Texas Senate passes bill to ban soda, chips, and candy for food stamps
The Brief
The Texas Senate passed a bill that would ban SNAP food stamp recipients from buying things like soda, chips and candy.
Dallas' Bonton Farms said with no access to healthy foods for customers in poor areas, it's just a healthy bill in name only.
The bill now heads to the Texas House for consideration.
The Texas Senate passed a bill that would ban food stamp recipients from buying things like soda, chips and candy.
The backstory
The push-back on Senate Bill 379 isn't about whether healthier foods are more necessary.
Those at Bonton Farms say the theory is good, but with no access to healthy foods for customers in poor areas, it's just a healthy bill in name only.
Bonton Farms is an oasis of fresh produce in a food desert in South Dallas. An area with already few grocery options and, in the last year, locations near Fair Park have closed their doors.
"If a community member does not have transportation themselves and have to rely on public transportation, that's still going to be an hour and 15 minutes one way to get to the grocery store. Yes, an hour," said CEO of Bonton Farms, Gabe Madison.
The farmers' market at Bonton Farms allows shoppers to purchase fresh produce and meat with their SNAP benefits, even offering a type of buy-one-get-one-free option on produce through a state partnership.
What they're saying
Texas Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), the author of the junk food crackdown, says the goal is not to punish the poor.
"Items like soda, energy drinks, candy, potato chips, corn chips, cookies. They don't just lack nutritional value. They are bad for you," said Sen. Middleton.
Senator Nathan Johnson echoed the same sentiments as Middleton. "It's really hard for people to make good health decisions when all they've seen their whole lives is junk food," said Sen. Johnson
But Democrats pushed back on that, highlighting the issues of access and education on healthy food options.
"Accessibility is the most is the key word that we need to be dealing with," said Sen. Borris Miles
Dig deeper
More than 3.3 million Texans utilize SNAP benefits, which used to be referred to as food stamps.
Sen. Middleton said SNAP customers can purchase healthy items online and have them delivered.
Bonton Farms recently partnered with Kroger to do just that. Kroger doesn't charge delivery fees and brings the groceries to a community center in South Dallas.
"We want another Bonton Farms, you know, we need more of those. That's in [Sen. Royce West's] District, they do great work," said Sen. Mayes Middleton
"No food delivery is not the silver bullet. We need to provide more than online delivery," responded Madison.
WIC, another federal program that provides food assistance for families, already prohibits the purchase of certain items like soda and candy.
What's next
The bill now heads to the Texas House for consideration.
The Source
Information in this article comes from the Texas Senate and FOX 4 conversations with Bonton Farms in Dallas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Undocumented students ask judge to let them challenge sudden loss of in-state tuition
A group of undocumented students on Wednesday asked a judge to let them intervene in a case that revoked their access to in-state tuition, the first step in their ultimate goal of overturning the ruling. The filing comes a week after the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas over its 24-year-old law that allowed undocumented Texans who had lived in the state for three years and graduated from a Texas high school to qualify for lower tuition rates at public universities. Texas quickly agreed with the Trump administration's claim that the law was unconstitutional and asked a judge to find the law unenforceable. The quick turnaround — the whole lawsuit was resolved in less than six hours — represents a 'contrived legal challenge designed to prevent sufficient notice and robust consideration,' lawyers for these students argued in their motion. They're asking U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor to allow them to join the lawsuit and argue for why the statute should remain in effect. The Justice Department and the Texas attorney general's office oppose the motion on the grounds that the matter has been resolved and the case is terminated, court documents say. O'Connor, the George W. Bush appointee who blocked the law, has long been a favored judge for the Texas attorney general's office and conservative litigants. The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in the Wichita Falls division of the Northern District of Texas, where O'Connor hears all cases. The people who are most impacted by a lawsuit typically have a right to have their voices heard on a case, said David Coale, a Dallas appellate attorney. Getting O'Connor to agree to reopen might be a tough sell, he said, but if they're denied, they could appeal that ruling and the rest of the case alongside it, to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'The 5th Circuit's obviously a very conservative court, but part of that conservatism is a pretty limited view of the judicial role,' Coale said. 