H.B. 569 SNAP Funds Amendments

What this bill does

The bill would direct the state to adopt a federal definition of ultra-processed foods for SNAP restrictions if the federal government creates one. The state Department of Workforce Services would then work out how it fits state rules, send it through the Administrative Rules Committee, and submit a waiver; if no federal definition is issued, nothing happens.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 10 yes, 0 no, 4 absentHouse Health and Human Services Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how
• 10 yes, 0 no, 4 absentHouse Health and Human Services Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how
• 11 yes, 0 no, 3 absentHouse Health and Human Services Committee: vote, which it did not pass · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 20, 2026 House Health and Human Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (63 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)1:13:55

     So we'll go to Representative Shelley HB 5 69.

  2. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:14:03

     Thank you, chair and committee. I think you're all familiar with the SNAP bill from last year, which removes snow, snow, ODA soda from SNAP funding. Um, that bill was implemented in January of this year. Stakeholders have told me that they were very happy with our definition of soda and that it was the best and easiest to work with in the nation. Um, and DWS reported that the process of getting the exemption or getting the, uh, waiver was very simple, and they were surprised with how well that went. The process is still new. It was just implemented in January. So, um, they are still working through some kinks. Um, from what I understand, there are a couple of overzealous vendors who are stopping people from getting things that they're not supposed to be stopping them from getting. And so DWS is working on that. They're working with the people to make sure that they're implementing the actual law. So, as you all know, SNAP is funded by taxpayer dollars. It is supposed to be the supplemental nutrition assistance program, which means that it should be helping to give nutrition to our most vulnerable. Um, what this bill is doing is moving us one step further to towards making it a healthier program. And so, what, um, I'm trying to go fast. Sorry. You're fine. You're fine. You're good. So I'm just gonna give you a little background. Some examples of ultra processed foods would be chips, cookies, processed snacks, um, sugary cereals. These make up about 60 to 73% of the US diet. The US Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture are accelerating federal efforts to address the growing concerns around ultra processed foods and the current epidemic of diet related chronic disease that is plaguing America. FDA had, David Kessler said, human biology was never intended to handle ultra processed foods. The products which he describes as energy dense, highly palatable, and rapidly absorbable, have altered our metabolism and have resulted in the greatest increase in chronic disease in our history. Um, they are not empty calories. These calories are ending up as fat in the liver, which then migrates to other organs and can cause cardiometabolic disease. Currently, there's no single authoritative definition for ultra processed foods in the US food supply. So creating a uniform definition will serve as a key deliverable in the quest for health, a healthier future for our children in anticipation. So I'll just tell you really quickly what the bill does, and then that, um, that will be the end of my presentation. So there's a sub online. What it does is it doesn't give a definition. If there is a federal definition that comes through, then it will go to DWS. They will figure out how it fits into our rules, and then they will bring it to the Administrative Rules Committee for review and then submit a waiver. But if a federal definition never comes, nothing happens. And I will also note that one of the things that I hear from the retailers all the time is that they want a, a federal definition so that they don't have a patchwork of definitions across states. So, oh, and also, this does not reduce any of the SNAP funding. All it does is reprioritize, and that is the bill. Okay. Thank you. We will bring it back to the committee for any clarifying questions.

