Iowa House panel advances bill to limit SNAP-eligible foods to healthy options
Fresh vegetables at a farmers market. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The Iowa House Health and Human Services Committee voted 14-6 to advance a bill that would allocate $1 million to the Double Up Food Bucks program, if federal food assistance for Iowans is limited to healthy food purchases only.
Most food insecurity groups opposed the bill and urged lawmakers to separate the funding for the Double Up Food Bucks program, which allows Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients to double their spending on fruits and vegetables.
Rep. Rob Johnson, D-Des Moines, urged his colleagues to vote no on the bill and to separate the Double Up Food Bucks allocation from the restrictions on SNAP.
'I do not believe that this bill will accomplish what we are trying to accomplish,' Johnson said. 'I really urge us to take a step back on this one.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
House Study Bill 216 would conditionally grant $1 million to the Double Up Food bucks program, if the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services can get a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to limit SNAP eligible foods.
The version of the bill House lawmakers advanced last week from subcommittee had a specific list of 'real' foods that would be on the waiver and prioritized whole foods.
The bill was amended Monday to remove the specified list of foods and instead direct DHHS to seek a waiver to limit SNAP eligibility to 'healthy foods based on necessary nutrition for good health' according to Rep. Carter Nordman, R-Panora, who managed the bill.
Nordman said the bill incentivizes healthy eating habits and noted Iowa's obesity and child obesity rates and the associated risk factors.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity is present in nearly 38% of Iowans, and approximately 15% of youth in Iowa have obesity, according to the State of Childhood Obesity.
'This bill is not about policing what people are eating … it's about helping those who are in need, with taxpayer dollars, while ensuring what is being purchased is nutritional, necessary and appropriate,' Nordman said.
Luke Elzinga, policy and advocacy manager with Des Moines Area Religious Council and board chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition, said even with the 'vague' amendment, he still believes the bill would be 'policing people's food options.'
Rep. Tracy Ehlert, D-Cedar Rapids, opposed the bill and recalled her personal experience relying on SNAP as a single mother while finishing her college education and working multiple jobs.
'I can't imagine having to try to work around the parameters that are in this bill, the extra time, the extra planning, the potential embarrassment at the checkout counter,' Ehlert said. 'SNAP is not a handout. It gives people like me and my family a hand up.'
In the subcommittee on the bill, lobbyists from grocery store associations brought up the difficulty many stores would have in complying with the restrictions if they differed from the federal regulations. Elzinga said the extra hassle could lead some stores to stop accepting SNAP all together.
Ehlert also noted the difficulty of feeding special needs children who she said will often only eat very specific, sometimes unhealthy options.
Nordman said the bill still allows for things like 'chicken nuggets, grilled cheese and mac and cheese.'
'The idea that this is so limited and there's going to be so few options, I think, is false,' Nordman said.
The bill will be safe from the first funnel deadline on Friday. A Senate bill that would appropriate $1 million for the Double Up Food Bucks program, without the conditional SNAP eligibility waiver, has also advanced out of committee.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
SNAP work requirement carveouts for vets, homeless caught in crosshairs of Trump bill
Congress could soon put an end to work requirement exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals and youth that were in foster care who receive food assistance. While House Republicans preserved the exemptions to work requirements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of their broader package to advance President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities, Senate Republicans omitted the key language in their version of the bill. The exemptions were initially negotiated as part of a bipartisan deal two years ago. The GOP-led Senate Agriculture Committee confirmed the provision's absence would mean the exemptions would no longer be retained for members of the three groups. The move has drawn little attention on both sides of the aisle so far, as other pieces of the Republicans' megabill take center stage, including significant changes to Medicaid and what some estimates have projected as a multitrillion-dollar tax package. Even multiple GOP members of the Senate committee that produced the text say they intend to press for more information about the potential change before the upper chamber votes on the bill. 'When you have an opportunity to restore dignity and hope and belief back to someone, we're doing something that I think is, is our obligation, you know, we should try to help people that are down under luck and having a hard time,' Sen. Jim Justice ( a member of the committee, also told The Hill when asked about the matter. However, he added, 'From the standpoint of the SNAP benefits and everything, if we're doing something that is detrimental to our veterans, shame on us, because they have given us so much it's off the chart.' Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Wednesday that 'everybody ought to be treated the same' when asked about the matter. A Senate Republican aide also noted that individuals who aren't 'able-bodied' wouldn't 'have to meet those requirements' under the Senate plan. Congress had previously agreed to temporary changes to work requirements for SNAP in 2023 as part of a bipartisan deal to cap annual federal spending and raise the nation's debt limit. That included measures carving out exemptions through September 2030 for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care at the age of 18. In a statement on the matter last Friday, the Senate committee said Republicans are working 'to encourage greater independence through work and training opportunities.' However, it noted its plan would still allow for 'individuals who are physically or mentally unfit for employment are not required to meet the 20 hours per week work requirement whether in those groups or not.' The decision comes as Republicans in both chambers are working to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in what some have described as a 'bloated' government program that has seen its spending climb over the years. Other notable changes Republicans are seeking to make to SNAP include requiring states to cover some of the cost of benefits and front a greater share of administrative costs for the program, as well as limiting the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future. The Senate Agriculture Committee estimates its plan will yield 'an approximate net savings of $144 billion' in the coming years, with Republicans' proposal requiring states to cover some SNAP benefits costs estimated to account for a significant portion of the projected spending reductions. The plan is part of a larger pursuit by the party to find measures to reduce federal spending by more than a $1 trillion over the next decade that can ride alongside an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts and other tax priorities. Democrats have come out in staunch opposition to the evolving proposal that is being exclusively crafted between House and Senate Republicans. 'The Republican bill takes food away from vulnerable veterans, homeless people and young adults who are aging out of the foster care system and may not know where their next meal is coming from,' Rep. Angie Craig (Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. 'Republicans want to make these cuts to food assistance to fund new tax breaks for people who are already wealthy and large corporations,' she added. Some experts are also sounding the alarm. 'It is a huge deal. These groups were carved out for a reason. They are vulnerable for a reason,' Kyle Ross, a policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said, adding the exemptions apply to 'different populations with their own special set of circumstances.' 'There are an estimated 1.2 million veterans receiving SNAP, and veterans are more likely to live in a food insecure household than nonveterans, so they're really more likely to be in need of some food assistance,' he said, while also pointing to barriers homeless individuals and those aging out of foster care face in the job market. But others have argued against the need for the special carveouts. Angela Rachidi, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), described the 2023 spending caps deal as 'a political compromise,' noting that Republicans had also secured increases to the age threshold for SNAP as part of the deal under the Biden administration. Some hardline conservatives had also been critical of the deal at the time, while pointing to SNAP's exemptions. 'Many states would exempt people anyway because of mental health issues and you don't always necessarily have to have a doctor's note for it,' she said, while also arguing there wasn't 'anything unique about those populations that make them not capable of work.' She added that doing away with the carveouts could help lessen states' burden by removing 'another level of screening.' 'They don't have to assess somebody for their veteran status or foster status, and they would assess them anyway for their shelter status,' she said, while suggesting from a 'bureaucratic perspective, it actually might make it easier.' At the same time, Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, pointed to the added strain states could face if other proposals from Republicans to increase states' cost share of the program's benefits and administrative cost also take effect. 'What the bill also does is, on both sides, you know, reduces the support that the federal government gives to states to administer the program and identifying and validating exemptions, the health exemptions, etc. is very expensive,' Bauer said. 'And administering work requirements is also very, very expensive, because it is onerous not only on the SNAP participant, it's onerous on the state who is managing the program,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21 hours ago
- The Hill
SNAP work requirement carveouts for vets, homeless caught in crosshairs of Trump bill
