- Bill HB569 aimed to restrict ultra-processed foods in SNAP benefits.
- Legislators raised concerns that these restrictions would stigmatize people who use SNAP.
- Loss of convenience foods for vulnerable populations was a significant concern raised.
One lawmaker’s efforts to stop SNAP users from purchasing ultra-processed food was halted in a House committee last week.
Rep. Kristen Chevrier, R-Highland, introduced HB569 and presented the bill to the House Health and Human Services Committee on Friday. The committee voted to hold the bill and not move it forward in order to further examine the issue.
“I want to thank the sponsor for her tireless efforts to make America healthy again,” said Rep. Nelson Abbott, R-Orem.
HB569 builds off a bill last year which removed soda from SNAP funding and was implemented by the Department of Workforce Services in January.
“Stakeholders have told me that they were very happy with our definition of soda and that it was the best and easiest to work with in the nation,” Chevrier said. “DWS reported that the process of getting the exemption or getting the waiver was very simple, and they were surprised with how well that went.”
What would HB569 do?
The representative emphasized the name Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, saying that means “it should be helping to give nutrition to our most vulnerable. And what this bill is doing is moving us one step further toward making it a healthier program.”
“I just wanted to say we’ve seen a huge increase in obesity, diabetes and cancer in our young people, and particularly in our low-income population. And that is what we’re trying to address here. It’s to bring SNAP back to its mission,” Chevrier added.
She said that examples of ultra-processed foods include chips, cookies, sugary cereals and other processed snacks. Chevrier added that these foods make up about 60% to 73% of the U.S. diet.
Chevrier’s bill does not give a definition of ultra-processed foods; it waits for a federal definition to be given. If there is a federal definition given, then DWS will be charged with removing ultra-processed foods from SNAP benefits.
“But if a federal definition never comes, nothing happens,” the representative said.
The executive director of Utah Legislative Watch, Maryann Christensen, spoke in support of the bill.
She said that SNAP is a good program but that people on the program shouldn’t be given foods that cause health problems and obesity.
Concerns raised over additional SNAP restrictions
Rep. Sandra Hollins, D-Salt Lake City, said she is concerned that this would be stigmatizing people, reflecting on how she grew up in poverty.
“Most people who go into a store who are using their food stamp card, they’re not really proud of it,” she said. “They’re doing it because they have to, not because they want to, and to have them have this added stigma on that, saying we’re going to limit what you can and what you cannot buy.”
There were also concerns that once a federal definition of ultra-processed foods is given, it could change with each administration.
Dave Davis, the president of the Utah Retail Merchants Association, shared that removing soda from SNAP benefits is only a fraction of the work that it would take to get rid of all ultra-processed foods. Especially because the timeline to implement it would only be three months, he doesn’t believe it could be done in that time.
“So the level of difficulty, not to go with an Olympic example right now, but soda may have been a single axel. This is a quintuple axel that we’re trying to pull off here,” Davis said.
Neil Rickerd, who is a child nutrition advocate with Utahns Against Hunger, raised concerns that this would take away a lot of convenience foods that seniors or people with disabilities on SNAP depend on. This includes packaged breads, boxed macaroni and cheese, ramen noodles and other staple foods for this population.
A Utah resident, Jennifer Henson, shared Rickerd’s concerns that people with limited mental and physical capabilities rely on these convenience foods that could be considered ultra-processed.
“Cooking from scratch is a luxury of time, health and education that many simply do not have, and we cannot legislate nutrition without first addressing the crisis of accessibility and cooking skills,” Henson said.
Multiple representatives on the committee had an issue with passing this bill before knowing what the federal definition might be.
“I think this is just too early. I generally do not like to cede power to the federal government. I think we as a state need to carefully guard our power, and this bill gives power to the federal government,” Abbott said.
Rep. Jennifer Dailey Provost, D-Salt Lake City, recognized that the health of Americans and the food they are eating is a critical issue but said “it is so much bigger than ultra-processed foods.”
She said this should be looked at “not just from the food that’s available, but broader at the systems that create barriers that make being healthy almost impossible for so many people.”