Kansas Governor Laura Kelly asked the federal government to let her state prohibit food stamps from being spent on soda and candy — then reversed course and vetoed a bill passed by the legislature to cut back on taxpayer-subsidized junk food.
The Democrat’s abrupt flip-flop is the latest example of strange behavior following a lobbying campaign by the soda and candy industries aimed at countering bipartisan support for reforming food stamps to reduce obesity-related health issues among the poor.
In March, the Kansas legislature passed a bill instructing “The secretary for children and families” to “request a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture to exclude candy and soft drinks from the definition of eligible foods …”
On April 2 — before the bill had been signed, and, therefore, before she was required to — Kelly requested such a waiver, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Wire. The waiver asked the federal government for permission to “exclude all candy and soda beverages (also known as soft drinks) from the definition of eligible foods under 7 CFR 271.2 for purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.”
The waiver argued that Kansas has an epidemic of ailments associated with obesity, like diabetes and heart disease.
“Current estimates rank Kansas 12th in the nation for obesity prevalence, with 34.4% of adults,” it said. “The primary goals of the SNAP program are to alleviate hunger and improve the nutrition and health of low-income individuals… Allowing the purchase of sugar sweetened soda beverages and candy with minimal nutritional value with federal dollars is harmful for low-income families, and it enables unhealthy nutritional habits. It also creates irresponsible spending of federal tax dollars and increased healthcare costs.”
The waiver, signed by Economic and Employment Services Director Carla Whiteside-Hicks, said that an Agriculture Department report found that in 2011, nearly $360 million in food stamp dollars were spent on soda, making it the second-most popular item, as well as $138 million on candy.
But a day later, Kelly vetoed the bill, contradicting her own waiver’s arguments while echoing arguments from industry lobbyists that businesses would lose money if they can’t accept welfare dollars for soda and candy.
“This bill is simply wrong,” she wrote. “Not only would it make it more difficult for Kansans to access the food they need to feed their families, it would also harm Kansas businesses.”
“The waiver required by this bill is confusing and will cause problems for our grocers and small businesses. Under the definition in that waiver, Kansas businesses would be mandated to stop accepting food assistance benefits for protein bars, trail mix, and other food products many would consider ‘healthy.’ Meanwhile, items like Twix, Kit Kat, and Twizzlers would still be eligible for purchase using food assistance benefits. It’s nonsensical,” the veto justification said.
The bill defined candy and soda using their existing definitions in Kansas state code, saying “candy is defined as a preparation of sugar, honey or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops or pieces. Candy does not include any preparation containing flour and shall require no refrigeration. Soft drink beverages are defined as nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. Soft drinks do not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice or similar milk substitutes or beverages that are greater than 50% vegetable or fruit juice.”
Kelly left the door open to supporting policy changes that would go further, such as banning soda and candy across the entire nation.
“I support the idea that Kansans should eat healthier. However, changes to the SNAP food assistance program should be made at the federal level, not on a patchwork, state-by-state basis,” she said.
The vagaries and loopholes in defining what counts as soda and candy could also be alleviated with a stricter approach that lays out what can be bought with food stamps, rather than what can’t. SNAP could be limited to specifically-approved staples by mirroring or merging with another federal poverty program called Women, Infant, and Children (WIC). Or it could return to its roots and distribute bulk commodities directly to families, instead of giving them coupons to spend at corner stores.
The Foundation for Government Accountability, a watchdog group, has suggested that donations and lobbying from interests that profit off of creating and treating obesity may have played a role in a series of reversals and uncharacteristic positions taken in the debate about soda and food stamps.
The American Heart Association (AHA) shocked Texas legislators last month by testifying against a similar bill there, even though its research shows that soda and candy are bad for the heart, and even though the Texas Medical Association testified in support of the bill. The AHA has taken money from PepsiCo and more than a million dollars each from Walmart, Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk, the maker of the obesity drug Ozempic. The AHA later retracted its testimony and said it does not oppose such bills.
“First, the American Heart Association flip-flopped and backed away from Big Soda in Texas; now it seems like Kansas’s Democratic Governor Laura Kelly is flip-flopping the other direction to support junk food on food stamps,” Foundation for Government Accountability spokesman Adam Gibbs told The Daily Wire. “There’s something about this taxpayer-funded soda ban that has certain people spinning in circles.”
“The Governor can’t decide who to back — her constituents or Big Soda,” he added.
Some conservative influencers said they were offered money to make social media posts spinning welfare for soda as conservative. The soda lobby is also promoting unusual op-eds in conservative media that try to convince free-market conservatives to rally around taxpayer-funded junk food. Newsmax published one such piece, “Keep Bureaucrats’ Hands Out of American’s [sic] Grocery Carts – Please.” It was authored by Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation, which, according to tax records, is funded by PhRMA, whose members profit from treating the unhealthy.
“Lawmakers must override the governor’s veto to ensure that the will of Kansans is delivered,” Gibbs said. “They can either stand with the MAHA moms who voted for President Trump in November—or they can fall in line with whatever political game Governor Kelly is playing this week.”
Kansas requires a two-thirds vote to override a veto. The Senate already has the votes, but the House would need about 18 members to switch positions.
Colorado and Arizona, two other states with Democrat governors, have received similar bills passed by their legislatures.
