The US Government, Food Stamps, and the Soda Industry

[Gin1984]

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 have seen this at ONE farmer's market and not at all in ANY of the grocery stores.  My bet is that it is not being done well.  I think people would use it, if they had access and knowledge.

[acroy]

It's worse than that....

The federal government is laughably, hilariously, ridiculously inept when it comes to food, policy, and subsidies.

Even the NYT has figured it out http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html

We taxpayers have paid to support cheesier Domino pizza and Taco Bell quesadillas, while at the same time issuing 'warnings about fat' and subsidizing various pet programs such as Ms Obama's 'Lets Move' program. It's one giant rotten CF. Drain the swamp. Time for it to end.

[Gin1984]

Just run it like WIC and provide basic (veggies/fruits, bread, milk, etc).

-W

Simplest solution here.

There are major issues with WIC including additional time required to get through based on needing to pay for everything with each check.  Food stamp cards are faster.

[deadlymonkey]

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 have seen this at ONE farmer's market and not at all in ANY of the grocery stores.  My bet is that it is not being done well.  I think people would use it, if they had access and knowledge.

Also, go to any location with a high density of SNAP recipients and try find a farmer's market or even a quality grocery store.

[accolay]

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.

Tap water is cheaper than bottled water or soda. (unless you live in Flint)

[deadlymonkey]

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.

Tap water is cheaper than bottled water or soda. (unless you live in Flint)

or one of the 16 other major cities that have elevated pollutants in their water that hasn't received the same amount of national attention as Flint or St. Joseph, LA.

Soda is not healthy and if you want to address that issue, fine.  If you want to address the SNAP program, fine.  To conflate the two however is narrowing your focus too much on the poor and ignoring the larger issues.

[golden1]

I just don't think that trying to solve public health problems by targeting one specific group in this way is effective.  It feels good to some people to limit soda in this way, but it will backfire and people see it as penalizing the poor and they just rebel against this sort of thing.  We taxed smoking, told people how bad it was for them etc... but it wasn't until smoking became anti-social by keeping it out of public spaces that it really declined, and even that took years before really taking hold.  I'm not sure what the corollary is for drinking sugary drinks, (maybe banning it from fast food restaurants or convenience stores, or perhaps putting the sodas next to the cigarettes and scratch tickets) but I do know that my kids generation is less likely to drink soda than I was. 

[Gal2016]

I'd be fine with having folks pick up "government cheese" and powdered milk and bags of beans.  Heck, give them peanut butter, too and canned vegetables/fruits at government run stores.

[Sid Hoffman]

Having spent more than 1/3 of my life in the grocery/convenience store industry I've seen it all.

...

Person A has a drug problem ... Dealer/drug supplier now has the food stamps.

...

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.

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

I have a family member who's owned convenience stores and worked in grocery for much of his life.  He has talked about all the exact same things here and more - people paying for X dollars on SNAP, then having a second huge grocery cart with $200 in alcohol and other crap they pay for in cash (never credit, as cash is untraceable), while talking on their $650 iPhone Plus and wearing $1000+ worth of fancy clothes and jewelry and driving home in a Lexus.

Any handout program is going to have waste and the better the program, the most extravagant the waste.  It's going to be even worse as we march towards single-payer with gauranteed health benefits because now the few remaining honest tax payers are on the hook for not only the junk food and alcohol that SNAP abusers buy, but also paying for their healthcare too.

[KBecks]

I'd be fine with having folks pick up "government cheese" and powdered milk and bags of beans.  Heck, give them peanut butter, too and canned vegetables/fruits at government run stores.

I think I'm OK with that too!  :)   And actually my military friends say government cheese is great for mac/cheese.

[scantee]

A substantial body research, across countries, and going back decades shows that the most effective form of social supports -- whether for food, housing, or general income -- are cash transfers with few restrictions. Direct subsidies like these are the most effective way to minimize the need for bureaucratic program administration, address short-term needs, and improve long-term outcomes.

