Living with the challenges of being Neuro Divergent, homeless, and without stable shelter, relying solely on my car for a semblance of stability is already a daunting reality. This personal struggle is now compounded by the recent EBT Waiver, approved by the USDA for Iowa, under the guise of law HF 970. This waiver, although seemingly benign, has severe and far-reaching consequences that demand immediate attention and action.

The waiver not only affects me directly but it also impacts the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands. Over 770,000 homeless individuals and 42.1 million Americans who grapple with food insecurity are at grave risk due to these waivers being given out like the “Candy” they say are Banning. It systematically limits our choices, forcing us to pick between outrageously expensive healthy foods or less nutritious options that ultimately run out faster. This leads to deteriorating health outcomes, not just for us, but for the entire taxpayer base that will inevitably bear the burden of increased healthcare costs.

The EBT Waiver poses a direct threat to our ability to source semi-healthy food options, effectively diminishing the already limited purchasing power of our benefits. How can such a policy be deemed sustainable or humane when it strips away dignity and compounds the struggles of the most vulnerable? [Scroll Down For More Information]

Statistically, the implications are dire. The USDA's own reports highlight that food insecurity is linked to chronic health conditions, developmental issues in children, and exacerbated mental health struggles. Iowa, under this waiver, stands to see an increase in these issues, with long-term repercussions on public health and economic stability.

Revisiting and revoking this waiver is crucial for the health and future of countless Iowans. Equitable food access should not just be a privilege but a basic right, accessible to everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status. Efforts should instead focus on expanding educational programs, supporting local agriculture to reduce costs, and ensuring that affordable, nutritious food options are accessible to all.

Join in demanding the revocation of this damaging waiver. Sign this petition to urge Iowa lawmakers and the USDA to reconsider and prioritize the welfare of all residents, leading towards a healthier, more equitable future for everyone. By lending your voice, you stand up for those whose voices need amplification, for the betterment of our communities. We can't afford delay. We must act now. Sign and share this petition today!

This Petition is important; it will include a lot of information, logic, facts, and statistics with sources, and suggestions that I have gathered over the past 8+ months. I am going through hundreds and hundreds of documents, and revivifying facts and organizing them in a more readable fashion. Instead of waiting until all of the information was here, I decided to start the petition and add updates as I have access to the internet. This way more people will have the ability to see the basic information, sign, and get updates as they're added.

Feel free to skip thru the different sections all at once or split up you’re reading. The most important thing is to get this information out there, out to the people that need to hear it the most, your neighbor, your employer, the local retail stores, our farmers, our state and federal representatives. We need to stand up for those that have no idea the changes that are coming, for the already food insecure; the elderly, the disabled, the homeless, etc. 
I have tried to contact every state and federal representative and was ignored because I was just one PERSON. Help me spread the word, help this idea ignite the FIRE in the hearts and souls of America, because this is not Just IOWA, this is coming to YOUR STATE IF YOU DON'T SPEAK UP!!!.

=====================================================================================
FACTS/STATISTICS:
=====================================================================================
Food insecurity is defined as “a lack of access to the kinds and amounts of food
necessary for each member of a household to lead an active and a healthy lifestyle”
(SOURCE: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/food-insecurity?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

For every dollar spent on Soda/Sugary Drinks/Candy 5 cents is purchased with EBT/SNAP verse 4 cents for non EBT/SNAP transactions. 

Also, the USDA concluded that the difference between EBT/SNAP and Non EBT/SNAP purchases were "Negligible", and given the sample groups make up and size along with the margin of error you could them almost "Identical". 

