House Bill 109 says candy and soda are no longer SNAP eligible

SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, provides support for low-income households, unhoused or food-insecure individuals.  

House Bill 109, introduced by the Idaho State Legislature’s Health and Welfare Committee, excludes the purchase of soda and candy from the SNAP program. Governor Brad Little signed the bill with support from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. 

Representative Jordan Redman, a cosponsor for the bill, explained to lawmakers House Bill 109 is a part of an initiative put forth by the Trump administration titled “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA).

Representative Redman notes the bill’s creation was inspired by the amount of soft drinks being purchased through the program. 

“The number one commodity bought on SNAP is soda. I think the vast majority of people can agree that there’s no nutritional value to soda,” Redman said. “The thought was if we could eliminate soda and candy, we would have better overall health outcomes on the Supplemental Nutrition program to try to incentivize people to have better health when they’re using those government-funded programs.” 

The bill has received criticism for having unclear language, as protein and granola bars could potentially fall under the definition of “candy”. 

“That was a difficult challenge, figuring out the definitions of candy,” Redman said. “What we really came to was that there’s a uniform tax code that references candy — as far as grocers and retailers go, and that’s what we ended up utilizing. It’s difficult when you have a number of different protein bars, candies, all these different things that can be lumped into that. It’s a step in the right direction. Possibly in the future, we can look at amending that a little bit more, or if there’s any guidance from the federal government on how to tighten that [definition] a little bit, that could be helpful.” 

Representative Redman hopes to explore the creation of a complementary bill that provides education on alternatives to “non-nutritious” foods. 

“The thought is a follow-up bill next session could be more education on it [and] giving some ideas on what some better alternatives to those non-nutritious foods are,” Redman shared. “Working on incentivizing [healthy eating] through education… I think that’s something that we’ll see. It’s developing that program and figuring out exactly what that looks like.” 

Representative Redman explained he believes the biggest opposition the bill currently faces comes from soda companies, who are worried about losing profit. 

“The biggest objection came from the soda companies. They had their lobbying crews in there,” Redman said. “That’s a huge piece of profit that they don’t want to miss out on. In some of the other states, that stirred things up enough to not be able to get [similar] legislation through.”

Mike Hanselman, a Boise resident who has utilized SNAP at different points in his life, described the program as a “lifesaver”.

Hanselman and his wife used the program to help feed themselves and their four children during periods when Hanselman was laid off and searching for a job. 

“There are tons of resources out there for people. By and large, the accessibility of those resources to everyone is very limited and very narrow,” Hanselman explained. “You’ll hear people say that there are programs like SNAP or CATCH for people who are experiencing homelessness … but not everything that’s available is afforded to you.”

Hanselman explained that every individual utilizing SNAP has a different experience or reason for why they are using the program.  

“A lot of people who use SNAP are in this go-between in their life,” Hanselman said. “They’re either penniless, or they may be homeless, they may be couch surfing. They may be parents like my wife and I, who just didn’t make enough money. Our state is still at $7.25 an hour. I don’t think anyone gets paid that, thankfully, but there are plenty of people who don’t make much more than that. Whatever your stage is within that gap, the resources available and the programs that are run do not have the actual resources to be able to increase their bandwidth.” 

Hanselman shared that a family member who was recently released from prison was placed on a six-month waiting list for a similar program. 

House Bill 109, he says, is a “small drop” in the bucket of national issues. 

“It’s a silly kind of thing to concentrate on,” Hanselman said. “There are people who suffer on a daily basis — whether it’s medically, mentally, physically, spiritually. If they want to go to the store with their SNAP card and for just one moment experience something of normalcy, like a Snickers bar or something like that, amongst all the other stuff that they’re experiencing, they should be able to do that.”

Hanselman described the bill as both overcomplicating and oversimplifying aspects of food insecurity. 

“They’d [lawmakers] love to be able to cherry-pick on what they’re going to complicate and what they’re going to simplify. I think this is one of those things,” Hanselman said. 

“[House Bill 109] only perpetuates the stigma that people who use these programs are lazy, they’re unhealthy, they want to live off of the government, all of those crazy things,” Hanselman explained. “99% of the people out there on SNAP do not wish to be on SNAP their entire lives. Everyone knows that it’s a supplemental program. It’s not meant to substantiate everyone for the rest of their lives.”

Rebecca L. Som Castellano, director for Human-Environment Systems and School of Environment and professor of Sociology, highlighted some of the common misconceptions surrounding food insecurity. 

Castellano said that individuals who live in rural areas are more likely to experience poverty. In 2023, the poverty rate in rural Idaho was 12.2% and 9.4% in urban areas.

“While many people think that living in rural areas can be less expensive, research demonstrates that this isn’t always true, and that accessing food in rural areas can not only involve more travel, but that food in rural places can be more expensive, and of lower quality,” Castellano said. “Because of this, creating more restrictions about what can be purchased using SNAP can decrease food access for individuals and households suffering from food insecurity even more.”

Castellano said that bans that aim to restrict access to specific types of food can contribute to stigma around food insecurity.

“Such bans can also heighten stigma and embarrassment about food insecurity, which can in turn

decrease program participation and exacerbate food insecurity even more. This can also be gendered,” Castellano said. “While women are more likely to experience food insecurity, research has found that men can be more likely to experience stigma related to food insecurity, and this can be associated with increased food insecurity.”

Castellano noted ethical concerns, stating that creating systems around food choice and restriction could be problematic. 

“It can be problematic to create systems where some people are given freedom to choose what to eat, and others are not. By doing so we not only deny food as a human right and promote stigma related to poverty, and often race and gender, but we also signify who is deserving of choice, and who is not,” Castellano said. 

Castellano said there is value to food assistance programs like SNAP and options should be expanded, not limited. 

“Research has clearly shown that SNAP, and other food assistance programs, are not only effective at improving human health and well-being, but can also improve learning for children, improve mental health, uplift household economics and therefore enable members of households to improve their human capital, and much more,” Castellano said. “I would argue that we should be increasing access and choice — not further decreasing access and choice.”

Castellano stressed health is subjective and policy should not dictate which foods are deemed healthy or unhealthy.

“By defining certain foods as healthy and unhealthy, we are not speaking solely from an objective position, but rather from a cultural position,” Castellano said. “…When we create policy based on these understandings, we can limit access to foods that may be culturally meaningful. Food is about nutrition and calories, but also about community, culture and pleasure.”

House Bill 109 went into effect on July 1. Currently, there are no legislative hearings scheduled to address the specifics of the bill’s text and no complementary bills have been passed.