By Noah Zahn
Wyoming Tribune Eagle
Via- Wyoming News Exchange

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 disallowing from purchase 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 the administration, 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 DFS 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.

Wyoming serves a monthly average of 28,364 [SNAP] recipients, 44% of whom are children.

Under the federal Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress earlier this year, administrative complexity of the program 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 DFS 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’s DFS 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 an appropriation 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, and said states that submit these waivers are positioned to receive additional funding through the Rural Health Transformation Program, which is also outlined in the OBBBA.

Retailers, however, voiced concern. 

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.