House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2015 - Committee on Welfare Reform
Short Title
Directing the secretary for children and families to request a waiver from supplemental nutrition assistance program rules that would allow the state to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with food assistance.
Minutes Content for Tue, Feb 4, 2025
Chairman Awerkamp called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. and requested corrections or emendations for the Committee minutes for January 23, January 28, and January 30, 2025. Not receiving any comments, the Chair stated that the minutes would stand accepted as drafted.
The Chair opened the hearing on HB2015.
Assistant Revisor Jenna Moyer briefed the Committee on the bill (Attachment 1). She explained that the bill directs the Secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families to request a waiver from the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with food assistance by amending K.S.A. 39-709. If the waiver is not granted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Secretary shall annually request the waiver. She said the new section defines soft drinks and candy.
Roy Lenardson, Visiting Fellow, Opportunity Solutions Project, testified as a proponent for the bill (Attachment 2). Noting that one in five American children is obese, he stated that the number one purchase with food stamps is soda. He commented that the original food-stamp program did not include candy and that the purpose of SNAP is to promote nutrition; soda and candy do not promote nutrition. Current SNAP benefits prohibit the purchase of alcohol and cigarettes because they are known to be harmful; candy and soda pop are likewise known to be harmful and should be prohibited. He said the bill recognizes that taxpayer-funded sale of harmful products and the medical cost ramifications associated with such products should be banned. He encouraged members to support this initiative that promotes healthy outcomes for Kansas citizens.
Mr. Lenardson responded to members' questions:
- Convenience stores selling pop and candy can easily change the computer code to exclude certain products, as they do with alcohol and cigarettes. Soda and candy are currently excluded from WIC (Women, Infants, Children) benefits. He said the bill opens an honest conversation about food safety and that the price for health is too high to do nothing.
- Trying to convince producers to provide more nutritious snacks is more complex; producers are market-driven. If bills like this become law, the market will respond.
- Home food deliveries are now common, making food deserts irrelevant.
- The bill is a start toward changing government policy.
Nicholas Reinecker, Citizen, spoke in support of the bill (Attachment 3). He stated that using taxpayer money for food that is inflammatory and threatens well-being is duplicitous policy. The bill represents a worthwhile step toward encouraging healthy living.
Brian Posler, Executive Director, Fuel True Independent Energy and Convenience, testified as an opponent to the bill (Attachment 4). Saying that the bill imposes costs that are an unfunded mandate, he listed four objections to the bill:
- The definitions in the bill make implementing it difficult;
- Convenience clerks become the unwilling enforcement officers of the mandate;
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture opposes such changes and has historically denied such requests; and
- Changes in SNAP should come through the federal level, not the state level.
Mr. Posler concluded by saying that the bill is well-meaning but misguided. He then responded to members' questions:
- SNAP is more common than WIC and would require far more attention from clerks.
- The bill might be more successful if there were initiatives built into the bill to make it more palatable to convenience store owners.
- About 75% of retail owners are small businesses and would have to update their POS (Point of Sale) systems if they accept SNAP. (However, Mr. Posler was not aware of the number of convenience stores that accept SNAP.)
Karen Siebert, Advocacy and Public Policy Advisor, Harvester--The Community Food Network, spoke in opposition to the bill (Attachment 5). She commented on the value of SNAP and its positive nutritional effects on low-income families compared with those who do not receive SNAP; the bill's restrictions would have a negative effect on Kansas businesses and make the program inefficient. She noted the importance for families to receive healthy food and expressed gratitude for the nutritional benefits of SNAP. Responding to a question, Ms. Siebert replied that the average SNAP payment is $6 per person per day.
Members made the following comments:
- Opposition to a bill that promotes more healthy choices for children seems incongruous.
- Opposing an attempt to provide better food for children is puzzling.
- There is a 24-month limit on receiving SNAP benefits.
Written-only opposition testimony was provided by the following:
- Eric Stafford, Vice President of Government Affairs, Kansas Chamber (Attachment 6);
- Miranda Miller-Klugeshertz, Senior Director, Kansas Food Action Network (Attachment 7);
- Juliet Abdel, President, Greater Topeka Chamber (Attachment 8);
- Dustin Hare, Economic Security Policy Advisor, Kansas Action for Children (Attachment 9);
- Dr. Carla Whiteside-Hicks, Kansas Department for Children and Families (Attachment 10); and
- Derek Hein, Executive Director, Kansas Beverage Association (Attachment 11).
The Chair closed the hearing on HB2015.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:59 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 6, 2025.
Two testimonies were received following the Committee meeting that the Chair allowed to be included in the minutes:
- Proponent Steven Greene, Opportunity Solutions Project (Attachment 12); and
- Opponent Jennifer Gardner, National Confectioners Association (Attachment 13).
