Meeting Public Comments

Stacy Volmer

I strongly oppose Senate Study Bill 3139 and its harmful SNAP restrictions. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program already operates under federal rules set by the United States Department of Agriculture. Allowing the state to redefine eligible foods invites bureaucratic chaos, federal conflict, and potential delays in benefits. That means real harm to Iowa children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities who rely on uninterrupted food assistance.This bill does not reduce hunger or lower food prices. It increases stigma, limits choice, and makes it harder for working families to put food on the table. Hunger should never be politicized. Iowa families deserve stability and access to groceries not government micromanagement of their carts. Reject this unnecessary and harmful proposal.

Martha Wolf

I am opposed to SSB 3139, and you should be, too. You continue to rein terror on SNAP recipients. There are federal standards set, and trying to add your 2 cents will only cause backlog, cogs in the wheel and probably delay some benefits. I would also say if SNAP recipients shouldn't have candy bars, perhaps you should ban them for all of us. Please look deep inside yourself and realize people on SNAP are not going to steal you blind you are letting all the contracted private companies do that. You have bigger problems than SNAP benefits. Look around you and see the cancer rates that are now national news. Why would someone want to move to our state? Economic pressures and Affordability, budget deficits, Health care crises, and Public Education!Thank you for reading this comment.Sincerely,Martha Wolf

David Anderson

The nutrition education requirement for nonnutritional medical specialists might be wellintentioned, but is likely to be a burden that will make our state even less appealing to medical professionals. Vote No.

Paige Chickering [Save the Children Action Network]

Please see the attached document. Thank you for your consideration.