CHEYENNE—As the future of SNAP benefits, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is up in the air amid the federal government shutdown, Wyoming lawmakers are looking to update the program by prohibiting participants from purchasing certain items, ranging from soft drinks to candy and mustard to spices.
However, state officials also say this move could end up costing Wyoming taxpayers $3.1 million.
On Friday, the Legislature’s Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Committee discussed a SNAP benefits waiver request, outlined in a bill intended to mandate that the state take aggressive action to limit the purchase of certain items through the program. Officially, the bill draft requires the director of the Department of Family Services to request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In the meeting, DFS Director Korin Schmidt provided an overview of SNAP in Wyoming, noting that it is a federal program, and the federal government provides 100% of the food benefits, which amount to approximately $62 million a year in Wyoming.
The state’s responsibility lies in administering SNAP, including determining eligibility based on income and household size. Wyoming serves a monthly average of 28,364 recipients, 44% of whom are children.
The core of the bill requires DFS to request a waiver to exclude candy and soft drinks from the definition of eligible food purchases.
Schmidt said that this request would be a demonstration waiver. This means that, if approved, the department would need to demonstrate this aspect of the program truly makes the SNAP population healthier, achieving one of the goals of the program.
She said implementation of the change could last around one year, with testing occurring over the two following years.
Under the federal Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress earlier this year, the program’s administrative complexity has increased, Schmidt said, and is slated to decrease the federal match for administrative costs from 50% to 25% beginning in October 2026.
There is also a penalty if the state is found to have an error rate at or greater than 6%, which is monitored by the federal government. This rate is determined by how accurately Wyoming identifies eligibility and distributes the correct amount of funds.
If the error rate exceeds the limit, the state must pay 5% of the food costs, which would be around $3.1 million for Wyoming. Last year, the statewide error rate was 5.1%, and Schmidt said her department is currently hovering around 4.1%.
To administer the new waiver request without risking a penalty, which includes conducting the study, Schmidt estimated an annual cost of $650,000 for three years. She warned that proceeding without additional funding would force the agency to repurpose existing staff, potentially increasing administrative stress and jeopardizing the low error rate.
Several legislators expressed concern regarding the administrative burden versus the policy goal.
Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, viewed the waiver not as a burden, but as being accountable for other people’s money, seeking to promote healthier recipients who might become gainfully employed.
“Overall, we’re going to try to create or assist in a better and a healthier human being. So, to me, it’s not a burden. It seems like it’s an accountability issue,” she said.
Conversely, Sen. Cheri Steinmetz, R-Torrington, questioned why such a large health study was needed, arguing the government shouldn’t act as “big brother” and should simply enforce the original intent of the Farm Bill, which authorizes SNAP, of funding staple commodities, not candy or soft drinks.
The discussion also touched on federal incentives. Jeff Darty, speaking on behalf of FGA Action, a conservative Florida-based advocacy group, noted that the bill aligns with key federal policy initiatives like Make America Healthy Again. He said states that submit these waivers are positioned to receive additional funding through the Rural Health Transformation Program, which is also outlined in the Big Beautiful Bill.
Retailers, however, voiced concern.
“I have a hard time when a 16-year-old cashier is the policeman of such things.”
Jim Benedict, grocery store Owner
Jim Benedict, who owns a grocery store in Mountain View, and Sarah Pettit, public affairs director of Associated Food Stores, stressed the necessity of clear definitions.
“At a retail level, I have a hard time when a 16-year-old cashier is the policeman of such things, and if the definitions are there and it’s in place and the participants know exactly what they can buy, that takes the pressure off of us at retail,” Benedict said.
Pettit noted that the current definition of “candy” might unintentionally exclude items like trail mix, granola bars and protein bars, complicating point-of-sale systems and confusing customers.
The initial draft defined “candy” as a preparation of natural or artificial sweeteners, chocolate, fruit, nuts, or other flavorings, and a “soft drink” as a nonalcoholic beverage containing natural or artificial sweeteners, with exceptions for milk and high-juice content.
Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, moved to amend the definition to strike the phrase “or artificial” sweeteners from both definitions. He argued this would create a positive incentive, moving recipients away from sugary sodas toward diet or sugar-free options, thus taking them “one step closer to being healthier.” This amendment failed.
Chairwoman Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, then proposed a significant amendment to expand the scope beyond just candy and soft drinks. Relying on federal terminology, she moved to amend the bill to prohibit the acquisition of “accessory foods” in general.
“I believe it’s safe to say that there really is no place for these accessory foods, based on all the education that I’ve seen your agency provide over the years,” she said to Schmidt.
The committee clarified that “accessory foods” include items generally considered snack foods or desserts, things like chips, ice cream and cookies, but also items that supplement meals, such as coffee, tea, cocoa, condiments, spices, salt and sugar.
Despite pushback from some members who felt banning spices and condiments went too far into the weeds and would make the bill too complex, the amendment to replace “candy and soft drinks” with the broader category of “accessory foods” passed.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, proposed an amendment to provide a $1.3 million appropriation and two full-time positions for DFS staff to execute the waiver’s health study over three years, but the amendment failed.
The final bill draft passed 12-2, with Scott and Yin casting the only votes opposed to the bill. It will be considered by the full Legislature when the budget session begins in February.
It is a sad day when the focus is on this “The committee clarified that “accessory foods” include items generally considered snack foods or desserts, things like chips, ice cream and cookies, but also items that supplement meals, such as coffee, tea, cocoa, condiments, spices, salt and sugar.”
Ok, I get the idea that we want a healthier diet for all but now you won’t allow SNAP to be used for coffee, spices, sugar?. Cruelty is the point isn’t it?
I’m not in favor of policing what people eat, and this only policing what poor people eat. Is it really about the food or just punishing SNAP participants? If you want people to drink less pop, just tax it more. Then it’s built into the sales system of the stores and teenage clerks don’t have to be the food police. What a terrible situation for those kids to be in.
It’s everybody’s right to eat what they want. This is going down a rabbit hole of lawmakers telling people what they can or cannot do. It’s a criminal.
Not able to buy sugar and spices which go into the scratch preparation of food, what?
The nanny state at work.
If you really want to “make America healthy again”, how about going after the processed food industry itself? Get that crap off the shelves and EVERYONE will be healthier. Oh wait – this administration is in their pocket so can’t do that…
Kathleen, in case you haven’t noticed America’s food quality has gone in the nutritional toilet since the late 70s at the latest.
“This administration” has made small tiny steps to undue that decline, removing dyes and additives that previous administrations did not care about.
Washington DC is collectively owned by the special interests, and that corruption is BIPARTISAN.
This administration hasn’t done squat. Rfk is a complete goofball. Don’t forget to shoot up some chlorine when you get a virus.
Gordon, there are literally hundreds of food additives in Americans food that most EU countries and Canada BANNED.
Do you want those things in our food, that others have said are harmful?
You can hate RFK all you want, but helping to take garbage out of our foods that should have never been there in the first place isnt something you should rail against him on.
https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/tracking-food-industry-pledges-remove-petroleum-based-food-dyes
I don’t hate RFK, but even you know he’s a kook. Again, the trump administration is destroying America. They have done nothing to make American food or health care better.
If i were to believe rfk and chrumps idiotic advice, I’d think you have taken too much Tylenol in your life chad/jack/doug.
Do you ever miss an opportunity to display fealty to the grifters?
Are sugar and high fructose corn syrup the same? How about sucrose, fructose, sorbitol, or xylitol? Would sorghum be included? Monosaccharides?
See where this is going. Sugar means more than just “sugar” on an ingredient label. Aren’t there other thing that we need to worry about?
There should be a single designated section\isle in every grocery store for govt assistance food. The basic healthy staples people need, and that is all.
The USA is probably the only country in the world where the poorest citizens are also some of the most obese.
Let the poor eat bland unflavored pottage. They don’t deserve spices. g
I get the junk food, but not spices.
Oh, but isn’t it clear that the committee members think people who don’t make enough to support themselves should be punished? How very Christian of them!
Law makers should exclude themselves from accepting free anything. Remember some of these goofballs accepted ppp ‘loans’.