And yet, most Americans hate the idea of cash transfers with few restrictions. In their hearts, Americans are still Puritan busybodies and it drives them nuts to think that their precious tax dollars are being used to pay for things they don't approve of! They would rather pay the same amount of tax to support a cumbersome bureaucracy that administers a byzantine set of restrictions and gives actual people less money than support a more efficient system of cash transfers that has a bit more waste but is more cost effective overall.

I know what you're thinking, "but I don't support cash transfers OR cumbersome bureaucracy!" Sorry, that is a real-world choice that needs to be made, because SNAP (and TANF and Section 8) aren't going anywhere, the funding levels might change but they aren't going away, so it's best for us all to find the system that works best, and the one that has shown to work best is cash transfers.

And yeah, we all have an uncle's daughter's boyfriend's stepfather's nephew, we know that receives welfare and also has a fancy car. This means nothing. We shouldn't be making policy decisions that affect millions of people based on the individual experiences of a few.

[KBecks]

Post the research!

[scantee]

Here is a decent non-academic article summarizing the benefits of cash transfers.

Here is another lay article that summarizes the benefits of cash transfers, this one focusing specifically about food supports.

A more academic view of the economics behind cash transfers.

A summary of some recent academic research supporting the effectiveness of cash.

Another study about how cash transfers improve long-term outcomes better than in-kind ones.

You get the picture. Tons of other research out there about the effectiveness of cash, both conditional and unconditional, versus in-kind transfers. Search for articles with those terms and you'll find lots more.

[SEAKSR]

I'd be fine with having folks pick up "government cheese" and powdered milk and bags of beans.  Heck, give them peanut butter, too and canned vegetables/fruits at government run stores.

The Commodities Program does exist in some places... (that said, I did grow up on an Indian Reservation)
And let me tell you, they give more food that most folks can eat in a month... better too. Ground bison (not beef), frozen chicken, fresh veggies and fruits, milk (fresh and powdered), cheese, eggs (fresh and powdered) and more. Hell, a lot of it got donated to the food bank pretty regularly, because the CP recipients had an over-abundance.

[accolay]

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.

Tap water is cheaper than bottled water or soda. (unless you live in Flint)

or one of the 16 other major cities that have elevated pollutants in their water that hasn't received the same amount of national attention as Flint or St. Joseph, LA.

Soda is not healthy and if you want to address that issue, fine.  If you want to address the SNAP program, fine.  To conflate the two however is narrowing your focus too much on the poor and ignoring the larger issues.

Fixed it for you.

Ok, ok. Instead, lets fix our fresh water supplies and change subsidies. Make refined sugar something you have as a treat instead of a diet staple. But we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Hotstreak]

If a person receives $200 in benefits, and spends $20 on soda, we could be giving them $180 without any negative impact on their ability to feed themselves.  Seems like that's a no-brainer.

[Metric Mouse]

Here is a decent non-academic article summarizing the benefits of cash transfers.

Here is another lay article that summarizes the benefits of cash transfers, this one focusing specifically about food supports.

A more academic view of the economics behind cash transfers.

A summary of some recent academic research supporting the effectiveness of cash.

Another study about how cash transfers improve long-term outcomes better than in-kind ones.

You get the picture. Tons of other research out there about the effectiveness of cash, both conditional and unconditional, versus in-kind transfers. Search for articles with those terms and you'll find lots more.

Thank you for posting this.

[golden1]

Relevant joke:  http://www.theonion.com/article/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p-35922?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

[MayDay]

The other thing people forget about with the whole "no convenience foods for poor people" shtick, is that often this demographic has extremely poor kitchen infrastructure.

No fridge, no stove/oven. Maybe just a hot plate. Shitty landlords that don't provide appliances or fix broken stuff. Electricity turned off, so even if they have a fridge it isn't running. Pest problems prevent stocking up on dry goods.

What the fuck are they supposed to do?

A disabled friend just got on the section 8 special disabled wait list that is supposed to be shorter than if you aren't disabled. The last time they opened the list was 8 years ago.

