Ban on use of food stamps for candy, soda debated by Missouri lawmakers
Low-income Missourians who receive food assistance would be prohibited from buying soda and candy with their benefits under a bill debated Tuesday.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Jamie Gragg, a Republican from Ozark, would restrict food purchases under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously called food stamps, if approved by the federal government.
The bill would 'get us back to where the original program was meant to go,' Gragg argued in Tuesday afternoon during a hearing of the House Committee on Government Efficiency. 'The program's been bastardized.'
The purpose of the SNAP program is to help low-income families supplement their grocery budgets to afford nutritious food. As of last month, over 320,000 households in Missouri received SNAP benefits, loaded onto electronic benefits transfer cards used to purchase groceries. The average value of benefits per household was $396.
Proponents argue that taxpayer dollars, through the SNAP program, shouldn't subsidize unhealthy food and beverages, which worsen people's health.
Opponents called the proposal government overreach — limiting low income families' freedom to choose their food — and overly broad, potentially banning SNAP access for things like granola bars and electrolyte drinks.
State Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis, asked whether 'any pre-process food could be deemed unhealthy' and added to the list of banned purchases.
'Do we want to be the nanny state that says, 'you can eat this and you can't eat that?'' Murphy said. 'Where does that end?'
Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersville, said the list of unhealthy foods could keep growing.
'My concern is we can add to this list ad infinitum,' Chappell said. 'The United Nations tells us that red meat is a carcinogen…at what point do we stop micromanaging this list?'
Similar bills have been proposed in other states, including Arizona, West Virginia, Idaho and Kansas.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., health and human services secretary, has said he supports restricting SNAP for junk food, and the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, has signaled interest.
The conservative national think tank Foundation for Government Accountability has helped push for the change.
'Food stamps have fueled the junk food epidemic, with soda ranking as the number one commodity bought with food stamps,' Gragg told the committee — a direct quote from a report published by the Foundation for Government Accountability earlier this year.
James Harris, a lobbyist for the Foundation for Government Accountability, called the bill common sense.
'If this were to pass and it helps one child have a little more milk or something of actual nutrition in their home, that's great,' Harris testified. '…This just would allow Missouri to hopefully help some children have access to more nutritional food, besides maybe what they get at school.'
Those testifying in opposition included the progressive anti-poverty nonprofit Empower Missouri, along with industry groups such as the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Missouri Grocers Association and the Missouri Beverage Association.
Nationally, beverage groups have been lobbying to keep sodas in the program, the Wall Street Journal reported late last year.
A 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, found that the households that rely on the program have similar spending patterns to non-SNAP households. For both SNAP and non-SNAP households, the report stated, 'more money was spent on soft drinks than any other item.' SNAP households spent 5% of their grocery budget on soft drinks, and non-SNAP households spent 4%. The percent spent on candy, 2%, was the same between both groups.
The bill defines candy as a food product 'containing sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruit, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the forms of bars, drops, or pieces.'
It defines a soft drink as 'nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners' but does not contain milk or milk substitutes or beverages that are more than 50% fruit or vegetable juice by volume.
The definition would prevent the purchase of Powerade with SNAP funds, but allow sugary bottled coffee drinks with milk, said Katie Gamble, a lobbyist for Missouri Beverage Association.
State Rep. Dean Van Schoiack, a Republican from Savannah, said it seems that granola bars would fall under the candy definition, 'and I always thought they were supposed to be healthy.'
Christine Woody, director of food policy for Empower Missouri, said individuals could cross the border into neighboring states and spend their SNAP dollars on banned items there.
She added that a better strategy would be to incentivize the purchase of healthy food, by 'really investing in some of the programs that are successful,' such as by incentivizing the purchase of fruits and vegetables.
Those opposed said any changes should be federally decided, rather than having each state determine what is healthy or not.
Missouri would submit a waiver to the federal government requesting this change, if the bill is passed, but there's no guarantee it'd be approved. States' previous attempts to limit SNAP purchases in this way have been rejected by the federal government, including because of being complex to implement, having vague standards of what is defined as healthy, and failing to show they would reduce obesity.
