The state of South Dakota is making headlines as its House of Representatives approves a fresh legislative measure specifically targeting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The measure, which bans the purchase of “soft drinks” using SNAP benefits, aims to ensure taxpayer dollars are allocated toward the purchase of healthier food options. With a broad focus on aligning state policies with health-centric initiatives, South Dakota is set to become a frontrunner in redefining SNAP benefits usage.
The bill, modeled after the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, permits the purchase of certain sugary beverages like milk, milk alternatives, and select juices, while soda is intentionally excluded. Rep. Will Mortenson, a staunch advocate of the bill, highlighted its necessity, stating that it channels resources toward more nutritious choices rather than soda, which is currently the most purchased item with SNAP benefits in South Dakota — even surpassing essential staples like milk, eggs, cheese, and bread.
Mortenson elaborated, “Pop is the number one item purchased with SNAP. That’s more than milk, more than eggs, more than cheese, more than bread, number one. And believe me, I’m not casting any blame or judgment on that. That excites me, and why? Because we’re not cutting the SNAP benefit. Every one of those dollars that’s now being spent on pop is available to be spent on meat, and milk, and eggs, and cheese. That’s an exciting thing. We should all be excited about that.”
In a state renowned for its natural beauty and vast agricultural lands, such measures resonate deeply with South Dakota’s dedication to promoting public health and supporting its agrarian economy. Consuming locally sourced produce and dairy not only benefits buyers but also boosts South Dakota’s agricultural sector — a key interest for many residents.
However, the bill has sparked debate across the state. Rep. Kadyn Wittman voiced strong opposition, describing the measure as “punitive” and sharing personal experiences to highlight potential unintended consequences. Wittman recollected her childhood in Minnesota, asserting, “If this kind of law had existed when I was a kid in Minnesota, it would’ve meant that I couldn’t have pop at my own birthday party. So, I really need everybody here to think about the unintended consequences that just because my family was on food assistance, we wouldn’t be able to participate in things like this. In my opinion, this is not about nutrition; this is about shame.”
Concerns have also been raised regarding the fiscal impact on small-town grocers and the complexities associated with implementing the ban. Many South Dakotans, who hail from rural towns where local businesses form the backbone of community life, fear the economic repercussions of such a ban on their businesses.
Despite these challenges, the legislation was passed decisively with a vote of 58-11 and now proceeds to the Senate for further discussion. As the debate continues, South Dakota stands at a crossroads, balancing health priorities with socio-economic considerations essential to the state’s interests.
For a state as community-driven as South Dakota, the discourse surrounding the SNAP benefits bill encompasses more than just legislative change; it invites introspection on how best to serve and support its diverse population amid rapidly-evolving national dietary trends and economic landscapes.