|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As other states fight SNAP benefits for junk food, VT bill would allow EBT use in restaurants
By Casey Harper, for The Center Square – Vermont information reported by VDC
(The Center Square) – A battle is brewing nationwide over whether recipients of SNAP benefits, also known as “food stamps,” should be allowed to purchase soda and candy with their government food assistance.
But in the Vermont Legislature, the SNAP food issue on the table, so to speak, is about allowing EBT purchases in restaurants.
In Vermont, dispute about expanding food stamp use for restaurant meals – However, the House Human Services Committee Wednesday discussed a bill in its jurisdiction that would allow SNAP benefit recipients to use their EBT cards to buy restaurant meals.
As recorded on GoldenDomevt.com, Rep. Brenda Steady (R-Milton) asked about the status of funding for SNAP restaurant meals, an ask by Hunger Free Vermont to the committee in February. Chair Theresa Wood (D-Richmond) responded that if the funding isn’t included in the state budget, the committee could pass out to the floor H.151, “implementing the Restaurant Meals Program.” The lead sponsor is Bridport Democrat Jubilee McGill, a Human Services committee member whose opinion on homelessness seems to carry weight in committee discussions.
The bill says the “The State shall participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s Restaurant Meals Program,” and that restaurant participation would be voluntary. $100,000 would be allocated for a staff position to develop guidelines for users and restaurants.
Wood explained that passing the bill this year would be difficult, but the committee could at least take testimony. “There was some move among advocates to try to have language put in the budget. I don’t know where that’s at right now, to be perfectly honest, but 151 is still on our on our board. And that you know, we will have time, in this session if that’s a bill that people want to take more testimony on. We certainly can.
“We did hear from the department that it does have cost to implement,” Wood continued. ‘And so we were not, you know, honestly looking at things that had any kind of significant cost to implement. I’m not going to say it’s not going to happen this year, but I think it’s unlikely if you want to.”
Steady repeated a concern she shared during the Hunger Free Vermont presentation in February: “And I still want to express, I think it’s more expensive than allowing people to use their EBT cards to be able to buy prepared foods at their grocery store when they’re getting groceries and be able to buy a hot meal, a rotisserie chicken, or a birthday cake.”
One committee member said the choice is whether to join the existing federal program allowing federally-funded SNAP benefit use in restaurants. Some SNAP beneficiaries are unable to prepare meals, another said.
Other states push food, soda SNAP ban – Critics of the new push to ban soda and candy purchases under SNAP say it unfairly targets lower income families, limits consumer choice and won’t result in better health outcomes.
Governors in four states are asking the federal government for waivers allowing them to prevent SNAP recipients from using their benefits to purchase what one governor calls “taxpayer-funded junk food.”
SNAP overall costs the federal government about $115 billion per year. A wide array of products are currently disallowed for SNAP users, from alcohol to tobacco products to pet food to vitamins.
Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has publicly said she would approve the waivers.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also said in a recent speech he welcomes the effort from state leaders.
The scope of the bans vary by state. In West Virginia, the ban would restrict soda purchases. In Idaho and Indiana, the limits apply to soda and candy.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders submitted a waiver to the Trump administration last week asking permission to enact the ban in her state blocking SNAP purchases of soda and candy, as The Center Square previously reported. Notably, Sanders’ waiver “will extend to confectionary products with flour…” which is a more broad definition of candy than in some other states.
Sanders’ waiver also requests SNAP recipients be allowed to purchase rotisserie chickens with their benefits, which are currently blocked under the “hot food” purchase ban at the federal level.
Sanders raised the issue with the Trump administration in December, sending a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins before they were confirmed by the Senate.
“As Secretaries, I ask that you work collaboratively across the Administration to prohibit the sale of junk food in SNAP and end taxpayer-funded junk food,” the letter said. “I also wish to notify you of my intent to pursue a SNAP Waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service that would support fresh fruits, vegetables, eggs, and protein and prohibit using SNAP for junk food.”
Lower-income Americans who receive the benefits could still purchase those snacks and beverages, just with their own cash, not the government assistance.
“In fact, soda, unhealthy snacks, candy, and dessert account for nearly 23 percent, or $25 billion, of all SNAP purchases,” Sanders said. “Given the relationship between junk food and poor health, our federal food assistance policies are fueling obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and a wide range of chronic health conditions across America.”
Critics of the new push to ban soda purchases under SNAP say it unfairly targets lower income families and limits consumer choice.
States efforts vary in their approach. Efforts to ban soda and candy are simpler, but language from Huckabee-Sanders and others about “unhealthy snacks” would be much more complicated to regulate.
Determining which foods are “healthy” or not could be tricky. Does trail mix count as candy if it includes some? Does gum count as candy? Generally, definitions are required to make a distinction between sodas and whether certain “juices” are acceptable.
“This policy approach is misguided and not needed when it comes to chocolate and candy,” Chris Gindlesperger, senior vice president of Public Affairs and Communications at the the National Confectioners Association, said in a statement. “SNAP participants and non-SNAP participants alike understand that chocolate and candy are treats – not meal replacements. In fact, candy purchasing patterns are basically equivalent between SNAP and non-SNAP families – with only about 2% of SNAP purchases being candy. Consumers have a unique mindset when they enjoy chocolate and candy that is not present when interacting with other foods – whether or not they are using SNAP benefits for food purchases.”
