A Republican from Lake Havasu, Rep. Leo Biasiucci, is pushing to remove sodas—both sugary and sugar-free—from what people in Arizona can buy with food stamps. He argues that sodas lack nutritional value.
Despite this, candy would still be allowed. Biasiucci initially wanted to include candy in his proposal, but he faced pushback from his colleagues. They raised concerns about how to classify candy compared to snacks like granola bars. For instance, what’s the real difference between a Snickers and a granola bar anyway?
The new bill, HB 2165, passed a House Committee despite opposition from Mike Gardner, a lobbyist representing the Arizona Beverage Association. He pointed out that beverage companies have made strides in offering sugar-free options. “Good luck finding zero-calorie mayonnaise,” he joked.
This bill will now head to the full House. Even if it passes, and even if Governor Katie Hobbs signs it, it won’t immediately change what food stamp recipients can buy. Instead, it asks Arizona’s Department of Economic Security to request permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement a soda ban for SNAP recipients. So far, no such request has been granted.
However, change could be on the horizon. Brooke Rollins, the leader of the USDA, mentioned her desire to reform SNAP purchases. She expressed interest in working with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services, to assess food choices available through the program.
Biasiucci believes the program needs an update. He said SNAP was created to help those in need, but it’s morphed into a situation where recipients can buy almost anything, besides alcohol and tobacco. He wants to steer it back toward supporting healthier food choices.
The original version of HB 2165 aimed to ban candy as well but was criticized for being too vague, leading to its revision. This change frustrated some, including Gardner, who questioned the bill’s objectives. He suggested that lawmakers could foster healthy eating without blaming the soda industry.
Statistics show that nearly 463,000 families in Arizona receive SNAP benefits. Many of them are working families, and one-third are children. Advocates argue that recipients are also taxpayers and should have the freedom to choose how they spend their benefits.
Biasiucci stands firm in his belief that sodas offer no nutritional benefits, stating, “There is zero nutritional value in drinking Coke or Sprite.” He insists that the SNAP program should focus on foods that boost health.
On the other hand, Rep. Alma Hernandez pointed out that while Biasiucci’s goals are commendable, there are deeper issues affecting health, like diabetes. She feels that the government shouldn’t dictate what recipients can buy, as food choices should be personal. Similarly, Rep. Sarah Liguori highlighted that addressing nutrition involves tackling broader issues, such as food access and rising prices, instead of just restricting specific items.
Overall, the debate remains heated. It highlights the ongoing struggle to balance individual choice with the desire to promote healthier living through public assistance programs.