Bulk:
12pk/15pk/18pk count can packages [Ranked 2 out of 1000]
20pk/24pk Can [Ranked 25 out of 1000]
Multi-Pack Bottles [Ranked 36 out of 1000]

Single-Serve:
Single Serve Bottle [44 out of 1000]
Single Serve Can [281 out of 1000]
1 Liter Bottle [Ranked 431 out of 1000]
[Source: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased-Appendices.pdf

According to the USDA the Average benefit per person (dollars per month) was $230.48 in 2022 and $211.93 in 2023 [-8.0%]
[Source: https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/109314/EIB-274.pdf?v=64842

Average EBT/SNAP Benefit Amount In Iowa $215 Per Month [Or Around $2,580 Per Year]
[Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP-household-state-averages/2019

Average Cost To Eat "Healthy": $1,000-$1,200 Per Month [$12,000-$14,000 yearly]

Spending During FY 2022
"By day 7 of the [EBT/SNAP] issuance period 61 percent of households had redeemed more than 50 percent of their issued benefit(s) with nearly one-third of households (32 percent) redeeming 91 percent or more. 

By day 14, 86 percent of households had redeemed more than half of their issued benefit, and 60 percent of households had redeemed more than 90 percent.

Two-fifths (40 percent) of participating households reached a balance of less than $1 by the end of the month; about 9 percent had done so by day 7." 
[Source: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-benefit-redemption-fy22.pdf

On Average around 17.5% of ALL Americans eat healthy [between 15%-20% depending where you receive information and what you consider "Healthy"].
[Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-households

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found out that more than 36 percent of Americans are consuming fast food regularly, to the extent that on any given day, a third of Americans is eating from fast food restaurants."
[Source: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/03/health-food-us/

According to a Sandford Study a ban on foods has a "negligible" impact on "Obesity"
The study was led by Dr. Sanjay Basu and involved a computerized simulation to model the effects of a ban on purchasing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) with SNAP benefits.
It estimated that a ban could lead to a 1.12% reduction in adult obesity and a 0.41% reduction in childhood obesity among SNAP participants over a 10-year period.
The simulation accounted for possible substitutions, such as people using cash for SSBs or substituting them with other high-calorie items like fruit juice.

According to the USDA the Average benefit per person (dollars per month) was $230.48 in 2022 and $211.93 in 2023 [-8.0%]
[Source: https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/109314/EIB-274.pdf?v=64842

Average EBT/SNAP Benefit Amount In Iowa $215 Per Month [Or Around $2,580 Per Year]
[Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP-household-state-averages/2019

Average Cost To Eat "Healthy": $1,000-$1,200 [$12,000-$14,000 yearly]

A recent study found that following the MyPlate Dietary Guidelines would cost a family of four between $1,000-$1,200 a month ($12,000.00-$14,400 annually) depending on the age of the family members and the percentage of fruits and vegetables that were fresh, frozen, and canned (Mulik & Haynes-Maslow, 2017). For a comparison, the average middle-income family in the United States spends roughly $6,224 on food each year with the average low-income family spending even less at roughly $3,862 per year (USDA, 2017). With this information in mind, following these recommendations may not be feasible for the typical family."
[Source: https://extension.usu.edu/nutrition/research/does-healthy-eating-cost-more

Currently around 11% Of Iowans and 15.4% of Iowa children [This translates to nearly 344,550 Iowans, including 110,500 children Suffer "Food Insecurity". in some form, and Around 59% of Americans Are "One-Pay-Check" Away From Being "Homeless". Adults In Households With Less Food Security Are Likelier To Have A Chronic Illness. Only 1.58% of Americans Eat an "Ideal" or "Healthy" Diet.

