CONCORD, NH — The House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee voted Wednesday to recommend passing House Bill 1773 with an amendment, prohibiting the purchase of candy or sweetened drinks with SNAP benefits, also known as the food stamp program.

The bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to submit a waiver to the federal Food Nutrition Service to allow the exclusion of candy and soda from the definition of eligible food under SNAP. The department anticipates the cost would be $416,000 to facilitate retailers’ adoption of the rules. It is also expected to cost $842,000 to build the waiver, $42,000 for certification and $47,000 for implementation.

Rep. Steven Kesselring, R-Manchester, said the amendment clarifies the language in the section of the bill that defines the prohibited items.

In the bill, “candy” is defined as a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients in the form of bars, drops, and pieces. “Sweetened drinks” is defined as any non-alcoholic beverage made with water that contains five or more grams of added sugar.

The bill also requires the DHHS to establish an education and outreach program to help SNAP recipients make healthy food choices. The department currently conducts a SNAP outreach program to both promote the program and encourage eligible households to apply, but does not have a nutrition component. To either restart a similar program or amend existing ones to include nutrition is estimated to cost about $1,200,000 per year.

“As a public health nutritionist, I certainly would like to see we as a people drink a lot less soda (and) eat a lot less candy. I don’t think the approach of limiting the purchasing power of one group of people is the way to do that. I also think this bill is really fiscally irresponsible, it’s an enormous amount of money that we’re going to spend trying to implement all these restrictions,” Rep. Jessica LaMontagne, D-Dover said.

Rep. William Palmer, D-Cornish, said the main reason he opposes the bill is because it’s “just too expensive for what it does,” adding that he would like to see another approach to the issue of people making healthier food choices.

According to the bill, it’s anticipated that in total it will cost $2.6 million in FY29 and $1.4 million in subsequent years.