Author Topic: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry  (Read 21626 times)

okobrien

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 104
    • Up From Wage Slavery
The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« on: January 14, 2017, 06:27:06 PM »

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2017, 06:40:04 PM »
Just run it like WIC and provide basic (veggies/fruits, bread, milk, etc).

-W

abhe8

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2017, 06:48:55 PM »
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2017, 08:42:55 PM »
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2017, 08:50:19 PM »
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?

Because we're buying it for the poor people, and the not-so-poor people are buying it with their own money. If I'm buying you food, I sort of feel like I have some right to keep you from buying (basically) poison. Especially since my taxes also fund Medicaid.

Don't get me wrong, I think a UBI would really be the way to go. But if we're going to hand out food and hence put conditions on the handouts (you can only buy food with it), then we might as well add the condition that the food not make people sick so we don't also have to pay for more healthcare for them.

-W

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2017, 09:45:17 AM »
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay

But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 11:14:33 AM by Abe »

scantee

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2017, 02:12:20 PM »
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?

Agreed that there is not a meaningful difference between consumption levels.
 
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.

abhe8

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2017, 04:01:55 PM »
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
No, we are not forcing them to eat anything. The gov is giving them money to help their nutrition. I see no way that soda helps. They are free to buy all the soda they want, with their own money.

I actually think giving poor people diabetes and heart disease is punishing them. Should we buy their cigarette s too? Poor people smoke more. Let's add those to food stamps too.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 04:04:50 PM by abhe8 »

Norioch

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2017, 04:28:41 PM »
Because heaven forbid poor people have any pleasures in their life, right?

I drink soda. I eat junk food. I like it. It would be hypocritical of me to expect poor people to eat healthy all the time.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2017, 05:07:59 PM »
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?

I'm with this guy from the article:

David Ludwig, the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the purpose of SNAP was to protect the health and well-being of the nation, not to ensure that poor households had ample access to sugary drinks.

“We have more evidence for the harms of sugary beverages than for any other category of food,” he said, “and yet it tops the list of reimbursed products in SNAP.”

Dr. Ludwig said other government programs had common-sense restrictions. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, and the national school lunch program have strict nutrition standards. Medicare pays for necessary medical procedures but does not reimburse for ones it considers harmful, ineffective or unnecessary. SNAP, Dr. Ludwig said, should be structured similarly.

“No one is suggesting poor people can’t choose what they want to eat,” he said. “But we’re saying let’s not use government benefits to pay for foods that are demonstrably going to undermine public health.”


Your government is not supposed to buy you a soda. 

I'll add that cooking skills are probably just as bad as financial skills for a lot of people.  It's an area where people would benefit from learning more.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 05:09:43 PM by KBecks »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2017, 05:16:16 PM »
Because heaven forbid poor people have any pleasures in their life, right?

I drink soda. I eat junk food. I like it. It would be hypocritical of me to expect poor people to eat healthy all the time.

Right?

GlassStash

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Location: The Arctic Midwest
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2017, 05:16:44 PM »
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?

Agreed that there is not a meaningful difference between consumption levels.
 
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.

Agreed, if the goal is to change behavior and and positively affect public health, there should be invectives for that type of behavior. Otherwise, we would be expecting low income folks to act categorically different than most Americans under the same/similar set of circumstances.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2017, 05:32:49 PM »
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.

This already exists - if you remember from the original article:
"Mr. Concannon said the U.S.D.A., rather than restricting junk foods, had made incentive programs that encourage nutritious foods a priority. The federal farm bill that designates money for the SNAP program, for example, set aside $100 million for programs that increase the value of food stamps that are used to buy fruits and vegetables at retail stores or farmers’ markets."

Apparently that doesn't work all that well.

-W

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8185
  • Location: United States
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2017, 05:33:34 PM »
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay

But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!

I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.

Is there a reason you think it is healthier?

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4747
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2017, 05:48:31 PM »
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay

But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!

I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.

Is there a reason you think it is healthier?

Odd for multiple doctors to have that opinion, given that there's little/no evidence to support it. Has there ever been a single study that found negative health effects from drinking one or two diet cokes a week, which were cured or prevented by switching to one or two regular cokes a week? I have yet to see it.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2017, 06:02:08 PM »
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay

But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!

I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.

Is there a reason you think it is healthier?