"While a large portion of Americans claim to try to eat healthy, a significant number also struggle to meet the dietary guidelines for a healthy lifestyle. A Pew Research Center study indicates that 21% of Americans say their diets are extremely or very healthy, while another 60% say their diets are somewhat healthy. However, a study by Oregon State University found that only 2.7% of Americans meet all four pillars of a healthy lifestyle, including balanced diet, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, and getting moderate exercise."
[source: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+americans+eat+healthy&sca_esv=d12916411115a520&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS1165&ei=yx4-aMnyOI2iptQPmsnOqQ4&oq=what+percentage+of+americans+eat+hea&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJHdoYXQgcGVyY2VudGFnZSBvZiBhbWVyaWNhbnMgZWF0IGhlYSoCCAAyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSM1SUO4MWJxIcAN4AJABAJgBbqABoxOqAQQzNC4yuAEDyAEA-AEBmAInoAKbFMICCBAAGLADGO8FwgILEAAYgAQYsAMYogTCAgsQABiwAxiiBBiJBcICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICCxAuGIAEGJECGIoFwgIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBcICFhAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGEMYgwEYxwEYigXCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAg0QABiABBhDGMkDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYkgMYigXCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARiKBcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIoFwgIIEAAYgAQYsQOYAwCIBgGQBgWSBwQzNy4yoAe1kAKyBwQzNC4yuAeUFMIHBzAuMjcuMTLIB24&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

EBT/SNAP can be used in ANY "STATE". This means the wavier in Iowa can be used in ANY of the surrounding [SIX] states without a wavier [Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Currently only Nebraska has an APPROVED waiver from the USDA. From Des Moines You could drive 105 miles [1 hour and 32 minutes] To Walmart in Bethany, MO is approximately 105 miles. 
If you take the average MPG of 20, it would take 5.25 gallons to get there [10.5 round trip] 
the average cost of gas as $3.09/gal, so a trip would cost $16.25 [$32.50 round trip].

In fiscal year 2022, Iowans received an average of $60.4 million in SNAP benefits each month [$724.8 million annually]. 
For every $1.00 EBT/SNAP spent generates between $1.50 and $1.80 [$1.66 average] in economic activity, especially during economic downturns.
If you take the $1.66 x $60.7million = Potential Loss is $91,050,000 a month. Now realistically 100% of people won't be able to make this trip, more like 10%-30%, maybe as high as 50%. 
10% x $91,050,000 = $9,105,000 /Per Month
30% x $91,050,000 = $27,315,000 /Per Month
50% x $91,050,000 = $45,525,000 /Per Month

Some Fruit Juice Contain Similar Amounts Of Sugar As Soda: 
Average of 2.85g Of Sugar Per Oz For Juice and 3.25g/3.35g Of Sugar Per Oz For Soda

Some Yogurt Contain More Sugar Per Serving Than A Candy Bar:
Yogurt = 12g-50g, Candy Bar = 8g-30g

Some Milk Contain More Sugar Than Soda or Candy Bars: 
Milk = 12g-50g, Candy Bar = 8g-30g

Some Cereal Contain More Sugar Than Milk, Fruit Juice, Soda, or Candy Bars:
Cereal [Unsweetened] = 0g-1g Per Serving, Cereal [Sweetened] = 10g-40 Per Serving

Some Fruits Contain More Sugar Than Milk, Fruit Juice, Soda, or Candy Bars:
Mangoes: A single mango contains approximately 46 grams of sugar. 
Grapes: A cup of grapes contains about 23 grams of sugar. 
Cherries: A cup of cherries contains around 18 grams of sugar. 
Pears: One medium pear has about 17 grams of sugar. 
Bananas: A medium-sized banana contains about 14 grams of sugar. 
Dates: 63g Per Serving
Figs: 47g Per Serving
Raisins: 68g Per Serving
Watermelon: 9g Per Serving
Apples: 19g Per Serving

A Bowl Of Cereal Can Have The Most Sugar Per [Recommended] Serving:
Milk = 12g-50g, Cereal = 0g-40g = 12g to 90g <--
Average Person [92%] Eats More The Recommended Serving Size
Average Bowl Holds 1.5-2 Servings

Average Groceries bought Per Week By Iowans x Number of Iowans on EBT = $227.32 x 259,300.00 = 58,944,076 <-- Could be lost in a week, a day, or year depending on how the law goes [or worst case taken down to 1/3 [or around $19,648,025.33].