  3. Committee chair (presiding)1:17:58

     Representative Hollins,

  4. Rep. Sandra Hollins1:18:02

     Thank you. I, I am, I guess I'm just, I'm just trying to understand this and wrap my head around this. So I go to the store and I go to buy processed food. Mm-hmm. And it's, the cashier's going to determine I cannot buy this food because it's considered as processed food, right? Mm-hmm. And so the cashier's gonna be making that determination? No, the cashier doesn't make the determination the food is coded. Okay. So that it, and usually things that are EBT, um, that, that qualify for EBT are labeled that they qualify for EBT, at least I know online, if you order online things are, are labeled so that you can know that they, they fit into that category. Okay. Um, but it is not the cashier. Okay. So it's, it's going to be, it's going to be labeled on what they can and cannot buy. So Yeah. And if you need clarification, DWS is here also, if you want, Okay. So this food here is less expensive than this food. Are we somehow increasing so they can buy fresh fruits and vegetable? And tell me about the education piece that is going, the education piece that's going to be going with that to educate individuals on food to buy. I'm, I'm, my, my concern is that we're stigmatizing people. I understand. That is my concern. That is my biggest concern. I consider myself privileged. At one time I wasn't. Um, I, I grew up in poverty, and so growing up in a food desert or growing up, unable to buy one food over another. You know, most people who go into a store who are using their food stamp card, they're not really proud of it. They're doing it because they have to, not because they want to. Mm. And to have now to have this added stigma on that saying, we are going to limit what you can and what you cannot buy. And I, and I, I don't even know if there's, if you could tell me if there's any data out there to show that people, when this is done, people are healthier. So those are just my, my concern, Mr. Chair. So Thank you.

  5. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:20:21

     Um, can I respond to some of

  6. Committee chair (presiding)1:20:22

     That? Yes. Yes, please.

  7. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:20:23

     Okay. So, um, if I can remember all of it, I'll respond to what I can Remember. It was, it was a mouthful. Yeah. Okay. So as far as stigmatizing, that is not the intent at all. What, what I hope is that people know before they get to the grocery checkout that what's in their card is okay, or it isn't. And there have been education. DWS did some education on this prior to implementing the, the soda part of it. Um, and, and also things are marked in the grocery store and online. And, um, let's see, what was the other thing that you asked about? Oh, there is a double Your Bucks program. So if you buy food that is healthier, you can get twice the amount for your Snap dollars. Mm-hmm. So they, there is a, an incentive and a reward for getting things that you can make from scratch from.

  8. Rep. Sandra Hollins1:21:21

     Okay. Alright. Thank you. That's good to Know. Thank you.

  9. Committee chair (presiding)1:21:24

     Alright, Representative Acton.

  10. Rep. Cheryl K. Acton1:21:27

      Thank you. Um, so boy, I'm learning so much in these meetings, but, um, the federal definition, they're currently working on it, right? Mm-hmm. And it, it seems to change and it could change again with a different administration. Is that right? It could. I was discussing that with some people out here earlier. I am wondering if maybe there should be a Sunset added so that we're not just open to whatever definition comes up for the rest of time. But That's what, that's what I'm concerned about that because, um, yeah, what if it's unacceptable later to Utah? Well, we could always just rescind, but I think that the, probably the easiest thing and the most effective thing would be to say if it's, if there is no definition by the state, then we just don't do this. Well, I'm wondering about, um, I mean, isn't it, it's really difficult to, for, for retailers, wouldn't it be difficult to keep adjusting according to the federal definition or, Well, I don't think the federal definition is gonna keep changing. I think once there's a federal definition, it will be the federal definition. And I, that is actually the objective. Doing this right now is just opening the door for us when the federal definition comes. So that we don't, I mean, I don't know that we'd call a special session for this, but we can respond outside of the session because we already have laid the groundwork. That's what we're doing here. Um, I don't, I don't foresee the, once we have a definition, I'm not sure that that's, I mean, it's taken us this long to get a definition. Not, I mean, we don't even have one yet. So I don't think that it's gonna be shifting around on a regular basis. And what the retailers have repeatedly asked me for is a federal definition so that we don't have to have different pieces, different policies in different states. Okay. Okay. Thank you. But I'm sure the retailers will speak after. I do.

  11. Committee chair (presiding)1:23:42

      Thank you, Representative Acton. All right. Representative Ward.

  12. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:23:46

      Thank you Madam Vice chair. So thank you for the sub that you brought today. I see that in the sub, you kind of did just point to the federal definition, whereas in the underlying bill, you, you had had, you know, kind of an either or statement with the definition that you had there in the underlying bill. Do you think that that definition, if we were using that definition, would be workable?

