Bill Description: House Bill 938 would amend the definitions of “candy” and “soda” for the purposes of SNAP benefits.

Rating: 0

Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?

House Bill 938 would amend Section 56-275, Idaho Code, which includes the state’s definitions of “candy” and “soda” as applicable to SNAP benefits.

It is worth noting that these definitions, created by House Bill 109 in 2025, were also copied into the itemized grocery credit under Section 63-3024A(9), Idaho Code, which was created by House Bill 231 (2025). 

House Bill 938 would change the current definitions (which the bill’s statement of purpose describe as “difficult for retailers and consumers to interpret”) only as they relate to SNAP benefits, leaving these difficult-to-interpret definitions in place as they relate to the itemized grocery credit.

The current definition of “candy” in § 56-275(1)(a) is “a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. ‘Candy’ shall not include any preparation containing flour and shall require no refrigeration.”

The bill would amend this to be “a shelf-stable preparation of sugar, honey, or other nutritive or nonnutritive sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings, in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. ‘Candy’ shall not include any preparation requiring refrigeration or any of the following:

1. Baked goods such as muffins;
2. Baking ingredients such as chocolate melting wafers, toffee bits, chocolate, etc.;
3. Savory or nonsweet snacks such as pretzels and crackers;
4. Fruit snacks made with real fruit, including fruit puree and fruit juice concentrate, such as dried mango, apple chips, and fruit leathers;
5. Trail mix and products that list peanuts or tree nuts as the first ingredient;
6. Granola bars, breakfast bars, snack bars, protein bars, meal replacement bars, and weight loss bars; or 
7. Items used as ingredients in baking such as sugar, honey, and baking chocolate.”

As is so often the case when government attempts to micromanage market decisions, these expanded definitions create as many questions as they answer. Are pretzels still a “savory or nonsweet” snack if they are Dot's Pretzels Cinnamon Sugar Seasoned Pretzel Twists? Do Trail Mix Bars fall under the ingredient limitations for “trail mix” under subsection (v) or the undefined “snack bar” exception in subsection (vi)?

Also, why are there two separate subsections for “baking ingredients…” and “items used as ingredients in baking…” (both of which include chocolate)?

The current definition of “soda” in § 56-275(1)(b) is “any nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners. ‘Soda’ does not include any beverages that contain milk or milk substitutes, that are greater than fifty percent (50%) vegetable juice or fruit juice by volume, or that require preparation before consumption, such as powders or concentrates.”

The bill would amend this to be “any nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners. ‘Soda’ does not include any beverages that:

1. Contain milk or milk substitutes;
2. Are greater than fifty percent (50%) vegetable juice or fruit juice by volume;
3. Require preparation before consumption, such as powders or concentrates;
4. Are sports drinks used for hydration;
5. Are used as an oral rehydration electrolyte solution formulated to prevent or treat dehydration; or 
6. Are manufactured as a source of necessary nutrition or dietary supplement.”

Again, these expanded definitions may not solve the ambiguity issues they are designed to address. There is no definition of a “sports drink” in Idaho Code, nor is this a recognized or regulated term according to the FDA. It is generally considered to be a marketing label, which makes its inclusion in a law like this a questionable decision. 

(0)