Bill seeking to limit SNAP purchases advances

BOISE — A Senate committee on Tuesday narrowly advanced a bill to prohibit candy and soda purchases on SNAP food assistance.

House Bill 109 would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to ask permission from the federal government through a waiver to its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to prohibit the program’s use for candy or soda.

The bill received mixed support, with some saying that taxpayer funds shouldn’t go toward unhealthy foods and opponents arguing that the definition was too vague to be workable and that people’s groceries shouldn’t be micromanaged. There were five people who spoke in favor and six who spoke in opposition.

The bill defines candy as a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of confections, bars, drops or pieces. The definition does not include any item that contains more than 10% flour by weight or requires refrigeration.

Soda is defined as nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners, excluding milk or milk substitutes, drinks that are more than 50% vegetable or fruit juice by volume, and those that require preparation such as powders.

“These definitions capture the vast majority of junk food and sugary beverages that provide little to no nutritional value and consequently have no place in a program that has nutrition in its name,” sponsor Sen. Ben Toews, R-Couer d’Alene, said at the hearing Tuesday.

He said that the definitions came from the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which a number of states use to create uniformity among states for administration of sales taxes. Idaho is not a member of the agreement, according to the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, Inc.

Questions about the definition largely centered on the exemption for foods that were “more than 10% flour by weight.” The Dec. 20, 2024, sales tax agreement, which was the most recently available document on the website, does not include the 10% weight requirement, and exempts from the candy definition “any preparation containing flour and shall require no refrigeration.”

Jen Beazer, a Boise resident who is also a dietitian, said she was “both for and against” the bill. She said she supported the idea of people eating less sugar, but said that the recipes on food and the composition of flour is proprietary information that is unavailable. She also noted that flour is a “loosely defined ingredient,” that varies in nutritional value and could include tapioca flour or whole grain flour.

“Love the idea, but I think this is not going to get where you want it to go,” Beazer said.

Roy Leonardson, of the Florida-based group FGA Action, spoke in support of the bill. He said he’s advocating for the same change in other states across the U.S., “because Washington, D.C., has been afraid to have this conversation.”

Lobbyists on behalf of the soft drink industry, grocers and other retailers all spoke in opposition, especially in regard to the definition of candy and soda in the bill.

Hank Allen, who described himself as a citizen and taxpayer, likened the opposition to the change to remove candy and soda with pushback by tobacco industry lobbyists.

“There’s always going to be lobbyists and people who are making money, they’re going to be pushing back against new laws,” Allen said.

Sen. Brandon Shippy, R-New Plymouth, said he understood that some opposed the bill over the issue of freedom, but he supported it because of its use of taxpayer money.

Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld, R-Twin Falls, said she’d been “on the fence” on the bill. She noted that she didn’t want funds to go toward people being unhealthy but said she also represented the grocers in her district.

“Being a taxpayer, I don’t like that my money is being used for something that will make somebody unhealthy, but when you look at obesity, it’s not just about the calorie intake, it’s also about the exercise,” Zuiderveld said. “So maybe we can maybe require the SNAP recipients to have to walk a mile to the grocery store before using their card. I don’t know.”

Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, said the bill was micromanaging a relatively small population. For fiscal year 2024, Idaho had 130,900 SNAP recipients, which is about 7% of the state population. The average benefit is $179 per household member, per month, according to a 2025 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“I just think it’s a little bit nanny state,” Wintrow said. “It’s so controlling.”

Wintrow said there were better ways to address obesity.

Zuiderveld noted that she agreed with others who said that obesity and health were problems, but said she didn’t think the bill would help that goal.

“I have the solution, but it’s going to sound harsh, but it’s biblical,” she said. “If you don’t work, you don’t eat, that will fix our obesity problem, right there, not to mention it’ll help our workforce problem.”

The committee voted in a divided voice vote — all who agreed said “aye,” and those who opposed said “nay” — to send the bill to the full Senate.

Guido covers Idaho politics for the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News and Idaho Press of Nampa. She may be contacted at lguido@idahopress.com and can be found on Twitter @EyeOnBoiseGuido.