Committee considers SB 57 to restrict certain SNAP purchases; advocate calls the proposal "government overreach"

Committee members reviewed SB 57, a measure that would designate certain candy and sugar‑heavy sodas as ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

A sponsor described the bill and an amendment that would remove the Department of Revenue from an administrative role and instead post an online list of excluded items and guidelines. Committee discussion included a referenced fiscal estimate of about $10.6 million in increased state costs; the sponsor said the amendment would remove that obligation.

At the public hearing, Latrell Clifford Wood, a hunger policy advocate with Alabama Arise, opposed SB 57. "It is government overreach for Alabama to be in the business of telling people who are living in poverty what to eat," Wood said, adding that SNAP benefits average roughly $6 a day and that the bill would raise administrative costs, increase the tax burden on low‑income households and not improve access to healthy food without additional investments. Wood urged the committee to instead pursue proven interventions such as SNAP incentives and no‑cost school breakfast.

After adopting the amendment and hearing public comment, the committee carried SB 57 over for consideration at a later date.

Why this matters: the measure would change what SNAP beneficiaries may buy with federal benefits, potentially shifting state administrative costs and affecting low‑income households. Opponents say the policy could increase costs for taxpayers and for families with limited grocery budgets.

What happens next: SB 57 was carried over and will be revisited at a future meeting.