  13. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:24:06

      I, I actually was not a fan of that definition. It was just something that the drafting attorneys pulled in because they didn't think that they could do what we did in the sub, which is what I initially asked them for. Mm-hmm. So we did get it figured out in the sub. What's in the sub is what I wanted.

  14. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:24:23

      Okay. Alright. So, so I guess my concern is that the definition that you had in the underlying one is a common one that I have seen, you know, in different things that you read about ultra processed food, which on the one hand is helpful. On the other hand to, to me it seems like it goes to a whole series of other terms that also are not completely defined. Um, 'cause even in this definition here, again, which is a common one that I've typed, one that I've seen, then you're wondering what is and isn't an additive. You're wondering what doesn't, doesn't count as high for saturated fat, what the cutoff will be. Mm-hmm. What does and doesn't count as high for sodium, uh, what does and doesn't count as high for sugar. And then for each of those things, the fat on the sodium and the sugar, then you would need to have a discussion about is it a percent in the food or is it just a milligram amount? Yep. And, and so the definitions been Having all these discussions for the past year. Yeah, it is. And I, to me, so far, another thing about the discussion about ultra processed food is I don't see that the research community has solidified solidly around one definition, which makes it super hard for me to go back and know which conclusions are correct. 'cause people aren't even correct comparing the same things when they compare them. That that's something that I, so I think there is consensus around the fact that super processed, unnatural foods are causing health problems. We've seen the increase over the time that we have started eating more and more of these foods. So I know correlation doesn't equal causation. I hear that a lot, by the way. Um, so I think though that we do need to pay attention to signals as opposed to just pretending we don't see anything. And I, I realize that change is very difficult, but I, I think that in the interest of our future and the future of our children, and particularly those who are most vulnerable, I think that we need to address some of these problems instead of just moving ahead with the status quo and pretending that people are not sick.

  15. Unknown speaker1:26:40speaker not certain

      Okay. Uh, I think that's a good comment. I, 'cause I agree. I think we have all agreed that, uh, highly processed unnatural foods are bad. But we have done that without ever agreeing what is in fact counts as that. We do have a pool of things that we know fall into that. The question is how broad is that pool? Okay. And how narrow, how narrow do we wanna keep it so that we're not going too far? That's the question. It is a good question. Thanks.

  16. Committee chair (presiding)1:27:09

      Thank you, representative gracious.

  17. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:27:12

      Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, while we're looking at these definitions, and I, you know, I'm not super familiar with everything going on with what the federal government is doing on this. Um, but I was looking up, do we have a list? 'cause I know one of the things that has been mentioned is that it would be difficult to go read every single nutrition label and determine what is classified as ultra processed. Um, so I was looking up that a little bit this morning, but like the Nova Food Classification system popped up, it seems like there are already several different lists in place with this work in conjunction with those lists. I would, I would imagine that would be logical to work in. I mean, to look at what lists we already have and, and work with those. Yes.

  18. Committee chair (presiding)1:27:56

      Great. Thanks. Thank you, representative gracious. All right. I'm not seeing any further comments from the committee. We'll take it to the public for public comment. Who wants to comment on this? Alright, come on up and make sure you sign the paper. Introduce yourselves and who you represent.