Odd for multiple doctors to have that opinion, given that there's little/no evidence to support it. Has there ever been a single study that found negative health effects from drinking one or two diet cokes a week, which were cured or prevented by switching to one or two regular cokes a week? I have yet to see it.

One or two of anything save rat poison or meth won't hurt you much. If it's "food" of any kind at all you can probably safely eat it a couple times a week unless you have an allergy.

Unfortunately MDs are not biochemists or nutritionists, and they are often horribly misinformed about even pretty basic stuff.

-W

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2017, 06:13:57 PM »
Otherwise, we would be expecting low income folks to act categorically different than most Americans under the same/similar set of circumstances.

So what?

GlassStash

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Location: The Arctic Midwest
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2017, 06:15:29 PM »
Otherwise, we would be expecting low income folks to act categorically different than most Americans under the same/similar set of circumstances.

So what?

It's illogical.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5891
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2017, 06:27:38 PM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2017, 11:26:33 PM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up.  Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.

Sailor Sam

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5405
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2017, 11:38:13 PM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up.  Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.

Why stop there? Anyone receiving an ACA subsidy is, in effect, also on the public dole. Recipients should be monitored as necessary, and restricted if their BMI exceeds the healthy threshold. Public money equals public health, even if their buying their own pop.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2017, 11:42:08 PM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up.  Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.

Why stop there? Anyone receiving an ACA subsidy is, in effect, also on the public dole. Recipients should be monitored as necessary, and restricted if their BMI exceeds the healthy threshold. Public money equals public health, even if their buying their own pop.

Genuis. And no doubt best for them.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2017, 11:54:20 PM »
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.

The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.

-W

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2017, 12:04:16 AM »
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.

The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.

-W

I would disagree. Some restriction may be necessary, even beneficial. But that doesn't mean more is better - while may be ok to say "You need food, here is money that can only be spent on food." I think it is wrong to say "You need food, here is money that can only be spent on brand x whole grain pasta and brand b low-sodium, low sugar sauce to top it." It's not a black/white all or nothing proposition - and in my opinion the more freedom of choice the general population has the better, even accepting there will be downsides.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5891
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2017, 12:25:12 AM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up.  Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
If you could pull this off, i.e. actually have an excellent supply chain of nutritious food that feeds the needy while minimizing waste and market side effects (reselling, stigma, etc.), I'd be all for it.

Heck, I would probably pay for such a service myself. Food is food is food. I don't care if I'm eating the same thing as a million other schmucks today, if the quality and price is better than what I can do myself.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2017, 02:07:59 AM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up.  Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.

Why stop there? Anyone receiving an ACA subsidy is, in effect, also on the public dole. Recipients should be monitored as necessary, and restricted if their BMI exceeds the healthy threshold. Public money equals public health, even if their buying their own pop.

What do you mean by restricted?  How would you implement such a scheme?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 02:14:00 AM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2017, 02:09:15 AM »
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.

Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.

How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up.  Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
If you could pull this off, i.e. actually have an excellent supply chain of nutritious food that feeds the needy while minimizing waste and market side effects (reselling, stigma, etc.), I'd be all for it.

Heck, I would probably pay for such a service myself. Food is food is food. I don't care if I'm eating the same thing as a million other schmucks today, if the quality and price is better than what I can do myself.

growingpower.org

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2017, 02:13:13 AM »
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.

The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.

-W

How is handing out cash better?  I don't like it because handing out cash means sometimes the kids don't have anything to eat while the mom goes out to party.  Or similar scenarios where cash meant for food doesn't feed anyone.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Location: Southern California
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2017, 02:15:46 AM »
So 80℅ of SNAP money is subsidizing beans, rice, meat, fruits, and vegetables? Hooray for that. There is a tiny difference between SNAP recipients and everyone else as far as soda consumption is measured, not sure why these people are losing their shit over it.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Location: Southern California
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2017, 02:17:23 AM »
Just run it like WIC and provide basic (veggies/fruits, bread, milk, etc).

-W

Simplest solution here.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2017, 02:19:17 AM »
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.

The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.

-W

How is handing out cash better?  I don't like it because handing out cash means sometimes the kids don't have anything to eat while the mom goes out to party.  Or similar scenarios where cash meant for food doesn't feed anyone.

While I don't mean to speak for Walt specifically, in general the thought of giving 'cash' for benefits gives the recipient the greatest choice and freedom from their benefits. If they choose to not capitalize upon that, they are only hurting themselves.