Besides the four states whose governors have said they are moving forward with some version of restrictions on SNAP purchases, other states have seen similar efforts.
In some cases, only soda is in the crosshairs.
In Ohio, a measure making its way through the legislature would result in blocking SNAP purchases of sugary drinks, efforts the beverage industry says is unfair and won’t improve individuals’ health.
“Make no mistake, this waiver won’t make an ounce of difference on health,” the trade organization American Beverage said. “Obesity has skyrocketed in the last two decades while beverage calories per serving have dropped by 42% – thanks to our industry’s efforts to empower Americans with more choice and information. In fact, 60% of beverages Americans buy today have zero sugar due to our innovation.”
In Michigan, State Rep. Brad Paquette, R-Niles, introduced a bill to prevent SNAP benefits from being used for soda. State leaders are facing opposition from critics as they get the initiative approved at the state level, but so far the Trump administration has said it is happy to approve the waivers when they are submitted.
“Michigan taxpayers should not be required to fund poor food consumption,” Paquette said. “This legislation is in no way calling for low-income individuals to be stripped of the assistance they currently receive to feed themselves and their families, but we have to recognize that this assistance is a privilege and comes at the expense of taxpaying workers.
“We should ensure that SNAP beneficiaries are not using this program in a way that is both exorbitant and palpably harmful to themselves,” Paquette added.
Casey Harper is a Senior Reporter for the Washington, D.C. Bureau. He previously worked for The Daily Caller, The Hill, and Sinclair Broadcast Group. A graduate of Hillsdale College, Casey’s work has also appeared in Fox News, Fox Business, and USA Today.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation, National News
“But in the Vermont Legislature, the SNAP food issue on the table, so to speak, is about allowing EBT purchases in restaurants.”
My answer is “NO!”
The EBT was never intended to perpetuate a life style but ensure a livable, sustainable nutritious source of food for those less able to afford it.
Now it appears , under the guise of socially engineered fairness, it appears this largesse has reached into food choices beyond sustainability. If you chose to go that path , you need to make a different choice and reflect how you got there to make better choice .
The hand up has been provided not to become a perpetual handout. Many in our society make a difficult choice everyday when they pass by a restaurant. Why not ask those gett the hand up to consider this choice?
The restaurants need the business and most all of the money ends up in the corporate money machine.
I agree Richard. This is the hidden intent as restaurants, no doubt, are struggling with the economic outcomes created by Vermont’s legislature. Allowing SNAP benefits to be paid to restaurants shifts the economic burden to keep these businesses afloat to taxpayers. Overtime, I have no doubt that this option will be selected more often than not.
Vermont should be joining the states that are eliminating some junk items from the eligibility list. There is no good reason to put the taxpayers on the hook providing someone’s sugary beverages using the SNAP program and then buy their insulin using medicaid. SNAP/3SquaresVT should promote healthy eating habits, not subsidize junk, and certainly not make the luxury of a restaurant meal eligible for coverage. This proposal is all about some legislators’ “resist” virtue signaling, brought on by a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Wouldn’t it be great if people knew how to cook?
Here are some different ideas.
Ban all seed oils, pay for olive oil and grass fed butter only.
Only organic flour.
Vegetables and fruit count for 30 cents on the dollar.
No restaurant.
No soda.
No candy.
No cookies
No crap cereal 99% is crap
People can make their own cookies and treats, there are no rules against that.
Do we really care about our friends or are we in love with lobbyists and their money?
We should be teaching how to cook in schools instead of oral sex and sex toy use.
We could easily make a difference and everybody would be better for it.
TGBTG
No chips too.
I like this but we would also need to teach what ambition is and how to put down the game controller.
I am pretty sure you can withdraw cash from your SNAP card just like a debit card. If this is so, why are we worrying about candy, soda, chips and restaurant meals when they can just cash it out and buy drugs with it. I also know that they trade the cards for drugs then say they lost their card, and the state issues them another one.
Bring back soup kitchens.
So based off of your (wrong) assumption that all EBT cards give cash back, why even give them a card? Just give em cash.
And soup kitchens are called food shelfs now. Enjoy your SS while its still here!
Based off my wrong assumption? When my son was alive (he died of fentanyl poisoning in 2020) my we held his SNAP card for him and took him grocery shopping every week. I witnessed him not only get cash at an ATM with it but get cash back from the cashier at the grocery store. It was my son who told me about the selling of the cards for cash and the “lost card” scam that other SNAP members used.
You are correct that SOME cards are able to get cash back, and that is set up through your SSI (disability) money, not EBT money. easy to mix those when you don’t do any research.
No, Vermont 3SquaresVT (SNAP) EBT cards cannot be used to withdraw cash. These cards are specifically for purchasing eligible food items at authorized retailers like grocery stores and farmers markets. While they function like debit cards, they cannot be used to access cash directly from ATMs or other cash withdrawal points.