  19. Dave Davis, Utah Retail Merchants Association1:28:21

      Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, Dave Davis, president of the Utah Retail Merchants Association. The representative was correct. We were going to speak. She and I have had many, many, many, many conversations about this. If you saw me back there, furiously, uh, scribbling notes. The reason why is this substitute dropped maybe 15, 20 minutes before this, this committee meeting. Now, um, uh, in fairness, the representative, uh, did give me a heads up that the substitute would be coming. But what this does is a bit different. It has more specifics in there. Um, and so a lot of what I have now, I had some fantastic testimony prepared for you based upon what I thought was was coming. And now I just have a lot of questions about, uh, for instance, in the, in the substitute now, it says DWS gets three months to basically formulate rules and make this happen. Lemme give you some context for that. When we did soda this last year, which the difficulty level associated with soda is, uh, a fraction of what we're talking about. Uh, here we spent, I met with DWS every other week for nearly a year until the, uh, until the implementation. And so I, I don't know where we're getting that. This is going to be done in, in three months. What role is the administrative Rules committee going to play in this? And should you, as legislators, as a body, have more input or influence over what direction this goes once we see this ultra processed food, uh, uh, definition? Um, uh, we just really need time. We need time to be able to get feedback from, uh, this group, uh, or, or from our members about what this, uh, actually, uh, means. So we would ask that the committee here, hold this bill. Give us time to look at it, uh, and, uh, respond, get feedback on this so that, uh, uh, industry can have some insights to this.

  20. Committee chair (presiding)1:31:04

      Thank you. I'm not seeing any questions for you, so thank you. Go ahead.

  21. Neil Rickard, Utahans Against Hunger1:31:10

      Uh, hello. My name is Neil Rickard. I'm the Child Nutrition Advocate for Utahans Against Hunger. Uh, I too was ready with Fire and brimstone when I arrived today. Uh, uh, I should say that we do think this substitute is a big improvement on the original draft. Our major concern with ultra processed foods is that the conventional definition then, of which there are many, but like example, the NOVA definition mentioned by rep gracious earlier, would exclude a lot of the convenience foods that are depended on by disabled and senior people who are on SNAP currently. And these are things, yes, sometimes like chips, et cetera, but could also include packaged breads, uh, boxed macaroni and cheese ramen noodles, things that are associated with staples of people. Things that I often get told that poor people should be eating, basically. So we really do want all of the flexibility possible when looking at a standard for this and going forward. And this is an improvement in that. It does give us a chance to look before we leap. And I would ask that everyone acting on this going forward, bear that in mind. It is very important to get this right, especially for some of these vulnerable communities. That said, we really appreciate Rep Chevrolet's transparency and work on this. We know that's not like the intent of the bill, and we're really happy to hear her mention the Double Up Food Bucks program, as well as another way to bring access to healthy foods to people. We're happy to work with her in the future. Thank You. I have a question for you, Representative Clancy.

  22. Rep. Clancy1:32:35

      Madam, Madam Chair is not often you get to question someone that has a master's degree in food. And, uh, I didn't want that to go to waste, but No, I, I appreciate all the work that, uh, you and, and Gina do at Utahans Against Hunger. While we have you here and you're, we're talking about SNAP and different things like that, what do you think, I mean, are there some ways that we, that you would support, you know, making, uh, helping, helping low income Utahans, uh, have healthier options and different things like that? I know you mentioned this, the Sun Bucks program, but

  23. Neil Rickard, Utahans Against Hunger1:33:06

      Yeah. One of the things that we think is empirically supported is produce incentives and other ways to actually encourage eating healthy foods. It's, it's good to give people money, but actually providing access to things. Like I said, it's not that people necessarily want to eat unhealthy, although be honest a lot of the time we do. But making it easier to make healthy and better choices by increasing access, it's usually the way to go. Like I said, the Double UPS program that Rep Sharay mentioned is a great program. The senior Farmer's Market nutrition program also. Terrific. These are things that Utah does already that work pretty well.

  24. Committee chair (presiding)1:33:39

      Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. All right, go ahead.

  25. Josh Brown, Utah Manufacturers Association1:33:46

      Hello. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak members of the committee, Josh Brown, COO of the Utah Manufacturers Association. I am not a food master, uh, but I would like to talk a little bit. I know we came in here as well. Uh, there was some concern from some of the food manufacturers discussing, you know, a a chicken thigh could be, you know, highly insect, you know, polys saturated fats. There was concerns on the labeling pieces. We really appreciate the change that the sponsor has taken. Uh, a lot of similar topics to what, uh, Mr. Davis said earlier is unintended consequences have been the discussion that I've heard a lot of our leaders say up here for the last several years. We pass bills with unintended consequences. We go back and fix 'em. We're tired of going back and fixing 'em. Um, just sitting in the back, I heard multiple times, I think, I'm not sure. What if the administrations change, uh, what if we need to, probably not a special session. It, it leads down that path of are we truly there? Why, let's find this the right way. Let's take the time. Again, we truly appreciate the change. We think the change is going in a better direction. We, of course, want Utahans to be healthy as well. We think that this time, this bill needs to be hold. We, we all need to look at it a little bit more before things progress.