Not feeding children is a serious thing as well - it's my understanding that in many cases children are removed from homes in which the adults don't provide for them. Food stamps don't have to be turned in, and can even be exchanged with others for cash - it's quite possible to have benefits given out with stipulations don't magically make people perfectly responsible.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2017, 02:28:28 AM »
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.

That's rich, white, privileged guilt programming at work.  Let's all feel bad that for the people can't feed themselves and we'll to give them a cookie so we can all can feel better about ourselves.  Let's just throw some money and run away so we don't have to think about it too much.  As if you need soda in your life to be happy or normal.  There are plenty of other sweets out there that could be enjoyed.  Kids can still have birthday cakes, Kool-aid, etc. etc. etc.

Do you want PepsiCo and Coca-Cola profiting off the SNAP program?  A program that's meant to provide nutrition?  Who is lobbying to oppose the restrictions?  The soft drink makers, duh.

Are you going to show up at your local food pantry to donate cases of Mt. Dew?  No, because that's not a good use of your resources and it's stupid. 

Anyone who wants to drink sugary drinks on their own dime, enjoy.  Don't make the government buy poor people sodas so you can feel better about your own sugar and caffeine addictions.  Patronizing. 


KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2017, 02:42:01 AM »
While I don't mean to speak for Walt specifically, in general the thought of giving 'cash' for benefits gives the recipient the greatest choice and freedom from their benefits. If they choose to not capitalize upon that, they are only hurting themselves.

Not feeding children is a serious thing as well - it's my understanding that in many cases children are removed from homes in which the adults don't provide for them. Food stamps don't have to be turned in, and can even be exchanged with others for cash - it's quite possible to have benefits given out with stipulations don't magically make people perfectly responsible.

When you're enrolled in any government support program, you are not free.  Freedom always comes from self-determination.  The purpose of the USDA SNAP program is not to make beneficiaries feel good about themselves, it is about nutrition -- the acronym is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Look at this paragraph about the lobby

For years, dozens of cities, states and medical groups have urged changes to SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to help improve nutrition among the 43 million poorest Americans who receive food stamps. Specifically, they have called for restrictions so that food stamps cannot be used to buy junk food or sugary soft drinks.

But the food and beverage industries have spent millions opposing such measures, and the U.S.D.A. has denied every request, saying that selectively banning certain foods would be unfair to food stamp users and create too much red tape.


About the red tape, if WIC runs this way, and with modern technology, it's unlikely that it would be too difficult for SNAP to restrict soda.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2017, 02:51:15 AM »
Beggars can't be choosers
http://susanday.net/beggars-cant-be-choosers/

And while we're at it, let's consider international starvation.
http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/#hunger-number

"About one in eight people, or 13.5 percent of the overall population, remain chronically undernourished in (developing regions)."

#firstworldproblems     

Place your concerns of fairness appropriately. 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 02:52:57 AM by KBecks »

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2017, 12:31:57 PM »
I work in public health and I agree that SNAP should not be used for soda and other SSBs. These foods are so terrible for health, I think it makes sense for the govt to specifically avoid paying for them. SNAP recipients can use their other resources to pay for such things if they want, so it’s not like the govt is restricting their access any more than the market restricts lower earners from being unable to buy pricey organic foods. Most SNAP recipients have other funds they use to pay for food, they just don't have enough so the govt steps in and gives them SNAP (the S stands for "supplemental) to make sure they don't go hungry. Sadly, soda is often so cheap, its not like it would be a huge hardship to pay for these with your own funds...whereas milk totally might be. The truth is, most SNAP recipients would probably still buy plenty of soda anyway even with restrictions, the difference is that over the entire population, such restrictions could reduce the amount consumed. It's not like the restrictions would suddenly result in millions of Americans being denied the little pleasure of having a soda a few times a week.

Regulating the payments for processed foods in general is much harder though. Americans of all income levels consume massive quantities of processed foods, so it would be hard to tell where reasonable public health protections end, and moral dietary policing begins. Never mind the fact that the consensus of which processed foods are healthy vs unhealthy vs neutral to health is constantly shifting. Is breakfast cereal okay? What about only "sugary" cereals? How sugary does a cereal have to be to be considered too sugary for SNAP coverage??? Then there is the whole issue of price, with processed foods often being far cheaper and therefore more economical for low income families that use SNAP. It wouldn’t work to simply restrict SNAP to healthy whole foods without increasing the monthly benefit amount, as people could easily end up lacking enough food. Healthy foods won’t matter much if people aren’t able to buy enough of them.

