Angela Fletcher

Written Testimony in Opposition to This SNAP Restriction Bill I strongly oppose this bill because it would harm vulnerable families and remove critical flexibility from a program designed to prevent hunger. First, directing the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture to ban the purchase of candy and soft drinks with SNAP benefits ignores real medical and family realities. Some families are temporarily living out of state for long periods because their child is hospitalized for serious health conditions. These families still need to eat, often in hospitals or unfamiliar areas where food options are limited and expensive. Restricting allowable purchases would make an already stressful situation even harder. Second, for individuals with diabetes, access to sugary foods or drinks can be medically necessary during a crisis to prevent dangerous drops in blood sugar. In addition, for some people with autoimmune diseases, quick access to simple sugars or specific processed foods can help manage flares, medication side effects, or sudden physical stress. A blanket ban fails to account for these legitimate medical needs. Third, while healthier foods should be encouraged, the reality is that healthier options are often more expensive and less accessible. SNAP benefits are already stretched very thin for most people receiving benefits. Restricting lower-cost food and drink options without increasing benefit levels makes it harder for families to feed themselves, this is not how we encourage healthier choices. It is also important to note that SNAP recipients already have the option to withdraw cash from their EBT card and use it as they choose. Restricting specific food purchases does not eliminate access to these items—it simply adds bureaucracy and stigma. Cash withdrawals also increase the likelihood that funds are used for items SNAP benefits are not intended to cover, undermining the stated goal of these restrictions. Finally, strengthening work requirements, increasing data-sharing, targeting out-of-state purchases, and removing state discretion all add barriers and surveillance without addressing the root causes of food insecurity. States need flexibility to respond to real-life circumstances, not rigid rules that punish families for situations beyond their control. SNAP exists to reduce hunger and support families in crisis. This bill moves away from that purpose. I urge you to oppose it.