Jared Polis wants to ban Coca-Cola from Colorado SNAP benefits for health reasons while seeking approval to allow Big Mac purchases for convenience. The State Board of Human Services isn’t buying it.
Four of seven board members expressed reservations February 6 about the governor’s soda restriction waiver. Public testimony roundly opposed the plan. Vice Chairman Mychael Dave said he’d only vote yes “to get something in return” for vulnerable communities—specifically, approval to buy restaurant meals.
The contradiction: Colorado simultaneously pursues a ban on sugary beverages and legislation allowing SNAP purchases at McDonald’s and other restaurants. Both target the same populations—elderly, disabled, homeless. Polis claims health motivates one, convenience the other.
Polis submitted three SNAP waivers to USDA on May 13, 2025: restrict soda purchases, expand hot food eligibility, streamline farmers market access. Federal approval came August 4 for the soda restriction only. The same month, Polis signed SB25-169 requiring the Department of Human Services to submit a Restaurant Meals Program application by January 1, 2026.
No public confirmation exists that the application was submitted.
The soda ban prohibits purchasing drinks with sweeteners or less than 50 percent juice—soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, sweetened tea. Chocolate milk, unsweetened seltzers, and 100 percent juice remain eligible. The Restaurant Meals Program, if approved, would allow SNAP purchases at participating restaurants including fast food chains.
Polis justified the soda restriction with a food desert theory. “Because many local grocers make stocking decisions in part based on SNAP eligibility, I’m confident this waiver will help reduce food deserts in Colorado by reducing shelf space for soda and increasing it for other nutritional food products,” he stated August 5.
The theory fails basic scrutiny. SNAP accounts for four percent of U.S. food spending—$112.8 billion of $2.8 trillion. Grocers stock based on total customer demand, not which four percent pays with EBT versus cash. Federal SNAP retailer requirements mandate minimum staples but contain no shelf space allocation provisions.
The USDA defines food deserts by distance to stores—greater than one mile urban, greater than ten miles rural. Store closures create food deserts. Stocking decisions don’t.
The February 6 hearing addressed 600,000 Colorado SNAP recipients who received $120 million in benefits in 2025. Approximately half are children. Ana Bustamante of Save the Children Action Network testified the waiver “creates further stigma” and urged supporting Double Up Food Bucks instead. Opponents raised retailer compliance costs and concerns about children with Type 1 diabetes needing occasional sugary drinks.
The National Grocers Association estimates $1.6 billion initial implementation costs and $759 million annually for retailers nationwide. Colorado retailers face twelve-month compliance from the April 30 implementation date if approved.
Dave’s concern about stigma reflects board skepticism about restrictions without benefits. Four members indicated the soda ban becomes palatable only if USDA approves hot food purchases. The board has nine members but can vote with five.
Polis joins unexpected political company. Eighteen states received SNAP junk food restriction approval. Seventeen have Republican governors. Colorado and Hawaii are outliers. The policy aligns Polis with Trump Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA initiative. “We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick,” Kennedy stated.
Five states began restrictions January 1, 2026, affecting 1.4 million recipients. PepsiCo announced fifteen percent price cuts thirty-three days later. The company spent $2.8 million lobbying against restrictions in 2025. American Beverage Association doubled lobbying to $1.7 million in first-half 2025—highest since 2010.
The March 6 vote requires five board members. Four already expressed skepticism. If approved, implementation begins April 30. If rejected, Polis’s health claims collapse against his own contradiction—SNAP can’t fund Coke but could fund McDonald’s, assuming the state filed the application legally required five weeks ago.
The board noticed what Polis hoped they wouldn’t: You can’t simultaneously claim health concerns justify restricting soda while convenience concerns justify allowing Quarter Pounders. Not when both policies target identical populations using the same federal dollars for the same stated purpose—helping vulnerable Coloradans access food.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 