  26. Committee chair (presiding)1:35:03

      Thank you. Right. Thank you. I have one question for you, Representative Ward. Yep.

  27. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:35:06

      Thank you. And Josh, maybe this is a question to you or maybe Mr. Davis for before, but, so let's, let's think for a minute. If we had a federal definition, if we had one in our hand, if they came out with one next week, um, that based on the, the terms that are usually used about whether something's natural or unnatural or high in fat or not, operationally, when even with a good definition that included those things, how many, what would it take to implement it? How many different products are we talking about that might be involved that we, that would have to be sorted out? What would that look like? And I'll let Mr. Davis speak, but from what I've been told is, you know, several hundred thousand, this could result in SKUs packaging. If things are sold to different states, it's, it's in the hundreds of thousands. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  28. Josh Brown, Utah Manufacturers Association1:35:52

      So, uh, Madam Chair, that is, that's correct. Um, so let's look at just a typical Walmart Supercenter. It may have upwards of 120,000 SKUs in that store. Now, of that, roughly about 60% are food. And then, uh, so they, each of those labels would have to be evaluated to say, Hey, is this ultra processed? Is it not? Now the complexity gets even higher when you think about, uh, again, using Walmart. They have six private label brands. And so not only do you have to evaluate GIF and Skippy peanut butter, you have to evaluate great value peanut butter, and then you have to look at great value peanut butter that has a jam marbling in it, and the lit, it just goes on and on. This is why when you look at the fiscal note on this, DWS is looking like they're gonna have to allocate significant resources, uh, to just figuring out which items are gonna fall where this is why this, uh, I, I was just sort of floored by the three month timeline to, to work through all of this. So the level of difficulty not to go with an Olympic example right now, but, but, uh, soda may have been a, uh, single axle. This is a quinto axle that we're trying to pull off here.

  29. Committee chair (presiding)1:37:37

      Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Uh, we have two people online. We'll go Marianne Christensen. We're starting to run short on time, so I'm gonna give you 90 seconds. Okay. Okay, we're gonna, well, it's okay. Skip It. Sorry about that. It took a minute to get rejoined as a panelist. You're good.

  30. Maryann Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch1:38:17

      Go ahead. Mary Ann Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch, and I'm here to speak in favor of this bill. It's a little bit crazy that we spend a lot of money subsidizing food for people who need it, and I totally support doing that. But when we are stuffing them full of foods that just cause chronic health problems and obesity, which we have in the United States more than any other, um, country, first world country, and, um, and that causes us even more on the backend when people start having health problems related to those things. Um, I think it's important to remember that there's a kind of a magical thing about bills like this. We live in a free market economy, which means that when these things are coming down the pike, the, the manufacturers that still wanna make money, they make the adjustments and they make the adjustments all on their own. We're not talking about three months from today. We're not talking about three months from when the governor signs this bill. We're talking about three months from when the U-S-H-H-S adopts the definition. So I think there's quite a bit of time for, for manufacturers to start making these adjustments and they will. So I don't think that there's a huge detriment in any way to passing the bill. So I urge your yes vote. Thank you very much.

  31. Committee chair (presiding)1:39:42

      Thank you, Marianne. We'll go to Jennifer Henson.