'So if they get a chance to argue their case there … they may have some luck.' The law, which has been in effect since 2001, grants in-state tuition to anyone who has been living in the state for three years and graduated from a Texas high school. All students who claim this benefit must sign an affidavit saying they intend to become U.S. citizens as soon as they are able; many of them are here as part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The motion lays out the human impact of the law's sudden reversal — a man who is reconsidering his plans to go to medical school in Texas; a woman who will have to drop out of her masters program, where she was studying to become a counselor; a teacher-in-training who will have to delay her plans to graduate and begin working. They are represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which said in a press release that the abrupt overturning of the law has left students scrambling. 'What happened last week – the invalidation of longstanding state law in the course of one afternoon – was an abuse of our judicial system,' said MALDEF President Thomas A. Saenz. 'Those affected by the attempted invalidation have the right to be heard on the legality of the Texas Dream Act.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Stablecoin bill clears another hurdle in Senate, inching toward final vote
The Senate voted Wednesday to advance legislation setting up a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, bringing the crypto bill one step closer to a final vote in the upper chamber. Seventeen Democrats voted with almost every Republican to end debate on an updated version of the GENIUS Act. The new bill text was reached as part of lengthy negotiations between Republicans and crypto-friendly Democrats last month, ahead of an earlier procedural vote on the Senate floor last month. The vote breakdown was largely similar to the May vote, although Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) switched her vote to oppose the measure. She had supported the bill both in the Senate Banking Committee in March and on the Senate floor last month. Blunt Rochester voiced some hesitation Tuesday about Senate leadership's decision to forgo an open amendment process on the GENIUS Act, emphasizing that she hoped to see additional changes to the bill. 'I was really clear,' she told The Hill. 'I hoped that there would be an open amendment process, and that's what I heard Leader Thune say around last month, so I will take a look at this language, and we'll make a decision from there.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) ultimately scrapped the push for so-called 'regular order,' as controversial amendments — most notably, Sen. Roger Marshall's (R-Kan.) Credit Card Competition Act — threatened to upend support for the bill. The decision to move forward without an open amendments process frustrates a push by several Democrats to add in a provision that would prevent President Trump and other elected officials from profiting off stablecoins. 'The GENIUS act attempts to set up some guardrails for buying and selling a type of cryptocurrency, one type called a stablecoin,' Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday's vote. 'Well, we need guardrails that ensure that government officials aren't openly asking people to buy their coins in order to increase their personal profit or their family's profit,' he continued. 'Where are those guardrails in this bill? They're completely, totally absent.' However, crypto-friendly Democrats who have been deeply involved in negotiations are urging their colleagues to support the bill despite some of its shortcomings. 'It's extremely unhelpful that we have a president who's involved in this industry, and I would love to ban this activity, but that does not diminish the excellent work of this legislation,' Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. 'It does not diminish the hard work that bipartisan group of senators put into this to make a difference and to write a law that can protect consumers, that can protect our financial services industry, that can protect the strength of the dollar, and that can protect people who would like access to capital,' she added. The GENIUS Act likely faces a handful more votes before it can clear the Senate and head to the House. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) told The Hill on Tuesday that she expects a final vote on the bill next week.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are Liberals to Blame for the New McCarthyism?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The Trump administration is carrying out a brazen crackdown on academic freedom: deporting students for writing op-eds, withholding funds from colleges that defy his control, and justifying it all as a response to anti-Semitism. Who is to blame for this? According to one popular theory on the left, the answer is liberals who have consistently supported free speech and opposed Donald Trump. The logic of this diagnosis has a certain superficial appeal. Many of President Trump's authoritarian moves have been justified in terms of arguments that originated on the center-left. Liberals condemned the far left for fostering an intolerant atmosphere in academia. They criticized the message and methods of some pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Trump has seized on these complaints as a pretext to extort universities and target student