Ideally it would be great if SNAP only covered mostly whole, unprocessed foods and increased the benefit to allow people to buy larger quantities of them. Give generous benefits to cover fresh fruits, veggies, canned and frozen veggies, fish, meat, dairy, eggs, and some dry goods like beans/rice/whole wheat pasta. That would require budget increases though :/
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 12:51:01 PM by little_brown_dog »

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2017, 01:04:22 PM »
WIC costs about $45/person/month (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/25wifyavgfd$.pdf)

SNAP costs about $125/person/month (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program)

$125/month will buy a LOT of veggies, peanut butter, bread, milk, and cheese if you're buying in bulk. Certainly enough to feed one person, as many people on this forum can attest. Our monthly food budget for a family of 4 here (in a HCOL area) hovers around $600, right in that ballpark - and that's just buying mostly at retail.

Hell, you might actually *save* money by converting everything to a limited choices/healthy WIC type system.

-W

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2017, 01:31:03 PM »
Regardless if food stamps are supported by taxes I don't give a shit that poor people wouldn't be able to purchase soda using those benefits.

Fuck soda. Like it's some quality of life issue. Please.

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2017, 01:40:55 PM »
WIC costs about $45/person/month (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/25wifyavgfd$.pdf)

SNAP costs about $125/person/month (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program)

$125/month will buy a LOT of veggies, peanut butter, bread, milk, and cheese if you're buying in bulk. Certainly enough to feed one person, as many people on this forum can attest. Our monthly food budget for a family of 4 here (in a HCOL area) hovers around $600, right in that ballpark - and that's just buying mostly at retail.

Hell, you might actually *save* money by converting everything to a limited choices/healthy WIC type system.

-W

You are assuming most SNAP recipients will have the ability to buy in bulk and shop sales. Many SNAP recipients live in food deserts (both rural and urban) where grocery stores are limited. They often do not have access to grocery stores at will (to take advantage of sales) or even access to a grocery store period (many people have to shop at bodegas) where fresh food prices are higher. Still others don’t have cars and require public transport or walking…they don’t have the ability to carry 70lbs of food home by foot or bus route. Your assessment also leaves out fish/meat, a category of food that is widely considered to be healthy in reasonable amounts in a diet. Should benefits not be sufficient to cover this pricier category?

We can’t base SNAP benefit amounts on optimistic assumptions (Buy in bulk! Shop sales! Shop around at different locations for the best deals!), we have to base it on the most realistic and plausible scenarios for the group we are trying to serve. Many mustachians here are great at reducing food costs but that is because they have the opportunities to do so in the first place.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5875
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2017, 01:51:30 PM »
Those are indeed important issues. My point was that $125/mo is plenty to feed someone basic healthy food if that is your goal. If nobody could use SNAP benefits on soda, I'm betting a few corner stores would start stocking milk and peanut butter...

Meat and fish are luxury items, bluntly. Vegetable based protein (beans, nuts, etc) is just fine. That's what I eat...

-W

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2017, 02:41:38 PM »
I realize to some degree this comes down to personal philosophy but I think it is entirely reasonable to say we will help you buy food but it has to offer some nutritional benefit or at least not be harmful. Just as we wont typically give money to a homeless person so that they can go buy malt liquor.

If we are going to help the poor buy items that hurt them just to make them feel better, lets just buy them all meth....

You would have to be careful how you word the law though so as not to open the gates to unintended restrictions in the future. I assume right now you can buy any consumable from a store that isn't a tobacco or alcohol product with food stamps. Do they restrict anything else like candy?

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2017, 02:43:20 PM »
I must say that I'm shocked, shocked that a government program isn't working as intended!

Quote
Lastly, 20 cents of each dollar was spent on a broad category of junk foods that included “sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.”

Good to see the taxpayer's money isn't being wasted, right?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2017, 03:07:51 PM »
Starting with taking soda off SNAP is a decent baby step.   I don't think that restrictions should be too severe.  If you look at sugary cereal, it will at least have some vitamins.  A soda will have sugar and sodium and that's it.   I would not want to restrict orange juice, of course, some things like lemonade might be borderline.  But just soda?  No reason it should be provided in SNAP.

I would think that something could change, but alas, Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo CEO is now one of Trump's advisors.  She also is close to HRC.  It may not be a big enough issue to register for change.

