In a significant move that could reshape benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the South Dakota House of Representatives has expressed its intent to prohibit the purchase of soft drinks with food-stamp benefits. This decision comes amidst a broader national dialogue about the usage of SNAP and its implications for public health.
Legislative Action
On Wednesday, the House voted 58-11 to urge Governor Larry Rhoden to seek a waiver from federal regulations regarding the administration of SNAP in South Dakota.
Support and Sponsorship
Leading the charge was Republican Representative Taylor Rehfeldt from Sioux Falls, who is the primary sponsor of House Bill 1056. This legislation would set a timeline for pursuing the waiver, which if denied, would necessitate annual reapplications.
Opposition to the Bill
Democratic Representative Kadyn Wittman voiced her dissent against the legislation, citing her own experiences with food stamps. She expressed concern that such restrictions would diminish the joy of celebrations, like enjoying soft drinks during birthdays.
“In my opinion this is not about nutrition. It is about shame,” Wittman stated.
Support for the Bill
On the opposing side, Republican Representative Logan Manhart articulated support, linking the initiative to national health agendas. He noted that the bill aims to encourage SNAP recipients to allocate their funds towards healthier options, such as dairy and protein products.
Representative Will Mortenson emphasized that various states have successfully implemented similar restrictions and suggested South Dakota could benefit from their experiences.
Implementation Details
The proposed legislation mandates that the Secretary of Social Services apply for a waiver to exclude soft drinks no later than September 1, 2026. If approved, the restriction must be enacted within six months. Should the waiver not be granted, the Secretary is obligated to continue requesting it annually.
Soft drinks are defined as “nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners” but exclude dairy products, milk alternatives, and WIC-approved juices. Rehfeldt has noted that this broad definition encompasses not just sodas but also sports drinks and flavored waters.
Administration Concerns
The Rhoden administration expressed opposition during the committee hearing, citing potential costs exceeding $500,000 and the need for additional personnel and software. Representative Josephine Garcia raised questions about the lack of analysis regarding long-term healthcare savings.
Changing Opinions
Representative John Shubeck reflected on his evolving perspective during the debate, ultimately siding with the majority despite initial reservations about the complexity of the initiative.
Conclusion
The House’s decision to prohibit soft drink purchases with food-stamp benefits has sparked a heated debate among lawmakers, reflecting differing views on nutrition, autonomy, and the role of government. As this legislation advances to the Senate, its implications will continue to be scrutinized by both supporters and critics.
Key Takeaways
- The South Dakota House voted 58-11 to seek a federal waiver for excluding soft drinks from SNAP purchases.
- Supporters argue it promotes healthier choices and aligns with national health initiatives.
- Opponents raise concerns about the impact on families and potential feelings of shame.
- The Secretary of Social Services is tasked with applying for the waiver by September 1, 2026.
- If granted, the restriction must be implemented within six months; if denied, annual reapplications will be required.
- The bill proposes a broad definition of soft drinks, covering various sugary beverages.
- The Rhoden administration expressed concerns about implementation costs and the need for additional resources.
FAQ
What is House Bill 1056?
House Bill 1056 is legislation proposed in South Dakota that aims to seek a federal waiver to prohibit the purchase of soft drinks with SNAP benefits.
Why are soft drinks being targeted?
Supporters believe that restricting soft drinks will encourage SNAP recipients to make healthier food choices.
What happens if the waiver is approved?
If approved, the restriction on soft drink purchases must be enforced within six months.
How many states currently have similar waivers?
According to supporters, eighteen states already utilize such waivers to restrict soft drink purchases with food-stamp benefits.
What are the concerns around this legislation?
Critics argue it may negatively impact families by limiting food choices and may incite feelings of shame among recipients.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KELOLAND.com.
