Debate erupts over bill asking Idaho to seek federal waiver to bar soda and candy from SNAP

Representative Jordan Redmond, R‑District 3, presented House Bill 109, which would direct the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to request a USDA waiver to prohibit purchases of soda and candy with SNAP (food‑stamp) benefits. Redmond framed the bill as a public‑health measure, saying SNAP should align with WIC’s existing nutritional restrictions.

“This is about health. This is not a punishment. Better choices mean better lives,” Redmond told the committee, describing WIC’s targeting of healthier foods as a model and citing data he said show SNAP participants consume more sugar‑sweetened beverages and have poorer diet quality than non‑participants with similar incomes.

The committee heard more than an hour of public testimony and back‑and‑forth questioning. Supporters, including Paige Terryberry (FGA Action) and Mike Baker (testifying as an individual with a health‑care background), argued sugary drinks and candy drive obesity and chronic disease and that the bill would reduce taxpayer costs tied to long‑term health care. “Sugary drinks alone account for nearly 10% of all SNAP purchases,” Terryberry said.

Opponents included Dawn (Don) Pierce of Hunger Free America and the Idaho Hunger Relief Task Force, the Idaho Soft Drink Association (Steve Thomas), and representatives of grocery retailers (Pam Eaton, Idaho Retailers Association; Melinda Merrill, Northwest Grocery Retail Association). Opponents raised three central concerns:

- Federal law: Witnesses noted federal SNAP rules generally prohibit states from imposing additional food restrictions and cited a 2004 USDA letter to Minnesota denying a similar attempt; witnesses said a waiver pathway is narrow and has not routinely been granted.

- Administrative burden: Retailers said implementing a state‑specific eligible‑food list would impose a major operational burden across tens of thousands of SKUs and could require retailers to police purchases at checkout.

- Access and equity: Hunger‑relief advocates said SNAP recipients have very low per‑meal benefit levels and removing items could restrict access or confuse beneficiaries; they urged boosting benefits or incentives for healthy purchases instead.

Committee members proposed and debated several procedural motions. Representative Kaler moved to hold the bill for approximately two weeks to gather stakeholder input; Representative McCann offered substitute motions to send the bill to general orders or to hold in committee. Multiple roll calls and voice votes followed. After recorded votes on competing motions, the committee ultimately approved a motion to set the bill to return to committee at a time certain (the sponsor and other members indicated willingness to meet for amendments). The chair announced HB 109 will be set to come back to the committee for further work rather than die outright.

The record shows strong opinions on both sides. Retailers emphasized technical implementation obstacles and potential cross‑border shopping impacts; public‑health supporters emphasized the fiscal and health costs of sugar consumption. Committee members asked sponsors to consider narrower definitions, model alignment with WIC, and to work with retailers and Health and Welfare on feasibility and federal waiver strategy before the bill returns.