Iowa being the largest corn producer.
5.9% of GDP [3.8% HFCS, and 2.1% Sweeteners]. 
Now the numbers of course are just an example of "Potential" Loss.
::NOTE:: The full impact of the loss in GDP would most likely not occur with a change at state level, but if the Federal EBT/SNAP is changed to reflect this [as they have a similar option going through]

Example: 
3.8% [HFCS] x 46.6 Billion GDP= $1.7708 billion U.S. dollars <-- Potential Loss In GDP
(3.8% [HFCS] + 2.1% [Sweeteners]) x 46.6 Billion = 5.9% [HFCS/Sweeteners] x 46.6 Billion = 2.7494 billion U.S. dollars <-- Potential Loss In GDP

=====================================================================================
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
=====================================================================================

HF970, [The Law allowing for the EBT/SNAP benefit wavier] - CURRENT STATUS

The bill failed to become law during the 91st General Assembly (2025–2026). 
Passed the House: The bill passed the Iowa House of Representatives on March 26, 2025.
Died in the Senate: After being sent to the Senate, it was referred to the Appropriations Committee. The bill was not passed by the committee before the legislative deadline and, therefore, died in committee on June 16, 2025. Yet the waiver application was submitted, and approved.
I personally called the Governor’s Office on Friday May 30th, 2025 and was told the Bill was sitting on her desk unsigned. I was told the only thing I could do was suggest it be "Vetoed", of which I did. The first day it could have been signed [If legally passed through the House and Senate] would have been Monday June 2nd, 2005. Take A look at the information below it shows the time-line of the wavier and one reason to question the "Legality" of it. 

April 1st, 2025 - Governor Kim Reynolds submitted a letter to Secretary Brooke Rollins and the USDA for the EBT/SNAP waiver
[Source: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-foodrestriction-waiverRequest-iowa.pdf

May 22nd, 2025 - Secretary Brooke Rollins sent a letter to Governor Kim Reynolds Approving the EBT/SNAP waiver.
[Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/waivers/foodrestriction/iowa

Friday May 30th, 2025 - I called the Governor’s office and was told the bill was on the governor’s desk and was NOT SIGNED. [The first day to be signed would be Monday June 2nd, 2025.
Terms And Conditions Of USDA Waiver - [Source: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-foodrestriction-waiverApproval-Iowa.pdf#page=5

The legal loop-hole used was similar to the President's "Executive Orders". The federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 allows the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to approve "novel demonstration projects," a power the USDA exercised in this case. While HF970 aimed to create a state law, Governor Kim Reynolds and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services instead pursued an administrative waiver through their executive authority. If you read through The Federal Food And Nutrition Act of 2008 there are a few legal questions that no one will let me address listed below.
[Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10331/pdf/COMPS-10331.pdf

Mandatory evaluation: A state must include a plan to evaluate the project's impact, which is a key component distinguishing a demonstration project from a simple waiver. This evaluation must be submitted to the FNS. - How can you have an "Unbiased" Evaluation of a program that with all of the products being banned? You will not be able to say it reduced soda/candy purchases because you banned them. Banning something will "Obviously" show a 100% reduction in "Sugary Drinks" and "Candy" purchases.

Cost neutrality: The project must be designed to be cost-neutral, so it does not increase federal SNAP costs. = The information listed on the USDA already shows an increased cost of $150,000 to "inform" the public [which has not been sent out yet]. This increases the Federal SNAP costs by a minimum of $75,000 due to the 50% of administration fee's that are paid at the Federal Level. This does not account for other estimated costs to update, maintain, and educate. I have tried to contact the governor’s office for more information and they haven't responded. These changes could end up costing $2,000,0000 to $6,000,000, half of which taxpayers in other states would be responsible for paying. This is far from "Cost-Neutral"

With the two requirements above, this waiver should not have been approved in its current state, as it’s unable to full-fill the bare minimum. There are better ways to implement this program to test how it works and get "Un-Biased" data. I'll list those below in the "Suggestions Section".

