By ZACH LAIRD InDepthNH.org
CONCORD, NH — A public hearing for a bill was held Wednesday at Granite Place that would prohibit the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP benefits, also known as the food stamp program.
House Bill 1797 would direct the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to submit a waiver to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prohibit the purchase of those two products, and strengthen work requirements for SNAP eligibility.
The bill would also direct DHHS to enter into data-sharing agreements with other state agencies to verify SNAP benefit eligibility, to verify the eligibility of enrollees who exclusively make out-of-state purchases, and prohibit the department from using its discretion to set more lenient standards for SNAP eligibility or exemptions than those outlined in federal law.
Rep. Jim Kofalt, R-Wilton, the prime sponsor of the bill, said it ensures benefits go to those who are truly in need of the support, and helps families buy nutritious foods. He noted that soda is the number one item purchased with food benefits, and that 18 other states have already implemented this measure.
Kofalt added that the bill would close a loophole that allows households to enroll with income and assets that exceed federal limits.
Tim Puglisi of Foundation for Government Accountability Action spoke in support of the bill. He began by reciting the United States Department of Agriculture’s stated purpose for the intent of SNAP benefits: “To supplement a family’s grocery budget so they can afford nutritious essential food for health and wellness.”
He added that SNAP benefits cannot be used to buy alcohol, tobacco, and fast-food in the state, and that “no one argues that those limits violate freedom.”
“They exist because SNAP is a government-run nutrition assistance program, and this bill follows that exact same logic by better aligning SNAP purchases with nutrition, rather than personal preference,” Puglisi said.
He continued that New Hampshire is not breaking new ground with the idea of a soda and candy waiver, and that “the state already essentially committed to pursuing one in its Rural Health Transformation fund application.”
Puglisi explained not implementing this bill could impact the amount of money the state gets from the Rural Health Transformation fund. Puglisi said about 30 states have made similar commitments. He noted the bill allows the Department of Health and Human Services to define candy and soft drinks for the waiver.
Karen Herbert, director for the Division of Economic Stability at DHHS, said the fiscal note for the candy and soda waiver does assume that “changes would be made to implement a waiver of food restrictions at the EBT processor level, as opposed to the retailer level.”
“The current use is at the retailer level, but I do want to point out there is no appropriation for this bill, and the department would not be able to implement anything at the EBT level without an appropriation,” Herbert said.
Herbert said if anything were to be done at the EBT level, components like auditing and enforcing the provisions of the restrictions in the bill would have “significant” costs associated with the initiative. She said it would be an estimated $1.4 million.
“There are a number of provisions in the bill that would require additional staffing. Staffing with increased manual work for a lot of the verification requirements would be necessary. If we did a healthy choice waiver at an EBT processor level, it would require additional staffing for enforcement and customer service. We are estimating needing about five additional specialists to meet these requirements from the proposed legislation,” Herbert said.
DHHS did not take a position on the bill.
President of the New Hampshire Grocers Association Kevin Daigle opposed the bill, saying the biggest problem is that “there’s no metric for measuring health.”
Daigle said other concerns about the bill involve the costly compliance burden for retailers; the possibility of reduced food access if retailers stop accepting SNAP; the impact on cross-border sales; and said the bill “fails to improve diet or health with a product ban.”
“Policies focused on incentives and nutrition education have proven to be more effective and less punitive than bans,” Daigle said.
Heidi Johnson, coordinator and SNAP application assistance program at the New Hampshire Food Bank, also opposed the bill.
She explained that according to data from Feeding America’s 2025 Map the Meal Gap, one in nine Granite Staters — and one in seven children — are food insecure.
“These are all of our neighbors, neighbors you might not suspect, who don’t have the funds to purchase the quantity or quality of groceries they need to stay healthy and strong. I’m talking about diabetics, who have to choose between buying their medication or fresh produce; elderly and disabled who choose between using stoves, lights, and heat or buying meat and vegetables,” she said.
During the government shutdown in November 2025, the food bank served as a SNAP contingency plan for the state and distributed the equivalent of 136,610 meals in two weeks to SNAP recipients.
“Many of these individuals could again lose SNAP benefits if HB 1797 passes. This would include children who could lose eligibility for free and reduced-price meals that are guaranteed for them if their families receive SNAP benefits. Another grave concern is that the rollback of gross income limits would restrict the number of people who could apply for benefits, people who very well might otherwise meet the net income limit.
“Additionally, the bill’s reversion to strict asset limits would disqualify families who had previously saved up to $3,000 in their rainy-day fund. For these families, one unexpected need for a security deposit, car repair, or a medical emergency can send them into a crisis that forces them into our soup kitchens; an enormous load that we cannot support,” Johnson said.
No immediate action was taken on the bill during the meeting.