No action was taken on the bill Tuesday.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tim Walz leading Dem effort to turn bipartisan group against President Trump: report
Progressive governor and failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is leading a Democratic effort to turn one of the country's most influential bipartisan groups against President Donald Trump, according to a report by a mainstream media outlet. Walz, the governor of Minnesota and one-time running mate of former Vice President Kamala Harris, is threatening to pull out of the bipartisan National Governors Association (NGA) over concerns it is not doing enough to push back against Trump, according to The Atlantic. The Atlantic reported that two unnamed people "familiar with the governors' thinking" shared that at least two Democratic governors — Walz and fellow Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, who is head of the Democratic Governors Association — are opting to stop paying their NGA dues this month. The two governors will not renew their membership in the organization out of frustration with its inaction against perceived violations of states' rights by the Trump administration. The concerns raised included the Office of Management and Budget briefly pausing disbursements of federal funds in January, the clash with Democratic Gov. Janet Mills over transgender athletes and Trump's deployment of the California National Guard to respond to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. The outlet reported three other unnamed sources saying that Walz and Kelly are not alone and that the offices of other Democratic governors are similarly frustrated with the NGA. One of the unnamed sources said "when you are also paying dues with taxpayer dollars, it has got to be worth it, and they are going to have to demonstrate that. Right now, they are not doing that," the outlet reported. The source also claimed "there have been ongoing concerns about the NGA among the Democratic governors and staff, off and on, for years." The NGA has existed as a forum for bipartisan collaboration among governors since 1908. The organization lists all 50 governors as well as leaders of five U.S. territories as members. Eric Wohlschlegel, NGA communications director, told Fox News Digital the group "exists to bring governors from both parties together around shared priorities." Amid the Walz-led controversy, Wohlschlegel said NGA's "mission hasn't changed." "Every public statement NGA issues reflects bipartisan consensus," he said. "So far this year, all but one statement has had that consensus, and when governors don't agree, we simply don't issue one. That's how we preserve our role as a bipartisan convener, a principle we won't compromise." A source familiar with the situation blamed the controversy on "Democratic infighting, unspoken campaign jockeying and a few anonymous voices looking to reshape a nonpartisan institution into a political one." That source pointed out that, despite all the noise about controversy, the NGA's summer meeting in Colorado Springs this weekend is expected to have "record turnout" with 13 Republican and seven Democratic leaders attending. They also noted that "no governors are on the record expressing discontent with the NGA. No allegations of misconduct, governance failure or mismanagement have been raised." "What's behind the noise?" the source added. "There's an internal power struggle currently and no consensus among Democrats right now on how to lead, how to message or how to govern in a divided environment. "Several Democratic governors are vying for national attention, testing messages for future campaigns rather than collaborating on consensus governance," the source added. "The NGA's bipartisan model is working exactly as it's supposed to. "When a party can't agree with itself, it becomes easy to take shots at bipartisan institutions that don't serve short-term political goals." Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, the outgoing NGA chair, and Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, the incoming chair, for comment on the Walz mutiny. Though not addressing the controversy directly, Conor Cahill, a spokesperson for Polis, told Fox News Digital the governor "has been honored" to lead the NGA and to "work across the aisle with governors on education, permitting reform, standing up to federal efforts to strip away gubernatorial authority around the National Guard and elevating the priorities of states." He added that "during this polarizing time, bipartisan organizations are needed more than ever, and NGA must continue to demonstrate value to all governors and effectively communicate governors' opinions on various matters with the public and the federal government." Abegail Cave, a spokesperson for Sitt, who will become NGA chair this weekend, told Fox News Digital "people seem to forget NGA is a bipartisan organization, not a political one." "Coming to bipartisan consensus is difficult, but governors from across the political spectrum are addressing the real challenges facing Americans every day," Cave said. She said that Stitt "looks forward to leading this organization and finding more areas of collaboration in the coming year." Fox News Digital also reached out to the offices of Walz and Kelly but did not receive responses by the time of publication.