Congress could soon put an end to work requirement exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals and youth that were in foster care who receive food assistance. While House Republicans preserved the exemptions to work requirements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of their broader package to advance President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities, Senate Republicans omitted the key language in their version of the bill. The exemptions were initially negotiated as part of a bipartisan deal two years ago. The GOP-led Senate Agriculture Committee confirmed the provision's absence would mean the exemptions would no longer be retained for members of the three groups. The move has drawn little attention on both sides of the aisle so far, as other pieces of the Republicans' megabill take center stage, including significant changes to Medicaid and what some estimates have projected as a multitrillion-dollar tax package. Even multiple GOP members of the Senate committee that produced the text say they intend to press for more information about the potential change before the upper chamber votes on the bill. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Wednesday that 'everybody ought to be treated the same' when asked about the matter. A Senate Republican aide also noted that individuals who aren't 'able-bodied' wouldn't 'have to meet those requirements' under the Senate plan. Congress had previously agreed to temporary changes to work requirements for SNAP in 2023 as part of a bipartisan deal to cap annual federal spending and raise the nation's debt limit. That included measures carving out exemptions through September 2030 for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care at the age of 18. In a statement on the matter last Friday, the Senate committee said Republicans are working 'to encourage greater independence through work and training opportunities.' However, it noted its plan would still allow for 'individuals who are physically or mentally unfit for employment are not required to meet the 20 hours per week work requirement whether in those groups or not.' The decision comes as Republicans in both chambers are working to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in what some have described as a 'bloated' government program that has seen its spending climb over the years. Other notable changes Republicans are seeking to make to SNAP include requiring states to cover some of the cost of benefits and front a greater share of administrative costs for the program, as well as limiting the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future. The Senate Agriculture Committee estimates its plan will yield 'an approximate net savings of $144 billion' in the coming years, with Republicans' proposal requiring states to cover some SNAP benefits costs estimated to account for a significant portion of the projected spending reductions. The plan is part of a larger pursuit by the party to find measures to reduce federal spending by more than a $1 trillion over the next decade that can ride alongside an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts and other tax priorities. Democrats have come out in staunch opposition to the evolving proposal that is being exclusively crafted between House and Senate Republicans. 'The Republican bill takes food away from vulnerable veterans, homeless people and young adults who are aging out of the foster care system and may not know where their next meal is coming from,' Rep. Angie Craig (Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. 'Republicans want to make these cuts to food assistance to fund new tax breaks for people who are already wealthy and large corporations,' she added. Some experts are also sounding the alarm. 'It is a huge deal. These groups were carved out for a reason. They are vulnerable for a reason,' Kyle Ross, a policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said, adding the exemptions apply to 'different populations with their own special set of circumstances.' 'There are an estimated 1.2 million veterans receiving SNAP, and veterans are more likely to live in a food insecure household than nonveterans, so they're really more likely to be in need of some food assistance,' he said, while also pointing to barriers homeless individuals and those aging out of foster care face in the job market. But others have argued against the need for the special carveouts. Angela Rachidi, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), described the 2023 spending caps deal as 'a political compromise,' noting that Republicans had also secured increases to the age threshold for SNAP as part of the deal under the Biden administration. Some hardline conservatives had also been critical of the deal at the time, while pointing to SNAP's exemptions. 'Many states would exempt people anyway because of mental health issues and you don't always necessarily have to have a doctor's note for it,' she said, while also arguing there wasn't 'anything unique about those populations that make them not capable of work.' She added that doing away with the carveouts could help lessen states' burden by removing 'another level of screening.' 'They don't have to assess somebody for their veteran status or foster status, and they would assess them anyway for their shelter status,' she said, while suggesting from a 'bureaucratic perspective, it actually might make it easier.' At the same time, Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, pointed to the added strain states could face if other proposals from Republicans to increase states' cost share of the program's benefits and administrative cost also take effect. 'What the bill also does is, on both sides, you know, reduces the support that the federal government gives to states to administer the program and identifying and validating exemptions, the health exemptions, etc. is very expensive,' Bauer said. 'And administering work requirements is also very, very expensive, because it is onerous not only on the SNAP participant, it's onerous on the state who is managing the program,' she added.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid Funding
