Lawmakers Debate SNAP Junk Food Ban

Bipartisan bill would restrict use of food assistance for sugary snacks and drinks

Published on Mar. 9, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

New Hampshire state senators from both parties are debating legislation that would prohibit the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase candy, soda, and other junk food items. The bill is backed by lawmakers who argue it would promote healthier eating, while opponents contend it unfairly targets low-income families.

Why it matters

The proposed SNAP junk food ban is part of a broader national debate over how food assistance programs should be structured to balance nutrition, personal choice, and economic factors. Proponents say it could improve public health, while critics argue it's paternalistic and could stigmatize SNAP recipients.

The details

The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Victoria Sullivan of Manchester and Democratic Sen. Sue Prentiss of Lebanon, would prohibit the purchase of items like candy, chips, and sugary drinks using SNAP benefits. Supporters say it would encourage healthier eating habits, while opponents argue it unfairly burdens low-income families and could be difficult to enforce.

  • The bill was introduced in the New Hampshire state legislature in February 2026.

The players

Victoria Sullivan

A Republican state senator representing Manchester.

Sue Prentiss

A Democratic state senator representing Lebanon.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must do more to promote healthy eating, especially for families relying on food assistance.”

— Victoria Sullivan, State Senator

“This bill unfairly targets low-income individuals and families who rely on SNAP benefits.”

— Sue Prentiss, State Senator

What’s next

The bill will next be considered by the state Senate Health and Human Services Committee before potentially advancing to a full floor vote.

The takeaway

The debate over restricting junk food purchases with SNAP benefits highlights the ongoing tension between promoting public health and preserving personal choice and economic freedom for low-income families.