Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes
A new bill making its way through the Texas Legislature is aiming to reshape how Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—commonly referred to as food stamps—can be used. Texas Senate Bill 379 (SB 379), authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) and backed by several Senate Republicans, seeks to prohibit the use of SNAP funds to purchase specific items classified as junk food. The move marks a notable shift in the ongoing conversation around public assistance, nutrition, and taxpayer 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
What Is Senate Bill 379?
SB 379 would amend state law to establish clear restrictions on what types of food and beverages can be purchased using SNAP benefits in Texas. While the federal government currently allows SNAP to be used for nearly all food items—excluding alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared meals—this bill narrows that scope.
Under SB 379, recipients would no longer be able to use their SNAP EBT cards to buy energy drinks, sweetened and carbonated beverages, pre-packaged candy, chips, and cookies. The bill defines these as foods with little or no nutritional value, especially those sold in ready-to-eat packaging and intended for consumption without further preparation.
Lawmakers behind the legislation argue that these restrictions are designed to align SNAP purchases with the program’s original intent—to provide nutritious food to low-income individuals and families. With obesity and diet-related illness on the rise in Texas, proponents of the bill believe it’s time for SNAP to stop subsidizing the kinds of foods that contribute to those outcomes.
A Broader Effort: SNAP Junk Food Ban Bills Filed in the Texas House
SB 379 is part of a growing, bipartisan effort in the Texas Legislature to reform how SNAP benefits are used. An identical version of the Senate bill was filed in the Texas House of Representatives as House Bill 5243 (HB 5243) by State Rep. Stan Gerdes (R–Smithville). This matching proposal signals coordinated momentum between the House and Senate to push for stricter guidelines on taxpayer-funded nutrition assistance.
Notably, the idea has found support across party lines. State Rep. Richard Raymond (D–Laredo) introduced HB 3188, which proposes a similar restriction on the purchase of sweetened beverages, candy, chips, and cookies using SNAP funds. While Raymond’s bill does not address energy drinks or carbonated sodas specifically, it reflects the same underlying concern about poor nutrition choices subsidized by public dollars.
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.
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.
Previous Attempts to Limit Junk Food Purchases Under Texas SNAP Benefits
SB 379 isn’t the first time Texas lawmakers have tried to bring nutritional accountability to the SNAP program. Over the last decade, there have been multiple efforts to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase sugary drinks, candy, and other junk food.
Past proposals, such as those introduced during the 84th and 85th Legislative Sessions, included similar goals: reducing the consumption of low-nutrition items using public funds. Some bills focused solely on sugary beverages, while others more broadly targeted processed snacks and sweets. In each case, the driving concerns were public health and the responsible use of state resources.
Previous Attempts by Session
| Bill Number (Session) | Author | Last Action |
|---|---|---|
| SB 346 (88th – 2023) | State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R) | Never received a hearing in Senate Health & Human Services Committee |
| HB 343 (87th – 2021) | State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R) | Left pending in House Human Services Committee |
| HB 4364 (86th – 2019) | State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R) | Never received a hearing in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee |
| HB 842 (85th – 2017) | State Rep. Dustin Burrows (R) | Never received a hearing in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee |
| HB 493 (84th – 2015) | State Rep. Terry Canales (D) | Left pending in the House Human Services Committee |
These earlier attempts gained varying degrees of media attention and grassroots support but ultimately failed to gain the traction needed to cross the legislative finish line. Federal hurdles also played a role, as implementing any SNAP purchase restrictions requires a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture—something that has historically been difficult to obtain.
Still, the persistence of this policy idea shows a clear throughline: lawmakers continue to view the unrestricted use of SNAP dollars on junk food as a problem worth addressing. SB 379 builds upon those earlier efforts with a more refined list of prohibited items and a clear structure for exemptions, signaling a more serious legislative push in the current session.
What Foods Would Still Be Allowed Under Texas SNAP Benefits?
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.
Why Texas Is Proposing a Junk Food Ban for SNAP Recipients
The motivation behind SB 379 is rooted in both health and fiscal policy. Texas has some of the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the country. Lawmakers backing the bill point to the growing burden of chronic illness on the healthcare system and argue that taxpayer-funded programs should not contribute to those outcomes.
By restricting SNAP purchases to more nutritious options, supporters say the program can better fulfill its mission of supporting low-income Texans in achieving food security—without undermining their long-term health. In their view, it’s not just about what SNAP recipients are eating today, but about whether the program is contributing to better outcomes down the line.
Critics of the bill, however, warn that it could stigmatize low-income individuals and create practical challenges at the checkout line. They argue that SNAP recipients already face food deserts and limited grocery options and that imposing additional restrictions may make it harder for them to shop effectively. Still, the authors of SB 379 maintain that the goal is not to punish, but to promote better use of limited public dollars.
Will SNAP Food Restrictions in Texas Require Federal Approval?
One of the most important details of SB 379 is that it acknowledges the federal oversight of the SNAP program. While Texas can pass legislation setting its own priorities, it must still seek a waiver or authorization from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in order to enforce any changes to SNAP eligibility rules.
The bill provides for that process and allows implementation to be delayed until such federal approval is granted. Without that waiver, Texas cannot unilaterally enforce these new restrictions, regardless of what the state legislature decides. That means the fate of SB 379 could ultimately rest in the hands of Washington, D.C.
Fiscal Impact of SB 379 on State and Federal Budgets
Although the bill does not come with a recurring cost, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimates that it would incur a one-time implementation cost of approximately $1.54 million in Fiscal Year 2026. These funds would be used to notify SNAP recipients, update Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) systems, and inform retailers of the changes.
Of that total cost, about $764,750 would be drawn from the state’s General Revenue, with the remainder coming from federal funding. Beyond the initial outreach and administrative expenses, no further fiscal impact is anticipated. The bill is also expected to have no significant effect on local governments.
Where the Bill Stands Now
SB 379 has already cleared its first hurdle, advancing out of the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services by a vote of 5–2. That committee vote indicates a degree of support within the Senate, though the bill will still need to pass the full Senate chamber and make its way through the House before heading to the Governor’s desk. SB 379 is currently placed on the Senate Intent Calendar, meaning the full Senate can take it up at any time.
If passed and signed into law, SB 379 would take effect on September 1, 2025—pending federal waiver approval. Between now and then, the debate over how far the state should go in regulating SNAP purchases will likely continue to spark conversations about food policy, public health, and the responsible use of tax dollars.
Final Thoughts on Texas’ SNAP Junk Food Ban
Whether or not SB 379 becomes law, it signals a broader shift in how state lawmakers are thinking about public assistance. For supporters, this isn’t about policing individual choices—it’s about ensuring that a nutrition program actually promotes nutrition. For opponents, it raises valid concerns about food freedom, fairness, and government intrusion.
At the heart of it, SB 379 is asking Texans—and their elected representatives—to decide: should public assistance dollars be used to buy products that actively contribute to poor health outcomes? And if not, is the government justified in drawing those lines?
These are questions that extend far beyond grocery aisles, touching on how we define responsibility, freedom, and compassion in public policy.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
