Lawmakers inch closer to banning “soft drinks” for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients.
House Bill 1056 requires South Dakota’s Department of Social Services to submit a waiver request to exclude soft drinks for the SNAP program. If that’s approved, within six months of the approval date “soft drinks” that contain natural or artificial sweeteners would be banned. This excludes milk products, milk substitutes and some approved juices. Eighteen other states have already approved similar waivers.
Proponents of the bill argue such drinks offer no nutritional value and thus taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill. Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt is the bill’s prime sponsor.
“The taxpayer funded nutrition programs should promote actual nutrition. When public programs allow the purchase of high sugar beverages, the largest single source of added sugar in the U.S. diet, we knowingly contribute to preventable disease and populations that are already at a higher risk,” Rehfeldt said. “This bill is not about judgement. It is not about restricting food. It is about responsible stewardship of a nutrition program that supports millions of families. It’s about aligning SNAP with what we already know improves health. Restricting sugar-sweetened beverages within a nutrition program is practical.”
Others, pointed to how the bill could safeguard against children. Mike Bockorny is a registered lobbyist for the South Dakota Association for the Education of Young Children, and said the group supports the bill.
"From an early childhood perspective, nutrition matters. It's extremely important. Soft drinks provide calories and sugar, but no nutritional value for young children during critical stages of development," Bockorny said. "This bill helps better align public nutrition dollars with healthier choices for our families."
Rehfeldt told the House Health and Human Services Committee the bill would put SNAP in line with other programs like the Women, Infants and Children program.
“To make a nutrition program about nutrition, and every other nutrition program we administer, sugary drinks are excluded because they offer no nutritional value and are strongly associated with chronic disease," Rehfeldt said. "SNAP is the outlier.”
Other groups joining Rehfeldt and Bockorny on the "soft drink" ban were the Foundation for Government Accountability, SD Dental Association, SD Medical Association, SD Academy of Physician Assistants and SD Chiropractors Association.
However, others argue the decision should be made at the federal level because SNAP is a federal program that the state administers. Rehfeldt said she believes if they wait, South Dakota will foot the bill.
“We are the ones seeing Medicaid costs rise. We are the ones who will spend more on Medicaid than education this year. And we are the ones who can act now to reduce the preventable disease burden,” Rehfeldt said. “There is nothing fiscally responsible about delaying action.”
The Governor’s office spoke in opposition to the bill. Laura Ringling, an advisor to the governor, said while they support SNAP reform, “this approach is not the right path for South Dakota.”
“And here’s why: Number one is the cost. So, implementing a waiver like the one proposed would cost South Dakota nearly half a million dollars annually,” Ringling said. "That’s half a million dollars every year that the waiver’s in place, it would take three full-time employees and a third-party vendor contract for necessary evaluations. That estimate is not a guess; that’s based on conversations that we’ve had with neighboring states who are currently implementing similar waivers.”
She said because the Department of Social Services is already stretched thin in South Dakota, it would need the additional resources to support the proposed SNAP waiver. Ringling also pointed out the state can submit a waiver without the legislation, but HB 10-56 requires it be done now.
In her rebuttal, Rep. Rehfeldt pushed back on that claim.
“I asked the Legislative Research Council for cost estimates, and they stated the cost would be $0 or minimal,” Rehfeldt said, also listing off states with minimal fiscal impacts when approving waivers.
She argued the state could see cost savings through reduced diet-related diseases in SNAP recipients who are also on state-funded Medicaid. Around 78% of individuals on Medicaid in South Dakota are also SNAP recipients.
Others worry about how retailers and grocers would implement the change. Nathan Sanderson is the Executive Director of the South Dakota Retailers Association. He said his organization is concerned on how to implement the new rule affecting their businesses.
“SNAP is everything under the sun except for some very specific carve outs. So, what our businesses need to know is what are the items that are carved out specifically,” Sanderson said. “We can’t say, ‘Retailers you can’t sell soft drinks on SNAP.’ Because you don’t want to have a cashier make that judgement call at the time. They need to know in their systems which very specific UPC codes are or are not in.”
Others maintained the discussion was philosophical. That includes R.F. Buche who said he’s offering perspective from the “boots on the ground” as a grocer.
“Let me start with a real person. Picture this: Single mom with four kids, two of them are infants, she’s got two jobs, still needs SNAP to survive. She’s exhausted. She’s doing the best she can. She picks up extra shifts so that her electricity is not shut off, so she doesn’t lose her propane,” Buche said. “However, the one vice she has is that she wants to start off every day with a Diet Coke. I don’t believe government should be in the business of making that choice for her, and when I tell that to people, most people who truly listen don’t believe we should either.”
He explained the challenge grocers have in implementing the bill.
“The difference between WIC and this bill, is WIC is what you can buy, and this is what you can’t. That’s a huge differentiation when it comes to implementation,” Buche said. “[It’s] far more complicated, far more expensive.”
Buche said the cost will be passed down to every grocery shopper in the state.
Rehfeldt said implementation would be similar to WIC and responded to a shopper’s right to choose.
“Others talked about dignity and choice, the mom who wants to drink her Diet Coke to start the morning. I hear that, but dignity is not about pretending that a nutrition program should pay for products that have zero nutritional benefit, do not make people feel full and directly contribute to diseases that, as a nurse and a nurse anesthetist, I care for every single week," Rehfeldt said. "True dignity is preventing suffering, not paying for the first gulp of a very big problem.”
The bill advances to the House floor after an 11-2 vote in the House Human Health and Services Committee.
The two votes against the bill were Rep. Eric Emery, who wanted to see the bill head to Appropriations, and Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, who said she'd like to see the bill amended to remove natural sweeteners.
