Washington Senate panel hears sharp opposition to bill to bar candy and sweetened drinks from SNAP

The Senate Human Services Committee on Feb. 2 heard competing arguments over Senate Bill 6186, a proposal that would direct the state Department of Social and Health Services to request a federal waiver to bar SNAP (Basic Food) benefits from being used to buy candy and sweetened beverages.

Allison Mendiola, committee staff, told members the bill would require DSHS to request a USDA waiver to prohibit certain purchases and that the bill report contains definitions for candy and sweetened beverages. Mendiola also said a preliminary fiscal note shows a cost of about $781,000 in the current biennium and roughly $320,000 in the subsequent biennium, with departmental implementation costs still being synthesized.

Supporters framed the bill as a targeted public-health measure. Mary Long of Conservative Ladies of Washington testified she supports the restriction to “help families prioritize foods that are nutritious and sustain life,” and said protecting essentials such as milk and medical nutrition would be preserved under the bill.

But a wide array of public-health groups, anti-hunger advocates, researchers and SNAP professionals urged the committee to reject the proposal. Claire Lane, director of the Anti-Hunger Nutrition Coalition, told the committee that “restricting what SNAP shoppers can do and purchase is not helpful,” and cited federal research suggesting waivers are unlikely to change behavior.

Several witnesses described practical and medical risks. Diane Evans, a single mother who testified in opposition, said she relies on sugary beverages when she experiences hypoglycemic blackouts and that “a sugary drink like a chocolate protein shake or a soda can and has saved my life.” Miranda Hunter, a King County constituent, added that sugar-free products and other alternatives can be medically necessary for people with diabetes or hypoglycemia.

Retailers and grocers warned of implementation challenges. Molly Poffen, government affairs director for the Washington Food Industry Association, said the bill would force small and independent grocers to reclassify thousands of products at point-of-sale systems, creating confusion, expense and longer checkout times that could disproportionately harm rural and underserved communities. Elizabeth Kimball of Public Health — Seattle & King County and Elsa Young of United Way of King County both told the committee restrictions would not make healthy food more affordable and could have unintended consequences, including costs to the state and the risk that some stores stop accepting SNAP.

Researchers who testified — including Melissa Knox (University of Washington) and Barbara Vaccaro (UW School of Public Health) — said the evidence favors incentive programs (like fruit-and-vegetable subsidies) over purchase bans. Knox cited evaluation of Seattle’s Fresh Bucks program showing increased fruit and vegetable consumption when incentives lower the relative price of healthy foods.

Committee members asked staff about costs and implementation burdens but did not take a vote. Chair Wilson concluded the testimonial record on SB 6186 and later reopened the hearing file for other business. The committee chair reminded members that amendments for the next executive session are due by noon the following day.

The committee did not adopt the bill or hold a vote during the Feb. 2 hearing; the measure was left at the committee testimony stage pending further work and possible amendment.