Photo by Brandon Bell | Getty Images
Republicans want to ban the use of federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds to purchase candy and soda, but critics say their overly-broad proposal would bar low-income families from buying things like flavored water and granola bars.
“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,” Rep. Matt Gress, R-Scottsdale, told members of the Arizona House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee on Monday.
Snickers candy bars, Coca-Cola, Redbull and Monster energy drinks were all on Gress’ list of foods that should be off-limits for SNAP purchasers.
“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 said.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has advocated against the use of SNAP benefits on junk food as part of his Make America Healthy Again plan.
The bill failed to make it out of the Health and Human Services Committee on a vote of 6-6, when Mesa Republican Rep. Ralph Heap voted against it alongside Democrats.
Heap agreed with supporters of the bill that obesity is a major issue in Arizona and across the country, but sided with opponents that the definitions in it were too vague.
“I’m not sure this solves the problem,” Heap said.
The bill is on hold for now, but Biasiucci could amend it and bring it back to the committee.
The GOP has a long history of criticising the purchases of people who rely on SNAP, enacting work requirements and decreasing or cutting off benefits. The majority of Arizonans who use SNAP are children, senior citizens or disabled.
SNAP, formerly called food stamps, helps families with low or no income pay for groceries through monthly benefits. More than 927,000 Arizonans are currently enrolled with an average monthly benefit of around $187, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
There are already some restrictions on SNAP, including a ban on the purchase of tobacco or alcohol products, hot prepared foods, or things like nutritional supplements and diapers.
Sponsor of House Bill 2165, Rep. Leo Biasiucci, told the committee that his bill to limit SNAP purchases was inspired by a trip to a Circle K gas station.
“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 said.
Biasiucci didn’t say that his bill had any connection to the Make America Healthy Again movement or the Foundation for Government Accountability, but multiple speakers in support of the bill rehashed the conservative thinktank’s talking points published in a Jan. 16 memo.
The Lake Havasu City Republican’s bill would require the director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security to request a waiver from USDA to exclude candy and soft drinks from SNAP purchases and to request a waiver annually, until it is granted. USDA has declined all past requests for such waivers.
A similar proposal, that would ban “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and prepared desserts from being purchased with SNAP benefits” was introduced Jan. 16 in the U.S. House of Representatives and is co-sponsored by Republican Congress members Andy Biggs, David Schweikert, Paul Gosar and Eli Crane.
Several proponents of Biasiucci’s bill said that the government should not be paying for its citizens to become less healthy. Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Surprise, claimed that Arizonans using SNAP tended to have a higher prevalence for obesity than those who don’t, but a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that those who use SNAP are ”no less cardiometabolically healthy than nonparticipants.”
Michelle Simpson, a lobbyist for the William E. Morris Institute for Justice, which advocates for low-income Arizonans, pointed out that SNAP participants are taxpayers. Work requirements for SNAP users were expanded at the federal level in 2023 for recipients from ages 16-59 who are able to work.
Simpson argued that the proposal would equal government overreach with out-of-state foundations like FGA “telling Arizonans how they should spend their money.”
“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 said.
The proposed legislation put Simpson on the same side as a lobbyist for the soda industry, Mike Gardner, of the Arizona Beverage Association, who said he had no problem with SNAP benefit reductions in general. But both said they were concerned with the overly broad definitions of candy and soda in the bill.
“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.
The bill defines candy as “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.”
It defines soft drink as “a nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners” but does not contain milk or milk substitutes and is not more than 50% fruit or vegetable juice by volume.
Those definitions would preclude SNAP participants from purchasing granola bars, sports energy bars and possibly many cereals like Honey Nut Cheerios, while allowing the purchase of things like potato chips.
It would also rule out the purchase of some flavored waters and diet sodas but would allow sugary drinks like bottled frappuccinos and chocolate milk.
The vague language leaves it unclear whether things like Pop Tarts or muffins containing chocolate chips would be allowed purchases, Gardner said.
After several members of the committee from both parties expressed concern about the definitions in the bill, Biasiucci agreed to make edits to narrow their scope.
Two people who’ve made names for themselves nationally in health advocacy, Grace Price, a 19-year-old University of Austin student and creator of the documentary “Cancer: A Food-Borne Illness” and Calley Means, a health entrepreneur and advisor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., spoke in favor of the bill.
“We are poisoning our population with this entitlement program,” Means said.
But Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tempe, told the proponents of the bill that they were coming from “a big place of privilege” when they tell people who are struggling to pay the bills that they must purchase healthier food. Some of her constituents, including members of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Hernandez said, live in food deserts without any grocery stores nearby.
Hernandez also said that those supporting the bill hadn’t supplied any studies showing that cutting off the purchase of junk food with SNAP benefits would improve public health.
Public health experts are divided on the idea, and some studies show that it’s unclear if increased restrictions would make any difference in the health of those who rely on SNAP.
Simpson argued that if the bill’s advocates want to fight obesity, they should create legislation with that goal, instead of focusing only on SNAP users.
Committee chairwoman Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, swiftly kicked Means out of the committee hearing after he loudly told Simpson and Gardner that they should be ashamed of themselves.
“You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Means continued to shout as Bliss told him he was breaking committee rules and that he had to leave.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.