In Idaho, we don’t shy away from tough questions. Right now, we’re asking one that’s overdue: Is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — "SNAP," or "food stamps" as it was once known — still fulfilling its original purpose?
Our legislature has just passed a bill that would direct Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare to seek a federal waiver to forbid food stamps from being used to buy soda and candy. This isn’t about soft drinks or sweets — it’s about the integrity of a public program and whether it’s still delivering on its mission.
Food stamps exist to help low-income families put meals on the table. That is a goal we all stand behind. But its purpose goes beyond just filling grocery bags.
The federal law that established SNAP some six decades ago states clearly that the program is designed "to alleviate ... hunger and malnutrition" by enabling families to afford a more nutritious diet. That’s not an optional benchmark — it’s the standard.
So, we need to ask: Are we meeting it? If we are, that’s good news. If not, we have a responsibility to address it.
This isn’t about penalizing anyone. It’s about accountability. Like any taxpayer-funded program, food stamps should be judged by their outcomes. If they’re straying from their intent, we can’t just look the other way — we have to fix it. That’s basic stewardship.
The data tell the whole story. Obesity has tripled since the 1960s. More than 40 percent of adults and one in five children are obese. One in three adults is diabetic or prediabetic. And sugary drinks alone account for nearly $4 billion in annual food stamp spending.
These aren’t criticisms of the folks using food stamps. Rather, they are signals about the program’s direction. If 20 percent of food stamp dollars are going toward soda, candy and snack foods, are we truly advancing the goal of a “more nutritious diet"?
That’s a question every legislator must confront. House Bill 109 is Idaho’s attempt to do just that and to spark a broader conversation.
The bill is straightforward. It defines soda and candy using our existing tax code. It then directs our health department to request a U.S. Department of Agriculture waiver excluding those items from food stamp purchases and mandates that we keep asking annually until it’s approved.
Critics have called this overreach. But food stamps already exclude some items — for example, alcohol, tobacco and hot prepared meals. Programs like the Women, Infants and Children program already prohibit soda and candy entirely, prioritizing nutrition over convenience.
So setting limits is not novel or radical. It is already common in such programs, and in this case it is consistent with the program’s roots.
This should be a routine discussion. When a public program drifts from its initial aims, we owe it to those it serves — and to those who fund it — to ask why. Yet Washington has been dodging this debate for years. Lobbyists for Big Soda and Big Sugar have stifled reform, and even under administrations pledging change, the federal Department of Agriculture has refused to budge. Maine’s waiver request, for instance, was drafted and rejected in 2018.
That is why states like Idaho are now taking the lead.
This idea isn’t on the fringes anymore. A dozen states are exploring similar measures. Bipartisan voices in Congress are raising the issue of nutrition reform. Figures such as ...