So yay for her. It took 8 years (and counting- could be 18+ months still) but she'll finally have an apartment with minimal amenities.

But, sure, just not buying soda is the answer to all the poor people problems.

Soda is awful but we are talking a tiny part of a much bigger problem. Sure we could chip away at soda but how about we put energy towards the fundamental underlying problem instead?

[accolay]

The other thing people forget about with the whole "no convenience foods for poor people" shtick, is that often this demographic has extremely poor kitchen infrastructure.

Absolutely agree. Along with food deserts, problems with transporting food home if you don't have transportation, the price of healthier foods etc. etc.

But say we decide we want to get rid of soda et al. One rule change. Easy. Done. Move on to next problem. You can't say that something is a problem and well, there are bigger problems, so we're going to ignore it. What's the moral argument against no soda with SNAP?

[DoubleDown]

Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.

What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).

So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.

I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.

[Sailor Sam]

Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.

What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).

So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.

I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.

It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?

Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.

Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.

[golden1]

I just wish people would stop focusing on controlling other people's behavior, and focus on their own.  Circles of control and all that.  I know that what prompts me to change my bad habits is never shame, or people crawling up my ass to watch me or judge me, it's people who I like being a good example to follow.  Inspire people with your actions, don't tear them down.  That is actually what I like about this blog.  It isn't the shaming or face punch aspect, it is turning frugality into a positive force for good in the world, giving a motivation and message that makes it seem less like a sacrifice and more like making it a personal connection to your values. 

[KBecks]

Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.

What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).

So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.

I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.

It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?

Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.

Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.

I'm not sure I understand your statement that all your expenses are paid by taxpayers.  It was unclear as to how.  Would you like to share?

[scantee]

I urge everyone to read the actual research that the clickbaity New York Times article is referencing.

You can access it here.

A couple of salient points from the research that are not addressed in the NYT article:

• From the section "Data Caveats and Limitations": "The majority of stores from which the data came would be classified as grocery stores, supermarkets, and combination food and drug stores...Purchases made at other SNAP-authorized retailers or other venues (e.g., farmers markets) were not included in these data." Reading on you find out that this limits the data to approximately 80% of SNAP expenditures, leaving out data from foods purchased at some, presumably, healthier places like farmer's markets.
• From the "Key Findings" section: "There were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized."
• Also from the "Key Findings" section: "Less healthy food items were common purchases for both SNAP and non-SNAP households. Expenditures were greater for sweetened beverages compared to all milk for both groups, as well.

The U.S. is an unhealthy place. That is true for those families who receive SNAP and those that don't. Policies that impact the entire population (e.g., subsidies for healthy foods, taxes for unhealthy one) will be much more effective in addressing this problem than food restrictions that specifically single out SNAP receivers.

[Sailor Sam]

Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.

What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).

So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.

I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.

It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?

Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.

Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.

I'm not sure I understand your statement that all your expenses are paid by taxpayers.  It was unclear as to how.  Would you like to share?

Sure. I'm in the Military. I've been living at the expense of The People for 12 years. At this point, chances are pretty high I'll obtain that magic 20 year goal, and then live for another 20-30 years on my pension without any work at all.

[KBecks]

That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization.  Spend your earnings the way you want. 

[Gin1984]

The other thing people forget about with the whole "no convenience foods for poor people" shtick, is that often this demographic has extremely poor kitchen infrastructure.

Absolutely agree. Along with food deserts, problems with transporting food home if you don't have transportation, the price of healthier foods etc. etc.

But say we decide we want to get rid of soda et al. One rule change. Easy. Done. Move on to next problem. You can't say that something is a problem and well, there are bigger problems, so we're going to ignore it. What's the moral argument against no soda with SNAP?

It is not moral but logistical, how do we differentiate soda from other drinks (say sparkling water/grape juice) for the computer to decide that SNAP users can use their card for it understanding that grocery store computers are not the most up to date.  And also, given that we know limitations don't seem to benefit anyone and that SNAP users are not drinking more soda than others, the question becomes is it really worth the effort and money to do this adjustment.  I have not seen anything sufficient to say yes.

