By: John Hult
PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – The South Dakota House of Representatives will soon vote on a bill meant to bar the purchase of sweetened beverages with food stamps.
House Bill 1056 would require the state Department of Social Services to submit “a federal waiver request to exclude soft drinks from the supplemental nutrition assistance program,” a reference to SNAP.
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, the Sioux Falls Republican who presented the bill to the House Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday, said 30 states either have or are pursuing similar waivers for recipients of SNAP benefits, often referred to as food stamps.
SNAP benefits are available to income-eligible families, and can be used to purchase nearly any kind of food or beverage. A waiver from the federal government would allow South Dakota to limit the kinds of food or beverages that can be purchased using the benefits, which are loaded onto cards that function like debit cards.
Supporters say soda ban could prevent disease
Rehfeldt told the committee that SNAP benefits are commonly used to buy sugary sodas and other sweetened drinks that contribute calories but not nutrition to a person’s diet. They contribute to a host of health problems, she said, among them heart disease, obesity and diabetes.
Given that 78% of people on Medicaid get SNAP benefits in South Dakota, and that the state is set to spend more on Medicaid than education this year, Rehfeldt said the state ought to restrict soda purchases to combat preventative diseases long-term.
Medicaid is an insurance program that covers health care expenses for income-eligible and disabled people. Voters opted to extend Medicaid to more people through a 2022 ballot measure.
“We knowingly contribute to preventable disease in a population that’s already at higher risk” by allowing SNAP recipients to purchase sweetened beverages, Rehfeldt said.
She also noted that a separate income-based nutrition program, Women, Infants and Children or WIC, already restricts what participants can purchase.
Her bill had the backing of the South Dakota Association for the Education of Young Children, the Foundation for Government Accountability, the South Dakota Dental Association, the South Dakota Medical Association, the South Dakota Academy of Physician Assistants and the South Dakota Chiropractors Association.
“South Dakota physicians have long been committed to reducing the obesity epidemic in South Dakota, and ensuring all South Dakotans have access to nutritious foods that are necessary for a healthy life,” said Justin Bell, a lobbyist for the medical association.
Governor’s office, retailers oppose bill
Laura Ringling, an adviser to Gov. Larry Rhoden, told the committee the executive branch supports a soda ban in theory and has had “extensive discussions” on the possibility of pursuing a similar waiver.
“This particular approach is just not the right path for South Dakota,” said Ringling, who pointed out that Rhoden’s office could pursue a waiver at any point, without legislation from state lawmakers.
The state would need to hire three employees and pay a contractor to administer the change to program eligibility. That would run the state about $500,000 a year, Ringling said.
“That estimate is not a guess,” she said. “That’s based on conversations that we’ve had with neighboring states who are currently implementing similar waivers.”
Ringling said that’s too big a budget hit, especially given that changes in the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act have already heaped more than $5 million in additional annual SNAP costs on the state.
In an email sent after the hearing on Tuesday, Department of Social Services spokeswoman Tracy Mercer said the state is now responsible for 75% of SNAP administrative costs. The split had been 50-50 between the state and federal government.
Retailers also lined up to oppose the measure, including the director of the South Dakota Retailers Association and a lobbyist for Casey’s convenience stories. Several said that SNAP’s lack of restrictions makes it simpler to comply with than WIC, the nutrition program that only allows for the purchase of certain healthy foods.
“Retailers lose money on WIC because of what the compliance requirements are,” said RF Buche, a grocer who serves primarily rural and tribal communities. “But we do it because it’s the right thing to do for our customers.”
That might change if SNAP began to restrict beverages. He said South Dakota already has an outsized share of food deserts, a term denoting urban areas a mile or more from a grocery store, or rural areas 10 miles or more.
“By enacting this bill, an unintended consequence could be more of them,” Buche said.
He also pointed out that as written, the bill restricts diet sodas and products like Pedialyte, used for quick hydration in children dehydrated by diarrhea and vomiting.
Bill earns committee support
Rehfeldt disputed the notion that administrative costs would burden South Dakota, listing off states like Texas, where leaders said administrators could handle soda restrictions with current staff.
The long-term savings of better health would outweigh those costs anyway, she said.
“It sounds like we have a lot of excuses to allow businesses to continue to make profits off the backs of our children and our most vulnerable populations,” Rehfeldt said. “It is wrong.”
Rep. Bobbi Andera, R-Sioux Falls, agreed, saying that a SNAP program whose nutritional requirements are closer to the WIC program is a wise move for South Dakota families.
“This is what’s best for South Dakota,” Andera said. “Other states have done it as well, and I think it’s time we stepped up to the plate.”
Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, R-Aberdeen, said she was torn on how to vote. She said the bill’s goals are laudable, but that her time working at a food pantry gave her pause.
“I saw a lot of people who we served were on WIC and who were on SNAP,” Schaefbauer said. “There were a lot of children that their only sustenance for the day, unfortunately, was a can of Mountain Dew. Is it nutritious? Absolutely not. But did it fill their tummies? Yes, it did.”
Schaefbauer was one of two committee members to vote against the bill. The other no vote came from Rep. Eric Emery, D-Rosebud, who unsuccessfully pushed to move the bill to the budget committee for further review.
The bill passed 11-2 and now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration.
Comments