House committee deadlocks on bill to prohibit SNAP purchases of candy and soft drinks after heated debate

House Bill 21‑65 would have directed the Arizona Department of Economic Security to request a USDA waiver to exclude candy, soft drinks and “comparable food items” from purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The bill required annual waiver requests until approval.

Supporters’ case: Sponsor Rep. Biasucci said federal SNAP funds should prioritize nutritious foods and argued that sugary drinks and candy contribute to chronic disease. Testimony in favor included health activists and students who presented epidemiological concerns and the idea that SNAP funds should not subsidize sugary, ultra‑processed products. Supporters pointed to high rates of obesity and prediabetes and said removing sugary drinks and candy from SNAP would lower consumption.

Opposition and practical concerns: Retailers and the beverage industry, represented by the Arizona Beverage Association, urged caution, arguing the bill’s definitions were vague and would force retailers to police tens of thousands of SKUs at checkout. Mike Gardner, representing beverage interests, gave examples—pop tarts, granola bars and mixed‑ingredient products—where a statutory ban would be difficult to administer and could increase retailer costs. Michelle Simpson of the William E. Morris Institute for Justice, speaking for low‑income household interests, said SNAP recipients rely on the program and that broad prohibitions would impose paternalistic controls and could harm families who rely on convenience foods.

Committee exchange: Members questioned the practicality and scope of any ban; some sought better evidence that a prohibition would reduce obesity or improve outcomes. Rep. Grama said government programs already set rules for SNAP and could consider incentives for healthy purchasing; Rep. Ligori said the bill’s language was too vague to enforce at checkout and suggested focusing on access to healthy food and additional prevention resources.

Vote and outcome: Vice Chair Heap moved the bill forward. The committee recorded a 6‑6 tie in roll call (6 ayes, 6 nays) on the motion to return HB 21‑65 with a due pass recommendation; the tie meant the committee did not give the bill a due‑pass recommendation and the bill failed to advance in that hearing.

Why it mattered: The debate highlighted tensions between public‑health goals and administrability and equity. Opponents warned that a statutory ban would create a compliance burden for retailers and could widen access problems for families in food deserts; supporters said the state should use policy levers to discourage unhealthy consumption of sugary drinks and candy, especially among children.

Ending: The sponsor said he would continue to refine the proposal and seek amendments to address definitional and operational issues; the committee did not advance HB 21‑65 at this session meeting.