Montana hearing on SNAP waiver to ban candy and sugary drinks draws broad opposition from retailers and food banks

Senator Daniel Zolnicob (Senate District 22) opened the hearing on Senate Bill 354, describing a request for a federal waiver that would make candy and sugar‑sweetened beverages ineligible for purchase with SNAP (food‑stamp) benefits. He told the committee the bill aims to better align SNAP purchases with nutritional goals and reduce spending on low‑nutrition items.

Student and health‑policy proponents told the committee SNAP funds should be focused on nutritious foods. Students who are SNAP recipients described household budgeting and urged the committee to restrict soda and candy purchases. “My family is a SNAP family,” seventh grader Ava Carlisle testified. “We don't need soda to survive.” The Montana Medical Association and other health groups said childhood obesity and diet‑related disease justify exploring policy changes.

Opposition came from a wide range of retailers, distributors and anti‑hunger organizations. Earl Allen, a long‑time convenience‑store operator, warned implementation would require item‑by‑item reviews of thousands of SKUs and pose a heavy administrative burden for small retailers. Brad Longcake of the Montana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association and grocery‑chain representatives raised similar operational concerns and said vendors could lose business or stop accepting SNAP if rules become too complex.

Food‑security organizations and food‑bank leaders also opposed the bill. Kira Condon of the Montana Food Bank Network said the proposed restriction would stigmatize SNAP recipients, could worsen food insecurity and would be difficult and expensive to administer. Jamie Quinn of Big Fork Food Bank warned that rural residents often rely on convenience stores as one of few nearby options and said the proposal risked creating or deepening “food deserts.”

Federal administration of SNAP figured prominently in the discussion. DPHHS witnesses and other testifiers noted that SNAP is operated through federal Food and Nutrition Service systems and that the state would rely on federal processes to implement any waiver. Several witnesses said prior waiver requests in other states had been denied or found administratively impractical. The department’s informational witnesses said enforcement and transaction‑level tracking largely reside with federal processors and that itemized purchase tracking is not available in current state systems.

Witnesses who support the bill argued it is a policy lever to reduce diet‑related disease and to encourage retailers to stock healthier items; opponents and informational witnesses said the bill would impose large administrative costs, have questionable effects on nutrition outcomes and could be rejected by federal authorities. Committee members asked detailed questions about definitions (for example, whether some flavored waters or granola bars would be banned), enforcement responsibility and how retailers would code eligible products.

The hearing ran several hours and closed without a committee vote recorded in the transcript; committee members discussed amendments and implementation questions throughout the testimony.