Bill to bar SNAP purchases of soda, candy and chips draws partisan testimony and divided advocacy; committee left measure pending

Senate Bill 379 would prohibit the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase certain items: sugar‑sweetened beverages, energy drinks, candy, cookies and potato or corn chips. The Health and Human Services Committee left the bill pending for further work and public testimony.

Senator Middleton, the bill’s sponsor, argued the bill aligns SNAP with its stated USDA purpose — to provide nutritious food essential to health and well‑being — and pointed to data showing sugary drinks are a large share of SNAP purchases. “Taxpayer‑funded junk food turns into taxpayer‑funded health care later on,” he said, and compared the restriction to the WIC program, which already restricts many low‑nutrient items.

Supporters included Grace Price, a youth food activist, and Roy Leonardson of FGA Action, who said the policy is part of a broader national push and urged state action while federal rules evolve. “Is sugar really so bad? … No child's brain should match that of a nicotine addict,” Grace Price testified.

Opponents warned of practical implementation and access problems. Amber O’Connor of Every Texan said the bill would impose large administrative burdens on HHSC and on small retailers required to update point‑of‑sale systems and item lists, and argued SNAP recipients who rely on nearby convenience stores or dollar stores could lose access if retailers stop accepting SNAP. Teresa Mangapour, CEO of the Brazos Valley Food Bank and chair of Feeding Texas, said many rural Texans rely on small stores with limited fresh produce; she said retailers could decline to accept SNAP if compliance costs rise.

Feeding Texas’ Jamie Olson told the committee that restricting SKUs at the point of sale would require a centralized regulatory apparatus to evaluate hundreds of thousands of products and update lists continuously — a logistical and fiscal challenge. The American Heart Association emphasized prevention of diet‑related disease but recommended approaches that boost fruit and vegetable purchases and SNAP incentives rather than categorical bans.

Committee members discussed rural access and the need to pair restrictions with incentive programs; several members suggested pursuing waivers or incentive expansions alongside any restriction. The committee left the bill pending to continue deliberations and stakeholder work.