The Verge
27 minutes ago
- The Verge
Paramount-Skydance merger approved after companies agree to government speech demands
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Skydance's $8 billion purchase of CBS-owner Paramount after the companies agreed to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs but feature a 'diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum.' In light of the Trump administration's critiques of CBS's alleged anti-conservative bias — including collecting a $16 million settlement over the president's lawsuit over an allegedly deceptively edited video of then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes — the companies' commitment to address bias in the lawsuit likely means featuring more conservative programming. Skydance agreed to employ an ombudsman for at least two years, 'who will receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS.' 'Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change,' Republican FCC Chair Brendan Carr said in a statement announcing the agency's approval. 'That is why I welcome Skydance's commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network.' He said the commitments 'would enable CBS to operate in the public interest and focus on fair, unbiased, and fact-based coverage,' and mark 'another step forward in the FCC's efforts to eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination.' Carr also boasts that Skydance 'reaffirms its commitment to localism as a core component of the public interest standard,' and that the approval will 'unleash the investment of $1.5 billion into Paramount.' Carr has made no secret of his distaste for news coverage he sees as disproportionately unfavorable to the right and DEI policies he believes contribute to unfair treatment. He's opened investigations into all three major networks as well as NPR and PBS (NBCUniversal and its owner Comcast are investors in The Verge parent company Vox Media). A week ago, CBS announced it was retiring The Late Show, hosted by Trump critic and comedian Stephen Colbert. The network said it was 'purely a financial decision.' The FCC's only remaining Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, dissented, writing that, 'In an unprecedented move, this once-independent FCC used its vast power to pressure Paramount to broker a private legal settlement and further erode press freedom … Even more alarming, it is now imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law.' Still, she gave Carr credit for calling a vote on the matter, rather than rubber-stamping the merger through one of the agency's bureaus, like it did for the Verizon-Frontier merger, which similarly required an end to DEI programs. Gomez warns that this agreement is just the canary in the coal mine. 'The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage,' she writes. 'It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America.' Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Lauren Feiner Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Business Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Entertainment Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Film Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Streaming Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All TV Shows


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
US appeals court makes decision on landmark California ammunition background checks case
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In a 2-1 vote, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains' people's right to keep and bear arms. Advertisement The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif. declared a law that requires gun owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition in California unconstitutional. Getty Images She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark US Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' Ikuta wrote. Advertisement The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision. 'Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,' a spokesperson said. The office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has called the January 2024 injunction 'extremist, illogical, and incoherent,' had no immediate comment. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said hte law 'meaningfully constrains' citizens' right to bear arms. REUTERS Advertisement All three judges on Thursday's panel were appointed by Republican presidents, though appointees of Democratic presidents hold a 9th Circuit majority. California can ask an 11-judge appeals court panel or the Supreme Court to review the decision. 'Overreaching The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. In a joint statement, the group's president and general counsel Chuck Michel called the decision a victory against 'overreaching government gun control,' while Rhode called it 'a big win for all gun owners in California.' Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents, while a few gun safety groups sided with California. Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, in a statement said California's law imposed a 'minimal burden'–a $1 fee and one-minute delay–for most firearms owners seeking ammunition. 'Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense,' she said. Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and buy four-year ammunition permits. Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. California said it received 191 reports in 2024 of 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition. Law not 'Heavy-Handed,' dissent says Advertisement The injunction was issued by US District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has ruled in several cases in favor of gun owners. An appeals court panel put the injunction on hold during California's appeal. California said several old firearms restrictions supported the background checks. These included colonial era rules requiring licenses to produce gunpowder, the disarmament around 1776 of people who refused to take 'loyalty oaths,' and late-19th century rules requiring government permission to carry concealed weapons. Advertisement Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented from Thursday's decision. He accused the majority of flouting Supreme Court guidance by effectively declaring unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues. The law 'is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,' Bybee wrote. Advertisement President George W. Bush appointed Ikuta and Bybee to the bench, while President Donald Trump appointed Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined Thursday's majority. The case is Rhode v Bonta et al, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.