RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – The Senate recently approved a bill that seeks federal authorization to prevent SNAP benefits from being used to purchase sweetened soft drinks. This legislative move has stirred a debate about the use of taxpayer money and its implications for small businesses in South Dakota.
House Bill 1056 Overview
On Wednesday, South Dakota senators passed House Bill 1056 with a vote of 27-6. The bill is now set to go to the governor for consideration. If approved, the Department of Social Services will request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restrict purchases of “soft drinks” under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which assists low-income families in acquiring food. The waiver request must be submitted by September 1, 2026.
Should the federal government grant the waiver, the state will be required to implement the ban within six months. In the event the request is denied, the state must reapply annually until it receives approval. For the purposes of this bill, a “soft drink” is defined as any nonalcoholic beverage containing natural or artificial sweeteners, explicitly excluding milk products, milk substitutes, and certain juices approved by the WIC program.
Supporters: It’s a Nutrition Program, Not a Soda Program
Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank, who sponsored the bill, emphasized that taxpayer money should not be used to finance sugary beverages through a program designed to promote nutritional assistance for families. “It’s about responsible stewardship of our taxpayer dollars and our taxpayer-funded nutrition programs,” Davis stated.
Sen. Paul Miskimins, R-Mitchell, a retired dentist, voiced his support based on experiences from his practice, highlighting the dental issues caused by sugary drinks. He recounted stories of young patients encountering severe dental problems related to excessive soda consumption. “A young mother on Medicaid brought her two-year-old twins to us. They had 32 cavities and seven abscesses,” he described, emphasizing the broader implications for public health and costs.
Opponents: Impact on Small Towns and Limited Scope
Conversely, Sen. Tamara Grove, R-Lower Brule, raised concerns about the potential negative effects on small, rural stores that already operate on tight margins. She expressed apprehension that some stores might reevaluate their participation in the EBT program due to the additional administrative burden associated with the ban.
Grove also questioned the decision to focus solely on soft drinks while other sugary products remain untouched. In response, Sen. Tim Reed, R-Brookings, mentioned that retailers already maintain product databases and inventory systems, implying that the proposed change should not pose significant challenges. The White House has expressed support for the bill, reinforcing that SNAP’s core objective should center on nutritional benefits rather than sugary drinks.
Key Takeaways
- The South Dakota Senate passed House Bill 1056 aimed at banning the use of SNAP benefits for soft drinks.
- The bill seeks federal approval, with a waiver request due by September 1, 2026.
- Proponents argue that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize sugary beverages.
- Opponents warn the bill could negatively affect small businesses in rural areas.
- Soft drinks are defined as nonalcoholic beverages with sweeteners, excluding certain milk products and WIC-approved juices.
- The bill awaits consideration from the governor.
FAQ
What is House Bill 1056?
House Bill 1056 is a proposed law in South Dakota that seeks to prevent SNAP benefits from being used to purchase sweetened soft drinks.
Who supports the bill?
Supporters include Senator Sydney Davis and Senator Paul Miskimins, who argue that taxpayer money should not cover sugary drinks under a nutrition program.
What are the concerns of the opponents?
Opponents, including Senator Tamara Grove, express worries about the impact on small rural stores and question the focus on soda while other sugary items remain unrestricted.
What happens if the federal government denies the waiver request?
If denied, the state must reapply annually until approval is granted to implement the ban.
See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.
Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.
Copyright 2026 KOTA. All rights reserved.