  32. Jennifer Henson, Logan, Utah1:39:53

      Hello. I understand you're out of time, but I ask that you understand that I'm gonna talk a little bit slow for a second. Um, first of all, double your bucks is only available at farmer's markets. You cannot get that at Smith's or Walmart's. It's only during the summertime at farmer's markets. Um, my concerns are that, as she said, food insecurity is for the most vulnerable latchkey kids that rely on microwave convenience, like frozen burritos and instant oatmeal while their parents are at work, vulnerable seniors with limited mobility that depend on canned soup and microwave meals to live independently. The disabled community, like young adults living in DSPD care who have limited mental and physical capacity are often limited to microwave preparation. And until we can provide more care for these people, it is not fair to take, take away their primary food sources. Even in my own home where we cook from scratch, including making our own bread, my own health has advanced to the point that I cannot safely chop vegetables or lift a pot of boiling water to drain the water out without my family's support. I'd be entirely dependent on more accessible, highly processed, likely foods. Cooking from scratch is a luxury of time, health, and education that many simply do not have. And we cannot legislate nutrition without first addressing the crisis of accessibility and cooking skills. I ask that you physically audit your own pantries and separate what you believe should be banned to see how difficult a clear definition truly is and how difficult cooking for your own family would be. I ask that you hold this bill while we work together to solve the underlying issues in our communities.

  33. Committee chair (presiding)1:41:52

      Thank you for your comments, Jennifer. Oh, Jennifer, can you introduce yourself real quick?

  34. Jennifer Henson, Logan, Utah1:41:59

      Jennifer Henson, Logan, Utah.

  35. Committee chair (presiding)1:42:02

      Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. All right. I'm not seeing any further comments. We'll bring it back to the committee for any action Representative gracious.

  36. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:42:14

      Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to move amendment one in my name, That motion first sub Oh, adopt the first substitute. Sorry, I do that first.

  37. Committee chair (presiding)1:42:23

      All right. The motion to adopt the first substitute is in order. Um, would you like to speak to It? Oh, sorry. I'm doing everything out of order. It's an early morning, apparently. All good. Long week. All good. All right. We will take it to the sponsor or for any comment on No comment. Okay. All right. Motion is to adopt first, substitute HB 5 69. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes Representative Gracious.

  38. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:42:52

      Thank you. Now I would like to move amendment one in my name.

  39. Committee chair (presiding)1:42:56

      That motion is in order. We have it. Yep. All right. Would you like to speak to it? Yeah.

  40. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:43:00

      Um, it changes the three months to 180 days, which is what, um, we as a state standard or we typically require for all of our agencies when it comes to rulemaking authority. Um, fun fact, for any bill you all pass that has rulemaking authority in it, the agencies have 180 days to, to generate those rules. And we actually keep reports on who is and is not compliant. Um, so this just brings that into alignment with what the current practice is on all the other rules.

  41. Committee chair (presiding)1:43:29

      Thank you. Good to know that those fun facts as well. Um, we'll take it to the sponsor for reaction to that.

  42. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:43:35

      I'm okay with that. Thank you. All right.

  43. Committee chair (presiding)1:43:37

      We'll bring it to the committee for questions and comments, Representative Clancy.

  44. Rep. Clancy1:43:43

      Thanks, Madam Chair. Just a question for the sponsor. Would, would you be interested in working on an accessibility framework to this as well from our last testimony? Is that something that we could talk about?

  45. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:43:54

      Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

  46. Committee chair (presiding)1:43:59

      Thank you. All right. We'll bring it to the back to the maker of the motion. I'll wait. All right. So the motion is to adopt first, substitute to, sorry. Amendment number one. To first substitute HB 5 69. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Do anybody you wanna keep going or I don't see another light Representative Clancy,

  47. Rep. Clancy1:44:33

      Uh, thank you Madam Chair. I'll make a motion that we favorably recommend first substitute of this, uh, HPE 5 69 as amended, uh, out of onto the full body of the house.

  48. Committee chair (presiding)1:44:44

      That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to that?