Related: Food Stamps Accepted At Thousands Of Liquor And Tobacco Stores, Contributing To Healthcare Fiasco
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
Kansas Governor Laura Kelly asked the federal government to let her state prohibit food stamps from being spent on soda and candy — then reversed course and vetoed a bill passed by the legislature to cut back on taxpayer-subsidized junk food.
The Democrat’s abrupt flip-flop is the latest example of strange behavior following a lobbying campaign by the soda and candy industries aimed at countering bipartisan support for reforming food stamps to reduce obesity-related health issues among the poor.
In March, the Kansas legislature passed a bill instructing “The secretary for children and families” to “request a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture to exclude candy and soft drinks from the definition of eligible foods …”
On April 2 — before the bill had been signed, and, therefore, before she was required to — Kelly requested such a waiver, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Wire. The waiver asked the federal government for permission to “exclude all candy and soda beverages (also known as soft drinks) from the definition of eligible foods under 7 CFR 271.2 for purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.”
The waiver argued that Kansas has an epidemic of ailments associated with obesity, like diabetes and heart disease.
“Current estimates rank Kansas 12th in the nation for obesity prevalence, with 34.4% of adults,” it said. “The primary goals of the SNAP program are to alleviate hunger and improve the nutrition and health of low-income individuals… Allowing the purchase of sugar sweetened soda beverages and candy with minimal nutritional value with federal dollars is harmful for low-income families, and it enables unhealthy nutritional habits. It also creates irresponsible spending of federal tax dollars and increased healthcare costs.”
The waiver, signed by Economic and Employment Services Director Carla Whiteside-Hicks, said that an Agriculture Department report found that in 2011, nearly $360 million in food stamp dollars were spent on soda, making it the second-most popular item, as well as $138 million on candy.
But a day later, Kelly vetoed the bill, contradicting her own waiver’s arguments while echoing arguments from industry lobbyists that businesses would lose money if they can’t accept welfare dollars for soda and candy.
“This bill is simply wrong,” she wrote. “Not only would it make it more difficult for Kansans to access the food they need to feed their families, it would also harm Kansas businesses.”
“The waiver required by this bill is confusing and will cause problems for our grocers and small businesses. Under the definition in that waiver, Kansas businesses would be mandated to stop accepting food assistance benefits for protein bars, trail mix, and other food products many would consider ‘healthy.’ Meanwhile, items like Twix, Kit Kat, and Twizzlers would still be eligible for purchase using food assistance benefits. It’s nonsensical,” the veto justification said.
The bill defined candy and soda using their existing definitions in Kansas state code, saying “candy is defined as a preparation of sugar, honey or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops or pieces. Candy does not include any preparation containing flour and shall require no refrigeration. Soft drink beverages are defined as nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. Soft drinks do not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice or similar milk substitutes or beverages that are greater than 50% vegetable or fruit juice.”
Kelly left the door open to supporting policy changes that would go further, such as banning soda and candy across the entire nation.
“I support the idea that Kansans should eat healthier. However, changes to the SNAP food assistance program should be made at the federal level, not on a patchwork, state-by-state basis,” she said.
The vagaries and loopholes in defining what counts as soda and candy could also be alleviated with a stricter approach that lays out what can be bought with food stamps, rather than what can’t. SNAP could be limited to specifically-approved staples by mirroring or merging with another federal poverty program called Women, Infant, and Children (WIC). Or it could return to its roots and distribute bulk commodities directly to families, instead of giving them coupons to spend at corner stores.
The Foundation for Government Accountability, a watchdog group, has suggested that donations and lobbying from interests that profit off of creating and treating obesity may have played a role in a series of reversals and uncharacteristic positions taken in the debate about soda and food stamps.
The American Heart Association (AHA) shocked Texas legislators last month by testifying against a similar bill there, even though its research shows that soda and candy are bad for the heart, and even though the Texas Medical Association testified in support of the bill. The AHA has taken money from PepsiCo and more than a million dollars each from Walmart, Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk, the maker of the obesity drug Ozempic. The AHA later retracted its testimony and said it does not oppose such bills.
“First, the American Heart Association flip-flopped and backed away from Big Soda in Texas; now it seems like Kansas’s Democratic Governor Laura Kelly is flip-flopping the other direction to support junk food on food stamps,” Foundation for Government Accountability spokesman Adam Gibbs told The Daily Wire. “There’s something about this taxpayer-funded soda ban that has certain people spinning in circles.”
“The Governor can’t decide who to back — her constituents or Big Soda,” he added.
Some conservative influencers said they were offered money to make social media posts spinning welfare for soda as conservative. The soda lobby is also promoting unusual op-eds in conservative media that try to convince free-market conservatives to rally around taxpayer-funded junk food. Newsmax published one such piece, “Keep Bureaucrats’ Hands Out of American’s [sic] Grocery Carts – Please.” It was authored by Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation, which, according to tax records, is funded by PhRMA, whose members profit from treating the unhealthy.
“Lawmakers must override the governor’s veto to ensure that the will of Kansans is delivered,” Gibbs said. “They can either stand with the MAHA moms who voted for President Trump in November—or they can fall in line with whatever political game Governor Kelly is playing this week.”
Kansas requires a two-thirds vote to override a veto. The Senate already has the votes, but the House would need about 18 members to switch positions.
Colorado and Arizona, two other states with Democrat governors, have received similar bills passed by their legislatures.
Related: Food Stamps Accepted At Thousands Of Liquor And Tobacco Stores, Contributing To Healthcare Fiasco
“}]]
