South Dakota SNAP Benefits: Sugary Drink Ban Decision Looms

South Dakota Governor Weighs SNAP Benefits Ban on Sugary Drinks

The fate of a bill that would prevent South Dakota residents from using SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits to purchase sugary drinks now rests with Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, who has consistently expressed reservations about the measure throughout the 2026 legislative session.

The state Senate on Wednesday endorsed House Bill 1056 with a vote of 27-6, following its earlier passage in the House of Representatives by a margin of 58-11. These vote totals suggest sufficient support to override a potential veto from the governor, should he choose to issue one.

The bill directs the South Dakota Department of Social Services to seek a federal waiver that would allow the state to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for soft drinks. SNAP, a federally funded program administered at the state level, provides low-income individuals with a monthly allowance for food purchases via a debit-like card accepted at most grocery stores. Currently, the program allows for the purchase of most consumable grocery items, with the exception of alcohol and prepared foods.

Representatives from Governor Rhoden’s office voiced opposition to the bill during committee hearings in both the House and Senate, primarily citing concerns over administrative costs. A fiscal note attached to the bill estimated that implementing the ban would cost the state $310,000 over the first two years. These costs are attributed to the need to hire an additional employee and contract for software to track sales, file reports and assist retailers in identifying prohibited beverages.

Opponents from the retail and grocery industries, as well as soda bottlers, have also raised concerns. Nathan Sanderson, of the South Dakota Retailers Association, testified that defining which drinks would be subject to the ban would be a constantly evolving challenge. He explained that thousands of new beverage products are released annually, each with a unique UPC code used for inventory and tracking. To comply with the ban, Sanderson stated, the state – and retailers – would need to maintain a comprehensive and constantly updated exclusion list.

“Here’s not like flipping a switch,” Sanderson said, emphasizing the ongoing effort required for compliance.

The administrative burden extends to the creation and maintenance of these “classes of unsellable items” for use as guidance by retailers, a concern echoed by Laura Ringling, an advisor to Governor Rhoden. Ringling reportedly stated that securing the necessary federal waiver would be too costly, particularly during periods of tight state budgets.

While opponents focus on the costs, proponents of the ban believe it could lead to long-term savings for the state, though details of those potential savings have not been fully outlined. The debate highlights a broader discussion about the appropriate use of public assistance funds and the role of government in influencing dietary choices.

The governor’s decision is anticipated in the coming days, and will likely set a precedent for other states considering similar restrictions on SNAP benefits. The outcome will also impact retailers and consumers across South Dakota, potentially altering shopping habits and requiring adjustments to inventory management practices.