demonstrators for deportation. According to many left-wing critics, this sequence of events shows that, as David Klion writes in The Nation, 'erstwhile free speech champions' have 'helped lay the groundwork for Trump's second term.' An April article in Liberal Currents directs contempt toward 'the infamous Harper's letter,' an open letter defending free speech from threats on the left and the right, and blames mainstream Democrats for having 'laid the groundwork for where we are now.' These are just two examples of a very well-developed genre. [Caitlin Flanagan: America's fire sale: get some free speech while you can] The implication of these arguments is that Trump would not have won, or would now be having a harder time carrying out his neo-McCarthyite campaign of repression, if liberals had only refrained from denouncing left-wing cancel culture and the excesses of the post–October 7 protests. But to the extent that these events are connected, the responsibility runs the other way. It was the left's tactics and rhetoric that helped enable Trump's return to power as well as his abuse of it. The liberal critics of those tactics deserve credit for anticipating the backlash and trying to stop it. A similar dynamic is playing out now, as liberals warn about the danger of violent infiltrators disrupting immigration protests while some leftists demand unconditional solidarity with the movement. The debate, as ever, is whether the left is discredited by its own excesses or by criticism of those excesses. The bitter divide between liberals and leftists over Trump's neo-McCarthyism has deep historical roots. The two camps fought over the same set of ideas, making many of the same arguments, in response to the original McCarthyism of the 1950s. The lessons of that period, properly understood, offer helpful guidance for defeating the Trumpian iteration. What made liberals vulnerable to McCarthyism was the fact that some communists really did insinuate themselves into the government during the New Deal. Communists accounted for a tiny share of the population, but they had a visible presence among intellectuals, artists, and political activists. The American Communist Party enthusiastically cooperated with Moscow. It managed to plant Soviet spies in the State Department, the Manhattan Project, and other important government institutions. The 1950 perjury trial of Alger Hiss, a high-ranking diplomat who spied on Roosevelt's administration for the Soviet Union, was a national spectacle vividly illustrating the Soviet spy network's reach. (Many American leftists maintained Hiss's innocence for decades, until the opening of the Soviet archives conclusively proved his guilt.) In the face of this espionage threat, most liberals severed all ties with American communists. The AFL-CIO expelled communists from its ranks. 'I have never seen any reason to admire men who, under the pretense of liberalism, continued to justify and whitewash the realities of Soviet Communism,' the prominent intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote at the time. The synthesis these liberal anti-communists arrived at was to oppose McCarthyism and communism simultaneously. They would defend the free-speech rights of accused communists (though not their right to hold sensitive government jobs) while denouncing communist ideas. But they found themselves squeezed in a vise. The right was trying to use communist espionage to discredit the entire New Deal. Many leftists, meanwhile, bitterly castigated their former allies for their betrayal, and adopted a posture of anti-anti-communism—not endorsing communism per se, but instead directing all their criticism at the excesses of anti-communism, so as to avoid a rupture on the left. Still, as difficult as their position might have seemed, liberals managed to beat back McCarthyism and retain public confidence in their ability to handle the Cold War. Many on the American left never surrendered their resentment of the center-left's anti-communist posture. In their eyes, liberals empowered McCarthy by validating the notion that communists were an enemy in the first place. And now they see the same thing happening again. By denouncing the illiberal left, they argue, the center-left has opened the door to right-wing repression. [Clay Risen: When America persecutes its teachers] To be fair, some free-speech advocates who criticized the left for shutting down debate have revealed themselves to be hypocritical when it comes to anti-Israel speech. An especially ugly episode transpired in late 2023, when the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT refused to crack down broadly on anti-Zionist speech on campus, only for members of Congress in both parties to smear them as anti-Semitic. But the complaints on the left are not limited to liberals who betray their commitment to free-speech norms. Their critique is aimed at liberals who uphold those values. And that is because they oppose liberal values themselves. When the Harvard psychologist and Harper's-letter signatory Steven Pinker wrote a long New York Times essay assailing the Trump administration's campaign against academic freedom, online leftists castigated him for having supposedly cleared the way for Trump by critiquing groupthink in the academy. 