  49. Rep. Clancy1:44:49

      I think, I think it has been a good discussion. Um, all, all I would say is that I, I absolutely support making our food supply healthier. I, I would say to, to my, my party is that I think it's incongruent if we're cutting snap benefits generally and then hoping to make this healthier. So I hope we can support both and we can enhance our food, uh, the, the money that's going to our nutritional benefits and making sure that the supply's healthier that representative Chevrolet's been working on well before she joined, uh, and was elected to the legislature. She's been a champion in this space of, of health for, for many, many years. And so I support the work and I know that if there's work to be done, I'll support her efforts in in getting that done. So thanks.

  50. Committee chair (presiding)1:45:39

      All right. Thank you. Kay. We have a Christmas tree going on on here, so, uh, comments to the motion to put forward Representative Ward.

  51. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:45:53

      Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I'm not ready to support it yet. Um, and just to be in communication with the sponsor who works in Indeed Indefatigably on these issues uh, to try and make things healthier for us. A cutoff for me is gonna be a definition, so we know for sure what we're talking about before we pass a policy about it. So that's just where I'll be.

  52. Committee chair (presiding)1:46:12

      Thank you Representative Acton.

  53. Rep. Cheryl K. Acton1:46:16

      Thank you. I also want to explain, um, I am also going, not going to vote for it, but I found most compelling of all the arguments, the last caller, Jennifer Henson's comments. Um, and then it, it brought me back to the realization we're talking about SNAP benefits and many people on SNAP benefits are in the situations that she described. The, um, and, and while it may have adverse effects on their health, um, it may be sometimes the only option for people who don't have help in the home or a parent in the home to prepare meals all the time. So I found that very compelling, but I also wonder, I I would like to have that definition. I think sometimes, I mean, I can't believe I'm saying this, but sometimes we can be too proactive, maybe. And, um, and when I think the federal government is moving in this direction, and, and I do think that we need better definitions and better, a better food supply. And I, I love a lot of the things that we're doing in that space, but I think we could move too quickly and leave maybe our SNAP recipients, the ones who are really not, who do not have those options that we would have to for convenience and so forth. So, but I do appreciate the effort to improve our food supply. That's, that's critical. And, and I would love to see our entire, our entire country go in that direction. So,

  54. Committee chair (presiding)1:47:51

      Thank you, Representative Acton, Representative Ward, or sorry, Representative Abbott.

  55. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:47:56

      Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanna thank the sponsor for her tireless efforts to make America healthy again. Um, I'm gonna vote no, and for a couple reasons. I think this is just too early. Um, I generally do not like to cede power to the federal government. I think we as a state need to carefully guard our power, and this bill gives power to the federal government. Now, this is a federal program, so maybe that's appropriate here, but we don't know what they're going to do. They may come out with a definition of ultra processed food, and it may apply to snap. And then at that point, we can decide, do we like their definition that's already being applied? Do we not like that definition? Do we want to get a waiver? I'm also hesitant to cede power to a reg, a rulemaking authority to a bureaucracy. And so that's concerning to me as well. And then lastly, I'm concerned about the burden we place on the industry if they're forced to go through and reprogram all of their systems for a federal ban, and then six months later reprogrammed for a state ban, and then have us as a legislature say, you know what? We don't like the rule that was adopted in the state, and so we're going to change it one more time. That's three times that they have to reprogram everything. And at most, we're buying ourselves six months because this cannot take effect until six months, until after the federal government adopts a rule. And so at best, we're, we're doing this for a six month window. And so I, I think we just wait a year and see where we're at. And if the federal government hasn't moved, maybe you come up with a definition that's actually workable and that we can all agree on instead of seeding that power to somebody else. So,

  56. Committee chair (presiding)1:49:45

      Thank you, representative Fat.