[Unique User]

I have a family member who's owned convenience stores and worked in grocery for much of his life.  He has talked about all the exact same things here and more - people paying for X dollars on SNAP, then having a second huge grocery cart with $200 in alcohol and other crap they pay for in cash (never credit, as cash is untraceable), while talking on their $650 iPhone Plus and wearing $1000+ worth of fancy clothes and jewelry and driving home in a Lexus.

This sounds like the fake welfare queen stereotypes that went around in the Reagan era and are perpetuated by Fox News.  I would need to see pictures as it seems like if it has happened it would be a minuscule number.  I grew up in a poor area during the Reagan/HW Bush era and never once saw what you are describing.  Of course no iPhones then, but still. 

[Sailor Sam]

That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization.  Spend your earnings the way you want.

That's how you see it, but I don't fully share that outlook. Did I really, really earn 50 years of harassment-free pop purchasing, for 20 years of work? Possibly. Possibly not.  What about the dude who worked 30 years at low paid labor, wrecked himself physically, and now relies on SNAP and Medicare? Shouldn't he get the same elder status I'll be given?

I guess I see too many nuances to be in favour of a unilateral crack down. The reason behind the proposed restriction just seems punitive, couched in some words about health. We don't have to agree, and I'm not demanding you rebut, just giving my viewpoint. Feel free to respond if you want conversation. 

[scantee]

That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization.  Spend your earnings the way you want. 

Do you know how SNAP works and who it actually serves? It's a short term, small entitlement to help people during times of unexpected duress. It requires recipients to reapply every 3 to 6 months. Most recipients use the program for an average of 1 to 3 years. Only 10% of SNAP recipients receive other forms of welfare.

Most SNAP recipients have work histories -- indeed, SNAP is one of the most important programs for helping people who become unexpectedly unemployed -- and have paid in taxes into the system that administers SNAP. Now they are on the receiving end, rightfully taking advantage of supports that they themselves contributed to at an earlier point in time.

[Lkxe]

That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization.  Spend your earnings the way you want.

Well then how about me? I have been gainfully unemployed for the 25 years I've been married to a service member and you will pay for my health and wellbeing for hopefully another 40 or 50 years.
I think the "hard" feelings about welfare and snap are based on thoughts on generational poverty. Fortunately, a lot of people need only temporary help and as such strange restrictions on soda seems like overkill- an unnecessary burden on governance



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Malloy]

I urge everyone to read the actual research that the clickbaity New York Times article is referencing.

You can access it here.

A couple of salient points from the research that are not addressed in the NYT article:

• From the section "Data Caveats and Limitations": "The majority of stores from which the data came would be classified as grocery stores, supermarkets, and combination food and drug stores...Purchases made at other SNAP-authorized retailers or other venues (e.g., farmers markets) were not included in these data." Reading on you find out that this limits the data to approximately 80% of SNAP expenditures, leaving out data from foods purchased at some, presumably, healthier places like farmer's markets.
• From the "Key Findings" section: "There were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized."
• Also from the "Key Findings" section: "Less healthy food items were common purchases for both SNAP and non-SNAP households. Expenditures were greater for sweetened beverages compared to all milk for both groups, as well.

The U.S. is an unhealthy place. That is true for those families who receive SNAP and those that don't. Policies that impact the entire population (e.g., subsidies for healthy foods, taxes for unhealthy one) will be much more effective in addressing this problem than food restrictions that specifically single out SNAP receivers.

