Lawmakers hear hours of testimony on SNAP restriction bill; advocates urge caution, DSS clarifies waiver timing

The subcommittee heard extended testimony on House Bill 4,061, which would direct the South Carolina Department of Social Services to seek federal approval to restrict how Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are used, prohibiting purchases of candy and soft drinks and describing a process for implementation, reporting and evaluation.

Representative Frank, the bill’s sponsor, told the panel the measure would codify an executive action the governor had already taken and argued it aligns SNAP with its nutrition purpose. "We're essentially codifying an existing executive order," he said, citing state and national rates of obesity and diabetes as rationale and saying the bill would not reduce recipients' benefit amounts or prevent private purchases of restricted items.

Testimony split along predictable lines. Krista Hinson of the South Carolina Retail Association asked lawmakers not to codify definitions into statute while the federal waiver demonstration proceeds, warning of "gray areas" in classifying tens of thousands of UPC codes and of steep penalties for retailers that could threaten small stores' ability to accept SNAP. "A second offense of a violation... carries harsher penalties than selling a pack of cigarettes to somebody with SNAP benefits," she said, urging state guidance and caution.

Advocacy groups and public‑health coalitions urged the committee to let the waiver run and evaluate results before writing permanent law. Sue Berkowitz of South Carolina Appleseed said waivers are demonstration projects and cautioned that restrictions could exacerbate hunger or create new food deserts if small retailers stop accepting SNAP. Meg Stanley, an executive director involved in nutrition access work, told the subcommittee the research does not show that bans alone produce long‑term dietary change and emphasized incentive programs such as Healthy Bucks as more effective.

By contrast, Alan Kambon of FGA Action supported the bill, citing USDA purpose language and presenting figures (he said sweet beverages and candy account for about 11% of SNAP spending and cited USDA metrics describing soda as a top SNAP purchase) to argue the program should prioritize nutritious purchases. Industry representatives, including Catherine Wiley of the South Carolina Beverage Association, urged waiting for the waiver’s two‑year demonstration period to produce outcome data before codifying definitions into state law.

Conley Ann Ragley, chief external affairs officer at DSS, clarified points of implementation: she said the USDA-approved waiver was granted in December 2025 and—contrary to some testimony—is not effective until Aug. 31, 2026; she described the pilot as two years in duration and said DSS is not responsible for retailer sales data, citing federal firewalls between SNAP certification (USDA) and state eligibility work. Ragley also provided program figures for February 2026: DSS paid SNAP benefits to 244,885 households covering 509,596 persons, totaling about $94,700,000 paid into the state economy; she added that those benefits are 100 percent federally funded. Ragley also told the committee a lawsuit filed March 12 in the District of Columbia challenging USDA’s authority to impose such restrictions is pending.

The committee did not vote on House Bill 4,061 before adjourning for session; the Chair said the subcommittee will continue the conversations and obtain additional purchase data and implementation details before taking further action.