  57. Rep. Doug Fiefia1:49:49

      Thank you. Uh, we all have personal and political and, uh, moral opinions. And, uh, in cases like these, I really do try to be as objective as I can, even though that is impossible. But in this case, I did lean on, uh, a literature review because I'm a nerd and just looking at controlled, uh, trials that have been done, uh, in a few other states, uh, where they have looked at the differences between, um, SNAP restrictions versus SNAP incentives. Uh, and looking at that, that, that's pretty compelling to me. That, you know, there's, there isn't, uh, great data that shows that restrictions are shown to improve nutrition. Uh, while, um, you know, snap, uh, the Double Up Bucks program has been mentioned, uh, those kinds of approaches have, have been shown, uh, to be much more promising, uh, in terms of personal nutrition. And I'm just wary that, you know, the perception that policy decisions like these just reinforce this notion that Snap participants, basically, poor people, uh, cannot be trusted to make food decisions for their own families. And that's just not true. Um, and I'm happy to be alone in that opinion, but, uh, I believe that that stigma alone, um, harms mental health and physical health and just adds another burden on folks who are already struggling.

  58. Committee chair (presiding)1:51:06

      Thank you. Representative. Nu I I am going to make, well, there's one more question, representative gracious.

  59. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:51:15

      Go ahead. Okay. Um, I'm going to make an substitute motion. I'm gonna motion that we hold, um, and I will speak to that. I, I think you are doing such good work in this area, and we know your heart and we know your intent. Um, I think we can see kind of where it's going. I don't know that we'll have enough time to see it maybe next week, but, but I want to leave that option possibly open because I know you're working on things. Um, and that would be my intent to hold to, to hold it and let you still continue. Maybe some work on it next week. And if not, we push it to the interim and we really fully explore this because we know it's needed. We know there's something needed. Our, our kids are unhealthy. Our people are unhealthy, and we know what you're working towards here. Um, so my substitute motion would be to hold. So we will take, and I, I spoke to that, and we'll go to the maker or to the sponsor. Oh, wait. Oh wait. Clancy needs to go first. We're figuring this out. Okay. Convoluted. And then we'll go to the, the sponsor.

  60. Rep. Clancy1:52:24

      Okay. I just wanted to say we've seen a huge increase in obesity, diabetes, and cancer in our young people, and particularly in our low income population. And that is what we're trying to address here. It's to bring Snap back to its mission. I know there are lots of things that I could work on, on with Clancy and, um, also with the, the Utahans Against Hunger to try to build policies that help with this. Um, but I really do want us to see, to do something to make this better.

  61. Committee chair (presiding)1:52:59

      Thank you. So thank you. Thank you. We'll take you back to the committee for comments on the motion to hold Representative Daley Provo.

  62. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost1:53:08

      Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do apologize for Miss missing much of the conversation. This is something that I care deeply about as well. I just wanna speak in favor of the motion to hold, um, recognizing that, um, this is not an issue that we can stop looking at. This is critical. Um, but I think that taking a pause, and I would even support, um, as you mentioned, really looking at this over the interim, because increases in obesity, diabetes, cancer, all these things are absolutely true, but it is so much bigger than ultra processed foods. Although I fully agree that that's a huge, huge issue. I am really passionate about trying to, you know, and the, the, um, all the negative effects of ultra processed foods and the, and the degree to which, um, money making incentives, you know, in, in our nation and in our world, drive bad health. Um, but I would say looking at this in over interim, not just from the food that's available, but broader at the systems that create barriers that make being healthy almost impossible for so many people. Um, so I would really, really love to be a part of the conversations. Um, we have a shared goal in this. Absolutely. And I, I really celebrate that we have alignment here. Um, but I do think that as representative Fitz Aman who said this is, um, probably too narrow of an approach actually to address the, the bigger problem. And we wanna make sure that we're not stigmatizing or cutting off opportunities for our SNAP recipients to make the best decisions that they can for their families. So I would support the motion to hold, and thanks for giving me a few minutes to opine. Yeah.

  63. Committee chair (presiding)1:54:57

      Thank, thank you, representative Daley Provo. Okay. We will vote on, okay. We will go to a vote on the motion to hold HB 5 69 as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion passes. All right. Thank you, representative.