SNAP & SUGAR: Arizona’s Taxpayer-Funded Soda Dilemma
Republicans say SNAP shouldn’t pay for soda, calling it a waste of taxpayer money—Democrats fire back, calling it government control over the poor.
🚨 BREAKING: HB2165 PASSES AS AMENDED, 7-5 🚨
The Arizona House has voted to advance HB2165, a bill that seeks to ban SNAP recipients from using benefits to purchase soft drinks. The measure cleared committee in a 7-5 vote after debate over government oversight and nutritional choices.
HB2165 | Introduced by Representatives Biasiucci: Fink, Gillette, Kolodin; Senators Angius, Shamp
The Arizona House of Representatives first considered the bill on February 3rd, but it failed to advance after a deadlocked 6-6 committee vote. It came back today with the “Bliss Amendment.” The Director of the Department of Economic Security must ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture for permission to stop SNAP benefits from being used to buy soda.
Critics call it government overreach, while supporters argue it's taxpayer accountability.
Calley Means Leads the Charge for SNAP Reform in Arizona
One of the leading proponents of ending government-funded food benefits for sugary foods and sodas is Calley Means. Means is the author of Good Energy and the co-founder of TrueMed, a company focused on shifting health spending toward prevention. A former consultant to major food and pharmaceutical companies, he has since become a whistleblower exposing how corporate interests manipulate public health policy.
Means is a Tempe resident looking to start SNAP reform with Arizona as a leader, pushing for a system that prioritizes whole, unprocessed foods over the highly processed, sugar-laden options currently covered under government benefits. Means argues taxpayer dollars should not subsidize metabolic disease, but rather incentivize nutrition preventing it. His efforts align with a broader national conversation about the role of public policy in shaping dietary habits and long-term health outcomes.
Calley Means calls it “indefensible” that Rep. Alma Hernandez opposes nutrition standards for SNAP, arguing that kids should have the "freedom" to buy soda and candy with taxpayer money. He claims exposing this "corrupt behavior" will reduce it and applauds the party-line committee vote passing the bill to ban soda from SNAP in Arizona.
Debate bewteen Means and Rep. Alma Hernandez continues.
Calley Means Weighs In: Responding to SNAP Reform Coverage on State 48 News’ X Account
Earlier today, State 48 News published a preview of the House Bill 2165 hearing, which aims to prohibit SNAP recipients in Arizona from using benefits to purchase candy and sugary drinks. Calley Means personally weighed in on our post on X, stating, "There’s no reason AZ kids should get government-funded soda. Pass this bill."
During the February 3rd hearing, Calley Means didn’t hold back, calling it “criminal” to use government funds for sugary drinks for kids. He pushed the committee to take a stand, but his blunt approach sparked immediate backlash. When he slammed earlier speakers who defended keeping sugary foods on SNAP, declaring they should be “ashamed of themselves,” Committee Chair Rep. Bliss had enough—interrupting, shouting, and shutting him down with a sharp, “You’re outta here.”
Arizona-Specific Reasons For and Against SNAP Benefits Covering Sugary Foods and Sodas
Arguments FOR Allowing Sugary Foods and Sodas in SNAP
Personal Choice & Freedom: Arizona values individual liberties, and restricting what SNAP recipients can buy may be seen as government overreach. Many argue that low-income individuals should have the same food choices as anyone else.
Access & Availability: In some rural Arizona areas and food deserts, grocery options are limited, and convenience stores or gas stations may be the only food sources. Restricting SNAP purchases could make it harder for recipients to access any food.
Economic Impact on Local Businesses: Arizona’s grocery stores, corner markets, and beverage retailers benefit financially from SNAP dollars. Restricting purchases could hurt small businesses, especially those in low-income areas.
Defining ‘Unhealthy’ is Complex: Critics argue that banning soda or sugary foods creates a slippery slope. Where should the line be drawn? Would sugary cereals, flavored yogurts, or granola bars also be banned?
Administrative Burden: Implementing new restrictions would require more bureaucracy, higher costs, and more oversight, potentially slowing down the system and creating barriers for those who rely on SNAP.
Major organizations opposing SNAP reform in Arizona include the Arizona Retailers Association, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Arizona Restaurant Association, National Association of Social Workers (Arizona Chapter), American Academy of Pediatrics (Arizona Chapter), Arizona Beverage Association, Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association, Arizona Food Bank Network, and the William E. Morris Institute for Justice. These groups argue that restrictions on SNAP purchases would hurt businesses, limit food access for low-income families, and create unnecessary government overreach.
Arguments AGAINST Allowing Sugary Foods and Sodas in SNAP
Public Health Crisis & Obesity Rates: Arizona has one of the highest rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes, especially in low-income communities. SNAP is meant to help, not harm—and using taxpayer dollars to fund sugary foods contradicts public health goals.
Rising Healthcare Costs: The state already struggles with high healthcare costs related to preventable diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Allowing SNAP to fund sugary drinks and junk food fuels long-term medical expenses, which Arizona taxpayers ultimately pay for.
Impact on Indigenous & Rural Communities: Arizona has a large Native American population, where diabetes rates are among the highest in the country. Removing sugary foods from SNAP could help address this epidemic in tribal communities and other rural areas.
Government Shouldn’t Subsidize Junk Food: SNAP was created to help people afford nutritious food, not to subsidize Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and processed food corporations. Critics argue that Arizona should lead the charge in redirecting SNAP funds toward real food—like fruits, vegetables, and proteins.
Precedent for Policy Reform: Other states, like New York and Florida, have attempted to restrict SNAP purchases of junk food. Arizona could set an example by becoming the first state to successfully reform SNAP to focus on nutrition over corporate profits.
SNAP: A History of Food Assistance Without Dietary Restrictions
Established in 1964 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) evolved from the Food Stamp Program (1939-1943) to help low-income families afford food.
Since its inception, SNAP has never restricted sugary foods, allowing beneficiaries to purchase any food item except alcohol, tobacco, and hot/prepared meals. Designed to increase food access, the program has always included sodas and sugary snacks without dietary regulations.
THE MORE YOU KNOW.
If Arizona doesn’t lead the charge, maybe the federal government will. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins emphasized the need to cut costs in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and announced plans to collaborate with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to explore healthier alternatives within the program.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins | C-SPAN.org | February 14, 2025