Lawmaker raises concerns as Nevada weighs sugary SNAP restrictions

Editor's note: Este artículo está traducido al español.

Nevada may seek to restrict food stamp recipients from using their government benefits on candy and sugary drinks, drawing criticism from one state lawmaker who said the process lacked transparency.

During a meeting Tuesday of the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Health and Human Services, state Sen. Fabian Doñate, D-Las Vegas, said he noticed a provision within a recent rural health grant application saying Nevada planned to submit a waiver request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking to prohibit the purchase of “non-nutritious items” using food stamps.

The USDA oversees the nation’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP benefits or food stamps.

Doñate said the proposal lacked public and legislative input, and he questioned its feasibility.

Robert Thompson, administrator of the Nevada Division of Social Services, said the potential restrictions emerged about four years ago, starting as a proposed ban on food stamp-purchased sugary drinks before expanding to include energy drinks and gummy and jelly candies.

Kelly Cantrelle, the division’s deputy administrator, said officials had not yet submitted the waiver request to the federal government as they continue consulting with retailers and representatives from states with similar restrictions.

Should Nevada move forward, the state will request a February 2028 rollout to allow time for comprehensive preparations, Cantrelle said. That includes detailing what falls under the definition of sugary drinks and foods, and tracking SNAP recipients’ purchasing behaviors.

“It is a heavy lift,” Cantrelle said. “And we are today, at this moment, not 100% prepared to do this.”

She said the state didn’t have the funding to enact restrictions. It was unclear how much they would cost.

Doñate said the Health and Human Services committee could have a discussion on wider access to healthier foods, but his problem with the proposed restrictions was based on principle. He encouraged the division not to go through with the request until legislators could review it.

“I think the greater question that caused my level of concern and caution was the executive branch taking action, or certain agencies, without legislative input in terms of restriction (of) public benefits,” he said. “Now, we are starting to change consumer behavior without having … full deliberation and the participation of the people.”

State Senate Minority Leader Robin Titus, R-Wellington, said she recognized that local corner stores would be affected. Legislators, she said, don’t want to harm small businesses but do want to encourage healthy choices by consumers.

“We do have a chance to make real change, and perhaps it does require changed behavior. We encourage people with heart disease to go exercise,” said Titus, a physician. “We encourage people with diabetes to change their behavior. It’s not unheard of that we’re actually trying to get people to buy into healthy lifestyles.”

SNAP is a $100 billion program nationwide. In Nevada, state officials issue more than $2 billion in food stamps over a biennium on behalf of the federal government, Thompson said.

Earlier this month, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia became the first of at least 18 states to enact waivers prohibiting the purchase of certain foods through SNAP.

It’s part of a push by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to urge states to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the federal program. According to the USDA, states with the new waivers so far generally restrict soda, energy drinks and candy from SNAP purchases.

But retail industry and health policy experts said state SNAP programs, already under pressure from steep budget cuts, were unprepared for the complex changes, with no complete lists of the foods affected and technical point-of-sale challenges that vary by state and store. Research remains mixed about whether restricting SNAP purchases improves diet quality and health.

A report by the National Grocers Association and other industry trade groups estimated that carrying out SNAP restrictions would cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 million each year going forward.

The waivers are a departure from decades of federal policy first enacted in 1964 and later authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which said SNAP benefits could be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” except alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods. The law also says SNAP can’t pay for tobacco.

Previous waiver requests were denied based on USDA research concluding that restrictions would be costly and complicated to enforce and that they might not change recipients’ buying habits or reduce health problems such as obesity.

— The Associated Press contributed to this story.

[email protected] / 702-990-8949 / @HillaryLVSun