Idaho committee reviews House Bill 109 to limit SNAP purchases of candy and soda

The Senate Health & Welfare Committee convened on March 18, 2025, to discuss significant changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in Idaho, particularly focusing on House Bill 109, which proposes the removal of sodas and candy from eligible SNAP purchases.

The meeting began with a discussion led by a representative from the retail sector, who expressed concerns about the implications of the proposed bill on retailers. The representative highlighted that while SNAP is a federal program, its implementation at the state level creates challenges for retailers, particularly regarding the lack of clarity on tax responsibilities. They emphasized that the burden of compliance would fall heavily on retailers, who would have to manage customer expectations and disputes over what can be purchased with SNAP benefits. The representative urged the committee to consider the financial impact on businesses, especially in rural areas where retailers may be the only option for customers.

Senator Blaylock inquired whether retailers are required to accept SNAP payments. The response clarified that while acceptance is not mandatory, refusing SNAP would alienate a significant portion of the community and drive customers to competitors, making it an impractical choice for most retailers.

Following this, Daniel Murphy, a Boise resident, voiced his support for House Bill 109. He argued that sugary drinks and candies do not contribute to nutritional health and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars through SNAP. Murphy presented a detailed analysis of the sugar content in popular beverages, asserting that such products contribute to health issues that ultimately increase Medicaid costs. He acknowledged the potential loss of sales for retailers but maintained that taxpayer interests should take precedence.

The committee also heard from Hank Allen, a concerned citizen, who pointed out existing restrictions within the SNAP program, such as prohibitions on purchasing cigarettes and alcohol. He suggested that similar restrictions could be applied to unhealthy food items, drawing parallels to past public health campaigns against tobacco.

The meeting concluded without any immediate resolutions, but the discussions highlighted the ongoing debate over the balance between public health, consumer choice, and the economic realities faced by retailers in Idaho. The committee is expected to continue deliberating on the implications of House Bill 109 in future sessions.