SNAP purchases.
“In front of me is a family and I think they bought four ginger ales, a bag of chips, a bag of donuts, a Snickers bar and a Big Gulp and they paid with their food stamps,” Biasiucci stated.
Although Biasiucci did not claim that his measure was related to the Foundation for Government Accountability or the Make America Healthy Again movement, several bill supporters reiterated the conservative think tank’s talking points that were released in a letter on January 16.
In order to exempt sweets and soft drinks from SNAP purchases, the director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security would have to ask USDA for a waiver each year until it is approved, according to the bill introduced by the Republican from Lake Havasu City. All previous petitions for such waivers have been denied by USDA.
A similar bill, co-sponsored by Republican members of Congress Andy Biggs, David Schweikert, Paul Gosar, and Eli Crane, was submitted in the U.S. House of Representatives on January 16 and would prohibit “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and prepared desserts from being purchased with SNAP benefits.”
Biasiucci’s measure’s supporters said that the government shouldn’t foot the expense for its residents’ declining health. Arizonans who utilize SNAP are “no less cardiometabolically healthy than nonparticipants,” according to a research published in the American Journal of Public Health, despite claims by Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Surprise, that SNAP users tend to have a greater prevalence of obesity than nonparticipants.
SNAP recipients are taxpayers, noted Michelle Simpson, a spokeswoman for the William E. Morris Institute for Justice, which supports low-income Arizonans. In 2023, the federal government increased the work requirements for SNAP participants who are able to work and are between the ages of 16 and 59.
Simpson contended that the plan would amount to government overreach by “telling Arizonans how they should spend their money” to out-of-state institutions such as FGA.
“Cumbersome, overly prescriptive purchasing restrictions do not help families who are economically stressed and trying to ensure they have enough nutrition and energy to work,” Simpson stated.
“A preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweetener in combination with chocolate, fruit, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings that forms bars, drops, or pieces” is how the bill defines candy.
According to this definition, a soft drink is “a nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners,” no milk or milk replacements, and no more than 50% of the volume is made up of fruit or vegetable juice.
According to such rules, SNAP recipients could buy potato chips but not granola bars, sports energy bars, or possibly a variety of cereals like Honey Nut Cheerios.
While it would permit sugary beverages like chocolate milk and bottled frappuccinos, it would also prohibit the sales of select flavored waters and diet sodas.
“If the government tries to define what’s a good food and bad food, it ends up creating more bureaucracy,” Gardner said, adding that someone would have to sit down and determine which of hundreds of thousands of food items are covered and which aren’t, or leave that job up to cashiers.
According to Gardner, it’s unclear from the ambiguous wording whether items like Pop Tarts or muffins with chocolate chips would be permitted purchases.
Biasiucci consented to make changes to the bill’s definitions in order to reduce their reach after a number of committee members from both parties voiced their disapproval.
Calley Means, a health entrepreneur and counselor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Grace Price, a 19-year-old University of Austin student and the author of the documentary “Cancer: A Food-Borne Illness,” both of whom have achieved national recognition in the field of health advocacy, spoke in support of the bill.
Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tempe, meanwhile, told the bill’s supporters that they were speaking from “a big place of privilege” when they advised those who are having financial difficulties to buy healthier food. According to Hernandez, some of her constituents—including Pascua Yaqui Tribe members—live in areas known as “food deserts,” where there are no grocery stores in the area.
Dolton Activists March to Governor Pritzker’s Home, Demanding Action on Mayor Tiffany Henyard
Hernandez added that the bill’s proponents had not shown any research demonstrating that denying SNAP recipients access to junk food would enhance public health.
There is disagreement among public health professionals regarding the proposal, and some research indicates that it is uncertain whether more limits would have any impact on the health of SNAP recipients.
Simpson maintained that rather than concentrating just on SNAP recipients, the bill’s supporters should draft legislation with the intention of combating obesity.
Trump’s Buyout Offer Draws 20K+ Federal Workers, With More Expected to Join
When Means loudly told Simpson and Gardner that they should be ashamed of themselves, committee chairwoman Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, quickly ejected him from the hearing.
“You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Bliss informed Means that he was violating committee regulations and that he needed to leave, but Means persisted in yelling.