The left has totally lost their collective minds. Snap is for those struggling to put food on the table. Not junk food… healthy food. Snap is not a lifestyle (maybe to the left) but rather a hand-up for those in need…. it used to be called food stamps. 3Squaresvt is a good program if not abused by the administrators. The users will abuse it as that is the nature of handing out free stuff… it’s up to the administrators to keep it clean. We want food on the table but cut the nonsense…. so much of the work that goes on under the dome is justification of existence. Every legislator feels compelled to come up with a new program. Just listen to your local legislators as they run about town soliciting NEW ideas to bring to back to Montpelier so they can say “the people want this”. Legislators, please focus on what we need and not what we or you want.
A point we are missing in this article is…. ANOTHER $100,000 job being created at taxpayers’ expense. Vermont state government is the largest employer in the state!!!
Enough already. We need an outside agency to review our bloat and advise. How many new positions have been created in the past 8 years? Are they all related to social programs or “how to” bring in a program to get more revenue from hard working Vermonters (think rental registry or contractor registry). The state is on a constant mission creep and its unaffordable. Gov Scott, please get some DOGE going on. We have a rather aged population… who will pick up the tab if more and more people are on the dole as those that actually foot the bill move on to their final destination?
So those that work hard and pay taxes, will not eat out, because they can not afford it, so those that suck the government tit, can live high on the hog, and the hapless taxpayer, is stuck footing the freeloaders restaurant bill!?!
What the heck is wrong with you people???
You lawmakers think it a bright idea, but I think you are collectively about as bright as a two watt bulb…unless your aim is to destroy our state, and country, so only one party rules, like the old USSR, or North Korea.
I’m beginning to suspect just this… as it is the only reason, I can see, to explain such stupidly.
VOTE THEM OUT!
The dilemma on which this article reports reveals the crux of the problem when Mama Government is responsible for the largesse and bennys citizens can receive. The more bennys expected from Mama, the more control we must give her. The unspoken agreement is basically,
“I’ll feed and house and clothe you and give you a little allowance, but I get a big say in how you live and how you spend it.”
The more we receive from the state, the more control it will take. It’s a quid pro quo, but the ultimate price is our freedom.
The further the godly foundations of a society are eroded, and the more biblical wisdom is rejected and discarded, the more its citizens become crippled, paralyzed, and caricatures of Him in whose image we were created.
The more we expect the state to do for us, the more of our inherent human dignity, motivation, industriousness, and creativity we trade away and surrender.
The destruction of Black family in America is perhaps the most noteworthy casualty of this way of thinking. The lack of fathers in the home, and the aborting of more Black babies than are born alive in several US cities, and a sense of entitlement held by many, are the now ripened and rotting bad fruit of this socialist experiment induced by Democrat and White guilt.
The saying,
“Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,”
is applicable here because the more we expect from the gift horse, the more the gift horse wants to hold the reins and bridle to our lives.
The more a society leans toward socialism and communism models, the tougher it is to have our cake (especially with the new FDA and EBT guidelines) and eat it, too.
The content in this article profiles (1) egregious propaganda and (2) health illiteracy of Americans at local, state and national levels.
From the article: “Make no mistake, this waiver won’t make an ounce of difference on health,” the trade organization American Beverage said. “Obesity has skyrocketed in the last two decades while beverage calories per serving have dropped by 42% – thanks to our industry’s efforts to empower Americans with more choice and information. In fact, 60% of beverages Americans buy today have zero sugar due to our innovation.”
Notice the word choice: “BEVERAGE” not soda or soft drink. ****Bottled water is (believe it or not) considered a beverage.
According to CocaCola ~30% of SOFT DRINK volume sold in the US in 2023 is low or no-calorie
The 60% metric offered by the American Beverage is pure propaganda: 100% without merit.
****A standard 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola contains approximately 39 grams of sugar. This is equivalent to about 9.75 teaspoons (!!!!) of sugar equal to 78% of the RDA for simple sugars.
No effect on health??? Whoa! Consuming ~10 tsps of sugar in a few minutes will lead to a spike in blood sugar levels which leads to the pancreas dumping insulin into the blood. Drinking can after can day after day leads to insulin resistance and, the empty calories do most certainly contribute to obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Part of the reason America’s health is so (in the aggregate) terrible is people’s diet have too many calories and many of those calories are simple sugars that are converted to fat, lead to insulin exhaustion, and ultimately type 2 diabetes.
Saying a ban on using SNAP to buy SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) “unfairly” targets low income individuals is straight out of George Orwells’ 1984:
When the Dept of Agriculture lets people use federal benefits to buy SSBs the government is actually promoted poor health. How is that beneficial?
I would be shocked if the Democrat-Progressive majority in the Legislature put restrictions on SNAP usage. Better to promote obesity and type 2 diabetes that to “unfairly” treat low income individuals. Once again I expect they will lead going backwards….an unfortunate component of their approach to dealing with society’s problems.
We could have a volunteer healthy Vermont section in the stores, which would only take up 20% max of the store, it would be great for everyone. When you start taking out sugar and seed oils, suddenly you realize how terrible our food choices in any grocery store, food co- op included, truly is. It’s really alarming.