Sponsor seeks federal waiver to bar SNAP purchases of soft drinks and candy; industry and food-security groups oppose

Senate Bill 354, introduced by Senator Daniel Zolnikov, would request a U.S. Department of Agriculture waiver allowing Montana to prohibit the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase soft drinks and candy.

Sponsor argument: Senator Zolnikov told the committee that roughly 20% of SNAP purchases nationwide go to sweetened drinks and snack foods and framed the waiver as a way to redirect benefit dollars toward more nutritious food. He argued the change would protect public health — citing links between sugary beverages and obesity, diabetes and dental disease — and said existing federal examples (WIC) show product-level limits are administrable.

Supporters at the hearing included the Montana Medical Association, which urged the committee to consider the measure as part of broader efforts to improve nutrition and reduce chronic disease in children and adults.

Opponents urged rejection. Elaine Taylor of the Montana Beverage Association said restriction waivers have not previously been granted at the federal level and warned of unknown costs and operational complexity for the state and retailers if Montana attempts such a waiver. The Montana Food Bank Network and other anti-hunger groups opposed the bill on the grounds that SNAP recipients already have better or equal self-reported health metrics compared with similarly low-income nonparticipants, that classifying foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy" has no clear consensus, and that food restrictions can stigmatize beneficiaries and depress retailer participation (WIC has lower retailer participation when restrictions apply). Convenience-store trade groups also testified that point-of-sale systems and product classifications would be operationally difficult and potentially exclude participation by small retailers.

Department of Public Health and Human Services staff appeared as informational witnesses and explained that SNAP implementation differs from WIC: WIC typically uses UPC-based eligibility lists and is narrower, while SNAP restrictions would require retailer-level configuration and state-federal coordination. Committee members asked about practical implementation and fiscal impacts; sponsors and opponents agreed additional federal guidance would be required and that operational costs and retailer training would be significant considerations.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing after technical discussion; no vote was recorded and state agencies signaled concerns about administrative burden and retailer impact.