Adds to existing law to provide that the director of the Department of Health and Welfare shall seek a waiver to exclude candy and soda from supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits.
Summary
House Bill 109 amends Idaho law to require the Director of the Department of Health and Welfare to seek a federal waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would exclude candy and soda from foods eligible for purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The bill defines “candy” and “soda” for this purpose, including exclusions for certain products such as items containing flour, beverages with milk or milk substitutes, and drinks that are mostly fruit or vegetable juice. If the waiver is approved, the department must prohibit SNAP purchases of those items; if the waiver is denied, the director must continue to request the waiver annually until it is granted.
The bill also includes an emergency clause and takes effect on July 1, 2025. In practical terms, it would not directly change federal SNAP rules, but it would direct Idaho’s state agency to pursue a federal waiver and, if successful, enforce a state-level restriction on the use of SNAP benefits for candy and soda. The measure affects SNAP recipients, retailers that accept EBT/SNAP, and the Department of Health and Welfare’s administration of nutrition assistance.
Impact
This bill adds a new section to Chapter 2, Title 56 of the Idaho Code, creating a state mandate for the Department of Health and Welfare to seek a USDA waiver under federal SNAP regulations. The main legal effect is to require ongoing waiver requests and, if approved, to bar the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP benefits in Idaho. Because SNAP is a federal-state program, the bill’s practical operation depends on federal approval; without a waiver, Idaho cannot independently impose the restriction through this provision.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the House on third reading 38-32, later passed the Senate 25-10, and then passed the House again 48-20, indicating that support broadened over the course of the process. The available record does not include committee testimony, but the final votes show a generally favorable sentiment toward the bill among a majority of legislators, alongside a substantial minority opposed.
Contention
The likely point of contention is whether the state should restrict SNAP purchases of candy and soda at all, and whether such restrictions are an appropriate use of public assistance policy. Supporters appear to favor the bill as a nutrition-focused measure intended to improve the quality of foods purchased with benefits. Opponents likely object to limiting recipient choice, the administrative burden of defining and enforcing the exclusions, and the fact that the change depends on a federal waiver rather than a direct state rule. The split votes indicate disagreement over both the policy merits and the practicality of implementation.