Congress wants to control what poor people eat—and retailers are watching.

What it does

This bill restricts what foods SNAP recipients can buy by banning soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and prepared desserts, and requiring the USDA to create a list of approved foods based on nutrition science within 180 days. States can request substitutions for cultural foods if nutritionally equivalent. The bill essentially converts SNAP from a cash-like benefit into a restricted list of government-approved foods.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is to narrow the definition of eligible foods under SNAP by excluding categories deemed unhealthy and requiring USDA to designate approved foods. This is a regulatory restriction on benefit use, not a funding or administrative change.

What the text implies

• SNAP recipients will face reduced purchasing power in practice—banned items often cost less per calorie, so restrictions may force families to buy fewer total calories or shift to more expensive approved foods, potentially worsening food insecurity.
• Retailers (especially dollar stores, convenience stores, and discount grocers) that rely on SNAP volume for soft drinks and snacks will see reduced sales; larger retailers like Target may benefit from shift toward fresh/whole foods if they have better supply chains.
• Implementation burden on state agencies to manage substitution requests and on retailers to track eligible vs. ineligible items; potential for confusion and checkout delays.
• The 5-year review cycle locks in USDA discretion to redefine eligible foods without new legislation, shifting power from Congress to the executive branch on what low-income people can eat.

Who it affects

SNAP recipients gain potential health benefits from nudged nutrition, but lose purchasing autonomy and dignity—a paternalistic trade-off. Low-income families face reduced choice and potential stigma; retailers lose sales volume but may benefit from reduced shrinkage. The net effect depends on whether health gains outweigh autonomy loss and implementation burden.

Who stands to gain

• large supermarket chains with strong fresh/whole food supply chains
• organic and premium food producers
• USDA administrative contractors managing food designation and review

Named in the bill

USDA (Secretary of Agriculture), SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, State agencies, Target (TGT), Estée Lauder (EL), Philip Morris (PM), Church & Dwight (CHD), Tyson Foods (TSN)

Where it stands

12 cosponsors: 12 Republicans.

• Jan 16, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 16, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Agriculture · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $180,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 2 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Josh Brecheen, the sponsor, reported $111,570 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Hershey Company — $100,000 on 1 filing
• American Beverage Association — $80,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.