Senate committee votes to send bill asking federal waiver to bar candy and soda from SNAP to the floor

Boise — The Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted on a voice vote to send House Bill 109 to the full Senate with a “do pass” recommendation after more than an hour of testimony and debate over whether the state should ask the federal government for a waiver to exclude candy and sugar‑sweetened beverages from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Senator Ben Toews, state senator for District 4 and sponsor of House Bill 109, told the committee the bill would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to request a federal demonstration waiver that would allow the state to prohibit purchases of candy and soda with SNAP benefits. “The actual purpose of the SNAP program…is to provide a nutritious diet to low income households,” Toews said, adding that studies show a substantial share of SNAP dollars are spent on sugary drinks and prepared desserts.

Supporters framed the measure as a modest step to improve nutrition and reduce long‑term health care costs. Brian Sickman of the Make America Healthy Project said state demonstration waivers are “the fastest way to implement change in the SNAP program” and that federal officials have encouraged states to innovate. Citizen testifiers who supported the bill emphasized public‑health data and taxpayer costs, with one testifier noting an empty soda bottle to illustrate sugar content.

Opponents warned the bill, as written, would create unworkable burdens for retailers and confusion for SNAP customers. Jan Beazer, a registered and licensed dietitian from District 17, told the committee the bill’s bakery‑ingredient threshold — which disqualifies foods that contain more than a stated percentage of flour by weight — is “unachievable,” saying recipe formulations are proprietary and not available on current nutrition labels. “There’s ambiguity…no one’s listing out” proprietary recipe percentages, Beazer said.

Retail and grocery trade groups also urged the committee to hold the bill. Pam Eaton, president and CEO of the Idaho Retailers Association, said recent federal EBT interoperability and portability rules were designed to make SNAP transactions uniform across states and that a state‑by‑state patchwork would reintroduce errors and confusion. “A typical grocery store stocks on average over 31,000 items,” Eaton said, adding that new products and changing recipes make retailer‑level classification impractical without federal guidance.

Industry representatives made additional arguments against the bill’s scope. Steve Thomas, representing the Idaho Soft Drink Association, said the beverage industry has reduced caloric footprints over decades and that many beverage products are now zero‑calorie; he argued the bill’s definition could sweep in non‑caloric beverages and that evidence linking soft drinks alone to rising obesity is not definitive.

Committee debate reflected the split testimony. Senator Gayann DeMordaunt (commenting as an example of a yes vote) said the bill still allows fruits, vegetables, meats and staples and that it would be a reasonable stewardship of taxpayer funds. Senator Melissa Wintrow argued the bill’s language was poorly drafted and said the state should not impose measures that will create confusion at checkout; she also noted the program serves about 129,000 Idaho recipients and that the average monthly benefit is about $175. Senator Stan Lemm (speaking as an example of an advocate) criticized industry lobbying and said reducing sugar purchases with taxpayer dollars is a reasonable goal.

After discussion, a motion to send House Bill 109 to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation was made and seconded. The committee approved the motion on a voice vote; the chair declared, “The ayes have it. The bill passes.” The committee did not set an implementation timeline; sponsors and some testifiers noted that any change would depend on USDA approval of a state demonstration waiver and that federal processes can be slow.

What the bill would do and next steps

House Bill 109 directs the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to request a federal waiver that, if approved by USDA, would exclude candy (as defined by the bill using a flour/ingredient threshold) and sugary beverages (defined by presence of natural or artificial sweeteners, with some exceptions) from SNAP purchases. The committee did not amend the bill to change the disputed flour threshold or the precise product definitions; questions about who would classify covered products — the state, retailers or manufacturers — remained unresolved.

The bill’s next step is consideration by the full Idaho Senate. If the Legislature were to approve a request and the state submitted a demonstration waiver, final implementation would require USDA approval. Committee members and witnesses noted that some other states have pursued similar laws and waivers, but the committee record shows disagreement over whether a state‑by‑state approach or a federal solution is preferable.

Votes at a glance

- House Bill 109 — Motion to send to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation: approved by committee on a voice vote; outcome declared “The ayes have it. The bill passes.” (voice vote; roll‑call tally not recorded in the committee transcript.)

Sources and limits of reporting

This article summarizes the committee hearing and testimony presented at the Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee meeting on House Bill 109. Quotations and numerical details are drawn from witness testimony and spoken remarks recorded in the committee transcript. The committee’s voice vote was announced at the hearing; no roll‑call vote or numerical tally was recorded in the available transcript. The timeline for any waiver application or USDA action was described in testimony as dependent on federal processes and was not specified in the hearing.