The recent legislative progress in Pierre, S.D., has sparked considerable debate surrounding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and its allowances for soft drink purchases. With compelling insights from lawmakers and healthcare professionals, the proposed changes aim to reshape the program’s guidelines, raising questions about consumer choice and public health.
Legislative Developments
On Friday, legislation took a significant step forward, directing the Rhoden administration to pursue a federal waiver that could prevent individuals receiving SNAP benefits from purchasing various soft drinks.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 6-2 in favor of House Bill 1056, despite ongoing opposition from the office of Governor Larry Rhoden. The directive now advances to the Senate, where it may receive final legislative approval after earlier House approval by a margin of 58-11.
Republican Senator Sydney Davis of Burbank, leading the Senate sponsorship, emphasized the non-judgmental intent of the bill, stating, “This bill is about responsible stewardship of nutrition programs.”
Following Davis, Republican Representative Taylor Rehfeldt of Sioux Falls, the primary sponsor, underscored that discussions should focus on taxpayer impacts, noting, “I want to reframe this conversation where it belongs, and that’s with the taxpayer.”
Rehfeldt highlighted a concerning trend, revealing that South Dakota is set to spend more on Medicaid healthcare services than on state educational support in the upcoming fiscal year. She cited $51 million spent on dental services for Medicaid patients.
“Every other federal nutrition program excludes pop,” Rehfeldt remarked. “SNAP is the outlier.”
Multiple lobbyists from prominent South Dakota organizations, including educators and medical professionals, expressed support for the legislation, asserting that sugary and artificially-sweetened beverages contribute to obesity and various health issues requiring Medicaid services.
Opposition Concerns
Laura Ringling, a senior aide to Governor Rhoden, was the first opponent, arguing the waiver would introduce ongoing expenses for the state. She noted that after consultation with businesses and other states, the Rhoden administration decided against pursuing a SNAP waiver last year.
According to Ringling, the Legislature’s staff estimated an additional cost of approximately $330,000 for hiring new personnel and contracting external management. The administration’s estimates are reportedly even higher, approaching $500,000 annually. As a comparison, she noted that Nebraska plans to spend $1.8 million over three years to manage its waiver.
HB 1056 does not include funding provisions. Ringling explained that South Dakota is already absorbing an additional $5.5 million in SNAP administrative costs due to Congressional changes. There is potential for a waiver request in the future when technology advances, but Ringling stressed that there’s no evidence that such waivers yield savings in Medicaid expenses.
She added that federal waivers, valid for two years, could be rescinded by future administrations, leaving South Dakota with sunk costs and no meaningful reform. Ringling criticized the approach, stating, “That is not state leadership. That is prioritizing optics over sound government.”
Rehfeldt response to these concerns emphasized the bill’s goal of fostering healthier communities and indicated her continued commitment to pursuing the waiver. She aimed to simplify the initial focus on soft drinks as a practical first step, contrasting SNAP benefits with the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, where soft drinks are not allowed.
Retail and Bottling Perspectives
Nathan Sanderson, the executive director for the South Dakota Retailers Association, raised concerns regarding implementation. He noted that WIC guidelines clearly specify eligible items, while SNAP purchases are more open-ended. Retailers would require a comprehensive list of soft drinks to enforce any exclusions.
“Somebody has to tell our guys what is on and what is off,” Sanderson stated, expressing uncertainty about the necessary guidelines.
Steve Willard, representing bottlers, argued that even with a waiver, consumers would still purchase soft drinks, but they wouldn’t be covered by SNAP benefits. He suggested that motivated consumers would still find ways to acquire the products they desire.
Rehfeldt clarified that the waiver application is expected to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by September, estimating that the implementation could take place by late spring 2027 if approved.
Ringling pointed out that the waiver application would need to include an analysis of current nutrition practices, necessitating interviews with families using SNAP benefits to evaluate the impact effectively. Establishing communication resources for the community would also be a required part of the process.
Furthermore, Ringling mentioned that Brooke Rollins, the U.S. agriculture secretary, would present potential SNAP changes in June, and Congress would be responsible for deciding on any modifications going forward.
Exploring the Implications
Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of waivers in reducing soft drink consumption, with Republican Senator Mark Lapka requesting data from other states. Ringling indicated that recent attempts in five states did not yet provide evidence of reduced consumption.
Lapka also inquired about Rehfeldt’s data, to which she admitted not having specific reports regarding the effects of waivers on soft drink consumption. However, she referenced studies indicating that restrictions are typically more effective than incentives in promoting healthier food choices, asserting, “This isn’t rocket science. You’re getting rid of pop in a nutrition program.”
Republican Senator Taffy Howard expressed her support for the waiver, suggesting that financial barriers could deter unhealthy choices. She emphasized that SNAP recipients would still have the ability to purchase soft drinks with their private funds, calling on states to take the lead in federal reforms.
Democratic Senator Red Dawn Foster shifted her initial opposition to support following public testimony, advocating for a conservative approach that minimizes yearly costs if legislation passes.
Lapka remained skeptical, expressing concerns over the financial implications of the waiver directive in a particularly tight budget year, stating he would vote against it.
Senate Chair, Republican Senator Ernie Otten, provided a personal perspective, reflecting on his experiences at grocery stores and his role as an appropriator. He commended the sponsors for their efforts regardless of the bill’s outcome.
Following the 6-2 vote, Rehfeldt exited the hearing room, receiving commendation from Otten for her persistence in this legislative endeavor.
Key Takeaways
- The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved House Bill 1056, aiming to restrict SNAP purchases of soft drinks.
- Supporters argue it promotes responsible nutrition management, while opponents cite potential financial burdens on the state.
- Concerns over implementation logistics and the specific items that would be excluded have been raised.
- Legislators will explore potential impacts and effectiveness of similar measures implemented in other states.
- The bill’s future hinges on its acceptance in the Senate and possible federal approval of the waiver.
FAQ
What is House Bill 1056?
House Bill 1056 is a proposed legislation aiming to limit the eligibility of soft drinks for purchase under the SNAP program in South Dakota.
What are the main arguments for and against the bill?
Proponents support it as a step towards healthier communities, while opponents raise concerns about potential state expenses and logistical issues in implementation.
How would this legislation affect SNAP recipients?
If passed, SNAP recipients would not be able to use their benefits to purchase soft drinks, though they could buy them with other forms of payment.
What is the timeline for implementation?
The waiver is expected to be submitted by September 2023, with potential implementation by late spring 2027, pending USDA approval.