'Lot of good push back here from Pinker but at the same time his critiques of higher ed helped open the door for the attacks on the university he now dreads, and especially those directed at where he works,' wrote Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, a social-studies professor at Wesleyan. Pinker has never endorsed Trump or Trumpism. But the mere fact of his having opposed left-wing illiberalism supposedly makes him complicit in the right-wing version. Likewise, many leftists consider it self-evident that criticizing campus protesters' use of violent pro-Hamas messages, such as 'Globalize the Intifada,' was akin to fascism. Liberals of course had good reason to worry about violent, apocalyptic rhetoric, and the ideas inspiring it, which more recently has contributed to a spate of terror attacks on domestic Jewish targets. But to some leftist critics, raising those concerns was functionally a vote for Trump. 'Even those [Democrats] issuing mild statements of concern can't help but front-load their polite chiding of the White House with pointless, preening condemnations of the target of Trump's arrests and harassment regime,' Adam Johnson and Sarah Lazare write in the left-wing In These Times. Jeet Heer, writing in The Nation, likewise argues, 'Biden's slander of pro-Palestinian activists helped splinter the Democratic coalition during the 2024 election' and, yes, 'laid the groundwork for the current crackdown on dissent.' The left is not alone in seeking to erase the liberal middle ground between the political extremes. The dynamic is identical to that of the 1950s, when the right tried to paint all opponents of McCarthyism as communists (just as the left wished to paint all anti-communists as McCarthyists). Trump's allies are attacking pro-free-speech liberals for having supposedly enabled radicalism. When Harvard faculty signed a letter denouncing Trump's threats against academic freedom, conservatives sneered that professors had only themselves to blame. 'Many of these signatories have been entirely silent for years as departments purged their ranks of conservatives to create one of the most perfectly sealed-off echo chambers in all of higher education,' wrote the pro-Trump law professor Jonathan Turley. Both the far right and far left have a good reason to erase the liberal center: If the only alternative to their position is an equally extreme alternative, then their argument doesn't look so out-there. The liberal answer is to resist this pressure from both sides. A decade ago, illiberal discourse norms around race and gender began to dominate progressive spaces, leaving a pockmarked landscape of cancellations and social-media-driven panics. Even as many skeptics on the left insisted that no such phenomenon was occurring—or that it was merely the harmless antics of college students—those norms quickly spread into progressive politics and the Democratic Party. The 2020 Democratic presidential campaign took place in an atmosphere in which staffers, progressive organizations, journalists, and even the candidates themselves feared that speaking out against unpopular or impractical ideas would cause them to be labeled racist or sexist. That was the identity-obsessed climate in which Joe Biden first promised to nominate a female vice president, and then committed to specifically choosing a Black one. This set of overlapping criteria narrowed the field of candidates who had the traditional qualification of holding statewide office to a single choice whose own campaign had collapsed under the weight of a string of promises to left-wing groups who were out of touch with the constituencies they claimed to represent, as well as her limited political instincts. Kamala Harris herself was cornered into endorsing taxpayer-financed gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners and detained migrants, a promise that Trump blared on endless loop in 2024. Her own ad firm found that Trump's ad moved 2.7 percent of voters who watched it toward Trump, more than enough to swing the outcome by itself. Trump's election had many causes. One of them was very clearly a backlash against social-justice fads, and the Democratic ecosystem's failure, under fear of cancellation, to resist those fads. If either party to this internal debate should be apologizing, it's not the liberals who presciently warned that the left risked going off the rails and enabling Trump to win. [Thomas Chatterton Williams: What the left keeps getting wrong] The political gravity of the campus debate after October 7 tilts in the same direction. Some progressives decided that the plight of Palestinians was so urgent and singular as to blot out every other political cause. The effect was to elevate the salience of an issue that split the Democratic coalition: Both the most pro-Israel constituents and the most anti-Israel constituents in the Democratic coalition moved heavily toward Trump's camp. Many pro-Palestine activists openly argued that the stakes were high enough to justify risking Trump's election. That is precisely the direction in which their actions pushed. Trump's election, and his subsequent campaign to crush demonstrations, is precisely the scenario that liberal critics warned would occur. That this outcome is being used to discredit those same liberals is perverse, yet oddly familiar. Article originally published at The Atlantic
