Food banks, legal advocates and policy groups back study commission instead of immediate SNAP restrictions
Loading...
Summary
Stakeholders told the committee converting proposed SNAP purchase restrictions into a study commission is prudent. Food‑security and legal‑aid groups argued the original measure risked increasing hunger, administrative costs and payment‑error penalties; think‑tank analysis urged study of retail impacts.
Representative Yuri Palazzo introduced SB 615, a bill establishing a commission to study the use and regulation of SNAP in New Hampshire. Witnesses from food‑security organizations, legal aid and policy groups uniformly supported the Senate‑amended approach to convene a study commission rather than immediately imposing state‑level restrictions on SNAP purchases.
Elsie Cipriani, executive director of the New Hampshire Food Bank, said the food bank supports the amended bill because the original restrictions would have increased hunger, stigma and administrative burden while risking federal penalties and harming local grocery retailers. She told the committee the food bank distributed more than 20 million pounds of food in 2025 and that reliance on SNAP remains high in certain regions.
Drew Klein of the Josiah Bartlett Center presented modeled estimates for a proposed restriction on candy and soft drinks, concluding that restricting SNAP purchases of those items could reduce local retailer sales in that product category by several million dollars depending on behavioral response; he recommended studying the matter further rather than enacting immediate prohibitions.
Laura Milliken (New Hampshire Hunger Solutions) and Ray Burke (New Hampshire Legal Assistance) emphasized risks the original statute posed to tens of thousands of recipients and warned that more complex eligibility or verification rules could raise SNAP payment‑error rates and state administrative costs under HR 1 changes. They argued a commission is the appropriate vehicle for detailed fiscal and program integrity study before policy change.
The committee closed the public hearing on SB 615 with broad stakeholder agreement that the study commission approach was prudent and asked questions about commission membership, scope and timelines.