BDWW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: MT
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2017, 03:09:37 PM »
I realize to some degree this comes down to personal philosophy but I think it is entirely reasonable to say we will help you buy food but it has to offer some nutritional benefit or at least not be harmful. Just as we wont typically give money to a homeless person so that they can go buy malt liquor.

If we are going to help the poor buy items that hurt them just to make them feel better, lets just buy them all meth....

You would have to be careful how you word the law though so as not to open the gates to unintended restrictions in the future. I assume right now you can buy any consumable from a store that isn't a tobacco or alcohol product with food stamps. Do they restrict anything else like candy?

Nope, all the gas stations around here have stickers in their windows saying "We accept EBT." Aside from a basket of bananas and apples by the register, not a single thing in there isn't junk food.

Perhaps it was only my state, but 20 years ago when I worked at a grocery store, food stamps (they were actually paper booklets back then) could only be used for healthy food. It seems to me it was relatively recently the loosened the rules to allow for junk food.
 
Of course that shaped my philosophy on it greatly, as it was very common for a customer to make two transactions, the first a bunch of staples that were paid for with food stamps, and then the soda,doritos, cartons of cigarettes and cases of beer they paid for with cash. But that's probably a separate discussion.

SEAKSR

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Rainy Alaska
  • Great day for water landings!
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2017, 05:43:02 PM »
Having spent more than 1/3 of my life in the grocery/convenience store industry I've seen it all. When I started Food Stamps (similar to SNAP, but not exactly the same) were pieces of paper that in order to be verified had to be physically torn out of the booklet that they were issued in, and as the cashier you had to watch the person and verify that the book belonged to the person standing in front of you. THAT SUCKED! It was embarrassing for the people paying for their groceries, and for the cashier. Any and all change was made in $1 equivalent bills and actual non-stamp coinage. Real money.

The scams back then went something like this:

Person A has a drug problem, get on food stamps, sign the book illegibly, in a random amount of scribbling that could be any signature on the block. Trade that book, street value around $75 (Face is $150), for the drugs. First person out. Dealer/drug supplier now has the food stamps. These would change hands in whole book form until they got to the person who was in charge of changing them into cash.

That drill, for the most disciplined of users went like this:

Person B purchases the full book from someone at around street value, sometimes more, sometimes less. Usually this person has nothing to do with the drug industry beyond fencing food stamps. This person will go grocery shopping. Buy enough to make it look legitimate. Bring your total as close to $20 dollars without going UNDER. Say they hit the magic $20.01. They then hand over two $20.00 equiv. bills, and receive 19 $1 equiv bills, plus $0.99 in actual cash. $1 dollar equivs. are not traced, tracked or otherwise paid attention to. You could treat them just like a George Washington. Coin is kept, sorted and then cashed in... for cash of course! Meanwhile, you have your kids, your friends, your co-workers trade you dollar for dollar, converting the food stamps to cash. With the right network, and a little bit of effort, you would end up with $75 dollars +/- of food like products, and the same in cold cash. Rinse and Repeat.

Then we converted to the debit card system! It totally rocks, no more paper means no more coins, no more untraceable 1 dollar bills. Now you have to sell the whole card. And people do. Same prices, forty to fifty cents on the dollar. You can verify the card by calling an 800 number and putting in the card number, no PIN required. No ID Required to use the card. Cashiers are instructed by the government to treat all customers equally. You cannot call out any, ANY customer for their method of payment in a public manner. Pin pads have gotten more intelligent over the last 15 years, to the point now that cashiers don't even need to ask you how you're paying for whatever it is you're buying. You do it all on the PIN pad.

For a while, while managing a grocery store (which takes SNAP, WIC, Debit, Credit (no Diners Club, sorry) and Cash (no checks ever)) we used the "Nutrition Facts" litmus test. The regulations for SNAP benefits are that the food items must have Nutrition Facts on their labels. Most energy drinks were initially produced with Supplement Facts, as the FDA hadn't approved them as Nutritional (which we all know they are not). Of course, over the last few years all of those cans have changed their labels, with FDA approval. This is the reason we currently can't actually have the discussion about removing the Sugar Bombs from the approved food lists. Each and every company has put in the time and effort (read PAID) to be sure that their products conform to the proper food status.

WIC, as it worked from the late 80's until recently, required the verification of signatures and items against physcial paper vouchers and ID cards with specific limits. This is great!

