LI Republicans vote against ban on food stamps for sugary drinks

WASHINGTON – Long Island’s two U.S. House Republicans joined with dozens of GOP colleagues and most Democrats Thursday to block a proposed nationwide ban on the use of federal food stamp benefits to purchase soda and other sugary drinks.

One of those lawmakers, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-Amityville), said the proposal reminded him of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2012 “Big Gulp ban” on sale of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, an obesity-fighting idea derided by opponents as “nanny state” overreach.

This 186-238 vote to defeat this new proposal came despite Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to bring an end to the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to buy soda, candy and other low-nutrition items as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

“I was one of the few Republicans that voted no on that amendment because, while I believe we should all consume less surgery carbonated beverages, I don’t like the government mandate aspect that amendment would carry,” LaLota said.

Fellow Long Islander Andrew Garbarino (R-Bayport) also voted against the ban. His office declined to say why. The offices of Long Island Democratic Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) and Laura Gillen (D-Rockville Centre) likewise did not explain why they were among only 29 House Democrats to support the ban.

Farm Bill passes

That language was offered in a proposed amendment to the House’s broader Farm Bill, which itself went on to passage, 224-200 and heads to the Senate. Garbarino was one of just three Republicans to vote against the larger measure.

A statement from his office underscored that he is a strong supporter of America’s farmers, but that Garbarino disagreed with several provisions in the bill that he hopes will be addressed by the time the legislation is returned by the Senate. His office did not respond to requests for more detail.

A modification that was successfully added to the larger Farm Bill Thursday would allow food purchases under SNAP to include ready-to-eat “hot rotisserie chicken.” Currently, SNAP rules under the Department of Agriculture limit purchases to food that needs to be prepared at home before it is consumed, or specifically cold prepared foods.

Roughly 41 million Americans and 2.8 million New Yorkers receive the monthly food benefits to help pay for groceries through the taxpayer funded program for lower-income people commonly known as food stamps. More than 160,000 Long Islanders rely on the assistance, which now operates through participants’ use of electronic EBT cards.

Thursday’s House vote came as the Trump administration’s Department of Agriculture has approved waivers from 22 states to allow their own rules on what food or drinks SNAP participants in their individual jurisdictions can buy – flexibility not previously given to states. New York State has not applied for a waiver.

Kennedy has hailed the results from such states as Arkansas, Iowa and West Virginia that have imposed restrictions against buying soda, energy drinks, candy and other prepared desserts as important steps in the Make America Healthy Again Movement.

The Agriculture Department’s own website offers that “USDA is empowering states by allowing them restrict the purchase of non-nutritious items like soda and candy. These waivers are a key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP.” 

Varied rules

But the waivers have also prompted lawsuits over the resulting smorgasbord of restrictions from different states causing confusion over the varied eligibility of certain products or ingredients.

Asked about New York not seeking such waivers, a statement provided by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance that oversees the SNAP program said the state remains focused on reducing hunger and food insecurity for New Yorkers in need.

Democrat Suozzi offered that while he believes national standards are best, that when people have different ideas “states really are laboratories” for trying out varied approaches, either through waivers or pilot programs.

LaLota said he has not analyzed the impacts of the waivers obtained by some states to design their own state-level SNAP food restrictions.

“But I think the federal government should lean more toward the broader strokes of promulgating information – being part of an education campaign – and be much less involved in the mandating of peoples’ food choices,” LaLota said.