In a letter sent today to the U.S. House Rules Committee, the Center for Individual Freedom urged opposition to efforts to restrict choice within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

Read the full letter below.

Dear Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member McGovern,

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) and more than 300,000 activists and supporters across the nation, I write to express strong opposition to an effort before your committee that would restrict choice within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  Representative Keith Self recently filed an amendment (Amit. 29) to H.R. 9027 that would categorically eliminate carbonated products from eligibility for purchase under SNAP, despite a bipartisan decision by the House Appropriations Committee to remove a pilot program implementing such restrictions from this spending bill during markup in committee.  

Eliminating consumer choice to purchase snacks, soda and other targeted products from SNAP in that manner constitutes an egregious and unnecessary example of “nanny state” micromanagement of Americans’ lives and arbitrarily infringes upon their longstanding right of individual choice in choosing products for themselves and their families. 

In addition to arbitrarily infringing upon individual consumer freedom, efforts to use the power of the federal government to remove entire categories of everyday grocery items from SNAP eligibility creates a dangerous precedent that could be exploited to target an endless number of politically unfashionable consumer products in the future.  For example, as the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association recently wrote, “Restricting SNAP purchases is a slippery slope that could be easily misused and manipulated in future Farm Bill negotiations or Administration priorities.”  

We at CFIF highlighted that danger in a recent op-ed in the D.C. Journal:  

“The misguided proposal to restrict certain products from SNAP also represents a clear philosophical misstep.  Namely, our elected representatives should support individual freedom and limited government, trusting the American people to make decisions for their families.  Proponents of new SNAP restrictions ignore that principle.  

“For example, what would stop overzealous politicians and bureaucrats from pursuing other items on their radical dietary agenda by, say, restricting the purchase of red meat or foods that they claim harm the environment?  Once that Pandora’s Box opens, it will be impossible to close.”  

CFIF rejects the offensive premise that government officials know how to manage Americans’ lives better than those individuals themselves.  Consumers, whether they are SNAP beneficiaries or not, must retain their freedom to make their own educated decisions in determining what foods and beverages to serve their families.  

Restricting SNAP won’t improve health outcomes, but it will add even more bureaucracy to the program and set a worrisome precedent for future government intrusion into purchasing decisions made by everyday Americans.  

Accordingly, CFIF urges you to vote against this amendment should it come up for a vote before your committee.