Current methods in Oregon are found at https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyPeopleFamilies/wic/Pages/shopping.aspx#balance

Now we have another card that can be sold. And scuttlebutt from back home says that is exactly what is happening.

The new WIC System could still work for the SNAP program, except for all my computer savvy friends out there in MMM land... Please describe the amount of programming and oversight that would be required of every POS system to be able to control the allotments of actual food tracking. Big Food puts out dozens of new products weekly, all of varying levels of nutrition. How do we properly administer a program of that magnitude. Where are the lines drawn?

Don't get me wrong. I really think the system is broken and needs to be fixed, but it will require a paradigm shift from those at the top... Remember these are the same people who have regulated the dairy industry to the point where Joe Well-Above-Average* can't legally sell milk from his cow directly to a person who wants to drink it in most states. The same regulators that have closed over 95% of the legal slaughter houses in the US. And the same ones who allowed Monsanto to patent DNA. It won't happen. The only thing we can legally do as operators of grocery stores is opt to not sell the products with the highest profit margins, and then hope to stay in business. Sugar, caffeine and carbohydrates are the most addictive substances in the world. Sell them, get the money, stay in business.

And, while staying in business, pay employees enough to pay their bills and get by. The people I worked with every day weren't in debt up to their eyeballs, they just had nothing to show for anything. All while being on SNAP and WIC and what not.

*Who are we kidding, Joe Average only vaguely knows what a cow looks like, and has never seen a live one in person.

SomedayStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
  • Live Long and Prosper
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2017, 06:15:54 PM »
I would be happy if soda was banned entirely.  That shit is no good for anybody.

But i don't think we should be dictating food choices.  Food guidelines keep changing. (is margarine bad or good vs butter for example)

Another example: I think WIC makes a good effort but I disagree with WIC guidelines to only allow low fat milk for children 2 yrs and older.  I personally think full fat milk is better for my children.

Soda seems like an obviously bad choice... But if folks are eligible for snap I don't mind giving them that choice. 


Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2017, 09:35:54 PM »
Most foods exist somewhere between the two extremes of "highly nutritious" and "zero nutrition, but pleasurable to consume".  Soda does not.  There is no nutrition in a coca cola or mountain dew, and it does not belong in a nutrition program. 


If you want to give people money for them to have fun with, go ahead and do that.  Give them a reach around.  Fly their kids to Disneyland.  I don't care, until you ask me to pay for it, and then it becomes my business.

Sailor Sam

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5405
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2017, 09:49:26 PM »
The American public pay for both my food, and my healthcare. Yet there's no silliness about forbidding me pop, or monitoring my choices at the till. What's the practical difference?

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2017, 03:00:57 AM »
The American public pay for both my food, and my healthcare. Yet there's no silliness about forbidding me pop, or monitoring my choices at the till. What's the practical difference?

The difference in my opinion is one is a public benefit and one is pay for public service. Quite a difference. Apples and oranges.

I would also add that the obesity epidemic has left the military with a majority population that are unfit to enlist.

Does it make a person's life less if they don't have a soda every week? Is it a slippery slope to argue against the poor having benefits that will allow them to get refined sugar products?

JoshuaSpodek

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2017, 03:30:50 AM »
Because heaven forbid poor people have any pleasures in their life, right?

I drink soda. I eat junk food. I like it. It would be hypocritical of me to expect poor people to eat healthy all the time.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

First, anyone can eat what they pay for. The issue is what taxpayers pay for.

Second, I don't drink soda or eat junk food. Plenty of people don't. I don't see the relevance of your eating habits and feelings of hypocrisy. People lived for hundreds of thousands of years without them. They live now without them. They have no bearing on happiness and do on health.

I find fresh fruits and vegetables pleasures. I don't have a problem with government programs subsidizing broccoli. You're calling industrial products engineered to addict people pleasures. Kale doesn't cause diabetes or cancer.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry
« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2017, 06:15:56 AM »
I really don't understand what you are arguing about.  SNAP pays you a set amount of money for food.  In order to make that money go further (its not very much, try living off it for a month) you need to buy cheap food.  Cheap food is bad food primarily because of our misdirected subsidies.  ERGO, poor people eat bad food.  IF you want poor people to eat good food with taxpayer money, make good food cheaper OR give them the money they actually need to afford good food.

It doesn't help that poor communities tend to be food deserts with no real grocery stores that sell good food anyway.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!