The EBT/SNAP Waiver does more than just "Eliminate" "Soda" [Sugary Drinks] And "Candy" Like what is advertised on the News.

Excerpt From Iowa HF970 [The Law Approving The State To Request The Waiver]
"to only include healthy foods and beverages based on necessary nutrition for good health, 31 including but not limited to healthy grains, dairy, meat, eggs,  peanut butter and nuts, pasta, rice, legumes, and fruits and vegetables.
Upon receipt of federal approval as described in subsection 1, the healthy food based on necessary nutrition for good health standards shall not be rescinded without enacting legislation.  Sec. 3. CONTINGENT EFFECTIVE DATE. The following takes effect on the date the department of health and human services receives federal approval to modify eligible foods for purposes of state administration of the supplemental food and nutrition program as specified under this Act, if federal approval is received:"
[Source: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGR/91/HF970.pdf

Does that sound like only "Soda" And "Candy"? No, It can potentially "ELIMINATE" 2/3's of ALL Items In Your Local Store. It also has the potential side effect of making some retailers "ineligible" to accept EBT/SNAP by not carrying enough of the "APPROVED" items as stated on the USDAs page for eligibility. Also, If It Was Only "Soda" And "Candy" why isn't it going into effect until January 2026 instead of right away? Because it’s taking months to update the "Food Lists" for the government, then filter that down to retailers, then down to the benefit users. All of this comes with extra and unnecessary costs to taxpayers in EVERY State as the Federal Government Provides ALL of the Benefits, but pays 50% of the administrative costs.
[Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailer/eligible

EBT/SNAP Is An "OPTIONAL" Program and Retailers can "OPT-OUT" At Any Time. If the revenue brought in by accepting EBT/SNAP is lower than the cost to update/maintain their systems retailers will decide to stop accepting or have certain purchase requirements like with Credit Cards.

Banning Something Never Prevents People From Consuming ANYTHING. Take the Prohibition, when it banned alcohol did people stop consuming it? No!! It led to unnecessary and preventable deaths, needless criminal organizations filling the void, increased tax payer spending to "Enforce" the new law(s) and fight the "Nefarious" groups and "Black Markets". The only good thing that came out of the Prohibition was "NASCAR" [if you like NASCAR that is]. This will be the exact same, when there is a "NEED" or a "DEMAND" and the "GOVERNMENT" BANS or DENIES it, someone always finds a way to profit. It will be EBT/SNAP Trafficking next.

The amount of Sugar Per Serving Is Less Important Than The "NUMBER OF SERVINGS" Of Each Item. Aka "Too Much Of A Good Thing Can Be A Bad Thing". Even with Fresh Fruits. The Key is education, and exercise. If you eat too much of the "Sugary" Healthy Foods you can suffer the same Obesity complications as with those linked to the Sugary Drinks And Candy This Bill Appears To Be Trying To "Eliminate". In the end we eliminate up to 2/3's of the current "Food" options, making more Iowans suffer "Food Insecurity" by limiting the "Affordable" options and decreasing their already low purchasing power. 

As the new law limits around 2/3's of the average grocery stores products from being purchased. Hit the hardest would be the almost 11,000 homeless people that rely on EBT as a primary source of nutrition. You might say "Why not go to the local churches, charities and organizations that offer hot meals?" I say have you went there? they are far from "Nutritious" as they are focused on the same thing low-income and homeless people are, making each dollar, each dime, each penny stretch as far as it can. 

