Committee on Government Efficiency hears testimony on SB 79 seeking SNAP waiver to bar soda and candy purchases

The Committee on Government Efficiency heard testimony on Senate Bill 79, which would ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a waiver to prohibit purchases of soda and candy with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.

Proponents said the measure would improve public health and make better use of taxpayer dollars; opponents said the bill would create an administrative burden for small retailers, risk reducing vendor participation in SNAP and do little to change overall diets.

Roy Leonardson, visiting fellow at Opportunity Solutions Project, told the committee the bill follows Kansas statute definitions and would not cut benefit amounts. "This is simply saying with taxpayer dollars, food stamp dollars, we want a waiver that prohibits you from buying soda and candy and redirects that towards health," Leonardson said. He cited studies linking sugary beverages to diabetes and obesity and said soda is the top SNAP purchase nationally while candy ranks third.

Leonardson gave price comparisons to illustrate choices he said SNAP dollars currently buy: a Monster Energy drink at about $3.39, a 20-ounce bottle of Coke at $2.29, a bag of Doritos at $5.49 and King-size Reese's at $2.49. He said a 12-pack of Monster could be purchased with EBT delivery for about $23 and that, in his view, the same money could buy a family meal costing roughly $20.

Nicholas Reinicker of Inman, a proponent and restaurant owner, urged the committee to treat the bill as a question of stewardship and public health and said the bill would not punish recipients because benefit amounts would remain unchanged.

Opponents focused on implementation and unintended consequences. Brian Posler, executive director of FuelTrue Independent Energy and Convenience Association, said statutory definitions the bill references would produce inconsistent and arbitrary results at the point of sale — for example, some candy items listing flour would be exempt while others would not — and force clerks to police complex product lists. "This bill is an unfunded mandate that will cost small businesses time, money, and hassle," Posler said, arguing the change could discourage small retailers from accepting SNAP.

Karen Siebert, advocacy and policy advisor for Harvesters (the Kansas food bank and Second Harvest Community Food Bank), said SNAP recipients' food choices mirror the broader population and that restricting purchases would not address root causes such as food prices, marketing and access. Siebert noted food inflation and the limits of small SNAP benefits: "Healthy food is simply more expensive food," she said, and the state’s charitable network distributed more than 46 million pounds of food last year.

Committee members questioned practical details. Senator Alley cited a Kansas Division of the Budget note that the Department of Children and Families indicated enactment would have no fiscal effect on benefit amounts; a committee response clarified benefits would not be reduced but recipients would be unable to use SNAP for the specified items if a waiver is granted. Senators asked whether definitions would exempt certain juices and whether the state could enforce the restrictions without significant cost to retailers.

Witnesses noted history of federal denials for similar state waiver requests. Leonardson acknowledged past denials but said he expected a shift in federal willingness; Posler and others pointed to a 2018 USDA denial of Maine’s waiver request and urged a federal rather than state-by-state solution.

No formal vote or committee action on SB 79 was recorded during the hearing. Committee members concluded the hearing after hearing proponent and opponent testimony and questions from senators.

The hearing combined public-health arguments, retail-implementation concerns and federal-waiver legal uncertainty. Proponents urged the committee to request the waiver; opponents recommended alternatives such as incentive programs (for example, "double up" produce incentive programs) and cautioned about worsening food access in rural areas if retailers decline SNAP.