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republican lawmakers have pushed for federal spending cuts to major safety net programs, like Medicaid and SNAP, new polling shows their position is out of step with voters—even within their own party. According to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey, around half of all American adults say Medicaid receives too little funding, and nearly 45 percent felt the same about food assistance programs like SNAP. The survey's findings show that only 2 in 10 Americans agree with House Republicans that Medicaid is overfunded, while about one-quarter say the same about food assistance programs. Jacob Wallace, a professor in the department of health policy and management at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek, "Medicaid and SNAP are critical safety net programs in the United two programs form a foundation of health care and food security for tens of millions of low-income Americans, increasing their health, wellbeing, and productivity." Newsweek has contacted the Department of Health and Human Services via email for comment. Why It Matters The polling shows a clear disconnect between proposals from Republican leaders in Congress—who are considering significant spending reductions in Medicaid and SNAP to pay for extended tax cuts and other priorities—and the views of the public, including their own voters. Majorities across party lines have expressed opposition to cuts in funding for widely used insurance and assistance programs because of the impact it could have on America's most vulnerable populations, as well as on health more widely. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," if passed, would bring in cuts to Medicaid and changes to eligibility, such as work requirements, which a recent study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and City University of New York Hunter College predicted could increase the number of annual deaths in the U.S. by more than 16,500 and leave 7.6 million more Americans without health insurance. The proposed cuts to the SNAP program could also mean some states may stop providing constituents with food assistance benefits if they are left to shoulder the brunt of the costs. These decisions, suggested in order to enable the president to bring about sweeping tax cuts, have been divisive from the start. However, a new study by AP-NORC, conducted among 1,158 U.S. adults from June 5 to 9, shows that even the GOP's own party members are not widely in favor of its political strategy regarding these assistance programs. Only around one in 10 Republicans believed that too much is spent on Medicare or Social Security, while around one-third of Republicans said Medicaid spending was excessive. For SNAP, 46 percent of Republicans felt the program was overfunded. Overall, 60 percent of Americans said not enough is spent on Social Security, Medicare, or education. The poll also noted Americans are divided on military and border security spending, with Democrats more likely to say that "too much" is being spent on border security, and Republicans more likely to say it's "too little." The survey used NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. What People Are Saying Jacob Wallace, a professor in the department of health policy and management at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek: "Medicaid and SNAP are critical safety net programs in the United States. Medicaid serves over 80 million low-income Americans, including children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and families. There is growing evidence that Medicaid saves lives and improves economic opportunity. Children exposed to Medicaid in childhood made greater contributions to the tax system by age 28, both by earning more and relying less on social programs. They were also less likely to die prematurely. SNAP, which provides food assistance to over 40 million Americans, is associated with improved health and lower health care spending. "These two programs form a foundation of health care and food security for tens of millions of low-income Americans, increasing their health, wellbeing, and productivity." Michael Sparer, chair of the department of health policy and management at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid for their health insurance and SNAP to help put food on their tables. As the number of beneficiaries have increased, the stigma of accepting these benefits has declined and the programs themselves have become more entrenched and more popular. Indeed, many who are skeptical of government and opposed to "welfare" are themselves Medicaid and SNAP beneficiaries. "In this context, proposed cuts to these programs could generate a significant political backlash for the Trump Administration. Nonetheless, the Administration continues to move ahead with the proposed cutbacks, mainly because they are searching for federal budget savings that would help to finance the massive tax cuts that are their highest priority. The Administration is trying to balance this political equation by arguing that the cuts to both programs will focus on "fraud and abuse" and not needy individuals. But there is strong evidence that the imposition of so-called work requirements will result in millions of eligible beneficiaries losing their coverage, including large numbers of Trump supporters. It is too soon to tell how this will play out politically." Jack Hoadley, a professor in the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, told Newsweek: "For the Trump administration, this is about cutting back the social safety net, but using the rhetoric of waste, fraud, and abuse to do so. These cuts will be a key part of the political pushback against the Trump administration in the upcoming 2025 and 2026 elections. But the fundamental red-blue divide may overshadow any particular issue." What Happens Next Congressional debate over spending on Medicaid and SNAP, as well as other programs, is set to continue as lawmakers negotiate the federal budget. This article contains reporting from the Associated Press.