=====================================================================================
SUGGESTIONS:
=====================================================================================

1.
Iowa is one of ten states [California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont] that have a "Bottle" Deposit Law.
This offers a "Unique" opportunity. Instead of banning "Sugary Drinks" and "Candy", just "Eliminate" the ability to pay "Bottle" Deposit with EBT/SNAP. This might seem too simple, and it is. It's also proven by the USDA's own studies. Most "Soda" is purchased in "BULK" [#2 out of 1,000 for Both EBT/SNAP users and Non EBT/SNAP Users]
[Source: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased-Appendices.pdf

 if you eliminate the ability to pay the Bottle Deposit, you will reduce the "likely-hood" of purchasing in BULK. While at the same time not eliminating the ability to have a soda. This still allows a single mother the option to buy a cake, ice cream, and some soda for her children’s birthday, or rewarding them with a candy bar and/or soda for doing well in school, but will limit the amount purchased as deposit will have to be paid for with cash. Even being a homeless person who lives in his car, I can easily find a "penny" here or a "quarter" there. 
This option would be the best "Test" case for the "Experimental" USDA Wavier and could go on for the programs two years. After the first year compare the USDA's current data with the EBT/SNAP purchases to see if there are any changes, then do the same for the following year. After the two years take the data and compare the sales to see if the impact was positive. 
The difference between EBT/SNAP purchases is "Negi bile" [EBT/SNAP Users 5 Cents/dollar, Non EBT/SNAP 4 Cents/dollar]

PROS: 
1. Minimal Cost To Update Systems [State And Private]
2. Minimal Impact On Lost Soft Drink Sells
3. Increase benefits used towards other foods
4. Decrease overall intake of "BULK" soda
5. Offers valuable information that can be used as a template for other states.
6. Won't Increase EBT/SNAP and Medicare Costs to ALL American taxpayers
7. Will encourage "healthier" alternatives
8. Can reduce Overall Healthcare costs and preventable deaths [I.E A diabetic the ability to grab something "Quick" if Sugar drops]
9. Won't Reduce Jobs
10. Won't Eliminate 2/3's of ALL Items In A Grocery Store

CONS: N/A

2.
Allow The purchase of Hot Beverages [I.E. Coffee, Tea]

Instead of eliminating these drinks which will barely have an impact on someone's overall Health, Why Not Try Allowing Hot Coffee To Be Purchased With EBT/SNAP [At Least During The Cold [Winter Months], preferably all times. This would have no Negative effects on the Economy or Health of Iowa.
58%-60% of Americans Prefer Coffee to "Soft Drinks"
75% of Americans would choose coffee over "Soft Drinks" If Given The Choice [decreasing the amount of "Soft Drinks" Purchased].

Allowing Coffee To Be Purchased Can Save Lives, Allowing Low-Income, Disabled, And Homeless People To Have An "Affordable" And Healthily Option To Stay Warm. At The Same Time Lower The Risk Of People Choice Alcohol or other Illicit Substances To Stay Warm Or At Least "Forget About The Cold".
https://www.change.org/EBTHotDrinks <-- Petition I Started To Allow The Purchase Of Hot Beverages With EBT/SNAP benefits

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that the age-adjusted rate of cold-related deaths rose from about 4 per 1 million people in 1999 to 9 per 1 million people in 2022. 
[Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articleabstract/2828342#google_vignette

PROS:
1. Increase sales
2. Increase Jobs
3. Increase Sales Tax Collected
4. Minimal cost to update systems
5. Little to No Cost to Educate Retailers/End Users
6. Potential to Reduce Healthcare costs
7. Potential to Reduce preventable deaths
8. Potential to Reduce Substance Abuse [Especially during Cold Months]
9. Increase Buying Power of Non-Food items For Those In Poverty
10. Good Test case for the experimental wavier approved by USDA that can be used in other states
11. Help increase overall health without negative consequences.

CONS: N/A

Option 3:
After testing the effectiveness of the above options [separately], analyze the data, and then add both options together. Allow Hot Beverages to be purchased with EBT/SNAP and Take Away the option to pay bottle deposit. This option would have the biggest Positive impact and negligible if any negative impacts.