While political divisions often dominate headlines, Senate Bill 379 demonstrates a rare instance of bipartisan agreement on a pressing issue: the growing health concerns of Americans. The bill, introduced by Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) and supported by lawmakers across party lines aims to prohibit the use of SNAP funds for items such as candy, chips, cookies, and sweetened beverages, aligning purchases with the program’s original intent of providing access to nutritious food.
Advocates argue that these restrictions are necessary to combat rising rates of obesity and chronic illnesses linked to poor dietary habits. Critics, however, caution that the bill could limit food choices for low-income families, particularly in areas where healthier options are less accessible.
Despite differing perspectives, the bipartisan support for SB 379 underscores a unified effort to prioritize public health and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs contribute to the well-being of recipients. The bill represents a significant step in the ongoing dialogue about nutrition, public assistance, and accountability.”
“Let’s make Texas Healthy Again, I filed SB 379 to prohibit candy, soda, chips and other junk foods from being purchased with SNAP-food stamps. SNAP is supposed to be “nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” Junk food is clearly not that and is making people sick!”
Source: State Sen. Mayes Middleton X Post, 1.17.2025
State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R–Deer Park) also introduced legislation targeting junk food purchases under SNAP. HB 4970 closely mirrors SB 379 in both structure and substance, while HB 4971 takes a different approach by targeting food items containing specific additives—such as red dye 3, titanium dioxide, and brominated vegetable oil—commonly found in ultra-processed snacks and drinks.
Despite the focus on prohibiting junk food purchases with SNAP, the bill includes specific exemptions to protect access to nutritious or medically necessary items. Milk and milk-based beverages, as well as milk substitutes like almond, soy, or rice milk, would remain eligible. So too would infant formula, nutritional supplements intended for weight reduction, and fruit or vegetable juices that contain no added sugar.
The legislation also carves out protections for foods recommended by health care professionals, such as those containing plant-based proteins, or products fortified with vitamins and minerals that offer a meaningful source of nutrition. By drawing a line between high-calorie, low-nutrient “junk food” and more substantive grocery items, SB 379 attempts to preserve choice while reining in what it sees as misuse of public funds.
Taken together, these bills show a unified interest among lawmakers in both chambers and from both parties to tighten nutritional standards within SNAP. Whether through outright food bans or limits on harmful additives, the message is clear: public funds should be used to promote health, not hinder it.