Colorado lawmakers are pushing forward with Senate Bill 169, a proposal that would allow food stamp recipients to use their benefits at restaurants. While proponents claim this will expand access to food for those in need, the reality is that this plan is deeply flawed, costly, and ripe for abuse.
If passed, the bill would require the state Department of Human Services to apply for the federal Restaurant Meals Program (RMP) by January 2026. This would allow Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients—including older adults, individuals with disabilities, and people experiencing homelessness—to purchase hot and prepared meals at participating restaurants.
While this might sound like a compassionate solution, it raises serious concerns about costs, fraud, and the true effectiveness of the program in addressing hunger.
Currently, SNAP benefits are intended to help low-income families buy groceries and cook at home, ensuring that funds are spent efficiently on nutritious, cost-effective meals. Allowing recipients to use these benefits at restaurants significantly increases costs, as prepared meals are far more expensive than home-cooked food.
For example, a family could buy ingredients for multiple meals at a grocery store for the same price as a single fast-food combo meal. With inflation still impacting food prices, this shift would lead to more taxpayer dollars being spent on fewer meals—a completely inefficient use of public resources.
Furthermore, expanding SNAP to restaurants will inevitably increase overall program costs. Colorado already has over 584,500 SNAP recipients—roughly 10% of the state’s population. Adding restaurant purchases to the mix could push those numbers even higher, straining an already expensive welfare system.
One of the major flaws of this plan is that it undermines SNAP’s original purpose of promoting nutritional well-being. The program was designed to help people buy healthy groceries, yet allowing food stamps at restaurants opens the door for widespread spending on fast food and unhealthy options.
The bill’s supporters argue that participating restaurants could be encouraged to use local produce and offer culturally diverse meals, but the reality is that many restaurants will likely be fast food chains. In other states with the Restaurant Meals Program, major fast-food companies have been some of the biggest participants.
This means taxpayers will end up subsidizing unhealthy eating habits, which could exacerbate diet-related health issues like obesity and diabetes among low-income populations. Instead of making it easier to eat nutritious food, this policy could actually do the opposite.
Expanding SNAP benefits to restaurants creates new opportunities for fraud and abuse. In states where the RMP has been implemented, there have been multiple reports of fraudulent transactions, including:
- Trading food stamps for cash at restaurants that accept SNAP
- Non-eligible individuals using other people’s benefits to purchase meals
- Restaurants inflating prices or engaging in price gouging to take advantage of government funds
Given that SNAP fraud is already a multi-million-dollar problem nationwide, this bill could make it even easier for bad actors to exploit the system. The lack of clear restrictions on which restaurants can participate only raises more concerns about how much oversight the state will actually have.
If Colorado moves forward with this proposal, it will set a dangerous precedent for expanding SNAP benefits even further. What’s next—SNAP covering meal delivery services, Uber Eats, or even grocery store hot bars?
This would blur the line between public assistance and personal convenience, turning SNAP into a blanket meal program rather than a tool to help struggling families buy essentials. Instead of expanding government dependency, lawmakers should focus on policies that encourage self-sufficiency and financial independence.
Proponents of the bill argue that this program will boost the restaurant industry by creating new customers. However, restaurants that choose to participate will have to navigate government regulations, meet strict requirements, and deal with the bureaucracy of the USDA and state health departments.
Many smaller businesses may find it too burdensome to participate, leaving big fast-food chains as the primary beneficiaries. This means taxpayer dollars will largely flow to corporate franchises rather than small, local businesses, contradicting one of the bill’s stated goals.
If lawmakers truly want to address food insecurity, there are better solutions than allowing SNAP benefits at restaurants. Some alternatives include:
✅ Expanding SNAP education programs to teach recipients how to cook healthy, affordable meals at home.
✅ Increasing access to discounted grocery programs that allow SNAP users to purchase nutritious food at lower costs.
✅ Investing in food banks and community meal programs, which provide free, hot meals to those in immediate need—without the risks of fraud or high costs.
✅ Creating incentives for local farmers’ markets to accept SNAP, encouraging the purchase of fresh, locally grown produce.
Rather than throwing more taxpayer money at a flawed idea, policymakers should focus on real solutions that make food both affordable and nutritious for low-income families.
Senate Bill 169 is being marketed as a compassionate measure, but in reality, it’s a misguided expansion of welfare that will drive up costs, encourage unhealthy eating, and open the door for fraud.
Rather than making SNAP more effective, this proposal dilutes its purpose, transforming it from a nutritional safety net into a government-subsidized restaurant program.
Colorado lawmakers should reject this bill and instead focus on real solutions to fight hunger—ones that promote self-sufficiency, nutrition, and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
The answer to food insecurity is not more government dependency—it’s smarter policies that empower people to make better choices for themselves and their families.