Agree.  The U.S. (everywhere?) is full of people focused on short term thinking.  It's why I'm supportive of SS and Medicare and SNAP and other forms of aid.  As much as we'd love for people to change their behavior, we know full well that they won't. If you eliminate SS, no one will save for retirement, but they will starve.  If you eliminate Medicare in favor of vouchers, people won't make up for this by saving to accommodate an extra 24k/year in health insurance spending.  And, this study shows that short term thinking is abundant throughout the population and our food choices, and that giving people aid doesn't matter one way or another to help them eat better. Hell, it's why we are all HERE instead of, just in any old echo chamber of the internet.  We are a small slice of the population that is interested in changing behavior. It's why MMM is a whole philosophy that links healthy eating and behaviors and ecological concern as part of the mindset that leads to better choices and outcomes.  We are the forum for all the kids who didn't eat the marshmallow.  Most people at the marshmallow, including poor people on SNAP and your asshole neighbor with the RV and boat who can't make his mortgage payment.
 

[Kris]

That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization.  Spend your earnings the way you want.

That's how you see it, but I don't fully share that outlook. Did I really, really earn 50 years of harassment-free pop purchasing, for 20 years of work? Possibly. Possibly not.  What about the dude who worked 30 years at low paid labor, wrecked himself physically, and now relies on SNAP and Medicare? Shouldn't he get the same elder status I'll be given?

I guess I see too many nuances to be in favour of a unilateral crack down. The reason behind the proposed restriction just seems punitive, couched in some words about health. We don't have to agree, and I'm not demanding you rebut, just giving my viewpoint. Feel free to respond if you want conversation.

A thoughtful and articulate response.

[accolay]

I just wish people would stop focusing on controlling other people's behavior, and focus on their own.  Circles of control and all that.  I know that what prompts me to change my bad habits is never shame, or people crawling up my ass to watch me or judge me, it's people who I like being a good example to follow.  Inspire people with your actions, don't tear them down.  That is actually what I like about this blog.  It isn't the shaming or face punch aspect, it is turning frugality into a positive force for good in the world, giving a motivation and message that makes it seem less like a sacrifice and more like making it a personal connection to your values.

I understand my circle of influence. If the powers that be decide they want to get rid of SNAPs soda purchasing power I wont care. If they somehow can't change rules for this, I understand my inability to do anything about it and probably wont care. But I still wouldn't view a rule change for soda and sugar as an ethical problem.

But still, fuck soda. Just another problem we wont be able to solve in at least the next four years, or until PPG gets impeached. I don't see food subsidies or the junk food industry changing anytime soon.

[Metric Mouse]

But still, fuck soda. Just another problem we wont be able to solve in at least the next four years, or until PPG gets impeached. I don't see food subsidies or the junk food industry changing anytime soon.

Wow... is this a "Thanks Trump" for the soda industry? Before inauguration even. Really, I'm impressed. :D

[marty998]

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.

How did prohibition turn out for you guys? :)

Full fat is milk is the recommendation here too for kids. For adults I reckon the difference is not all that large between full and low fat. It's not going to make a differenceif the rest of the person's diet is rubbish.

[Metric Mouse]

How did prohibition turn out for you guys? :)

Too soon, brah.

[accolay]

But still, fuck soda. Just another problem we wont be able to solve in at least the next four years, or until PPG gets impeached. I don't see food subsidies or the junk food industry changing anytime soon.

Wow... is this a "Thanks Trump" for the soda industry? Before inauguration even. Really, I'm impressed. :D

Just a general "nothing to benefit anybody but the top with those in office now" type of thing.

[Morning Glory]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

[Metric Mouse]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.

[Hotstreak]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.

Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health?  I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit.  Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.

[Shor]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.

Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health?  I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit.  Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.

I think it's a lot more about what's considered socially acceptable.
We sell water in a bottle, that technically also has zero nutritional benefit, huge waste of money, but is socially acceptable.
Beer on the other hand is socially accepted but as a common luxury.
- Employee goes for a beer after a hard day of work, no one questions his choice of terrible taste.
- Father is unemployed and living off of life savings throws back a couple beers everyday at home: socially unacceptable!

Different example,
If a person lived nutritionally well and healthy and cheaply on a daily multi vitamin and loaf of bread and sugar water, would you still be against it?
They need to live, and they meet those needs. Why do they need to meet those needs under your specific conditions in regards to what is healthy for them?

[Hotstreak]

I think it's a lot more about what's considered socially acceptable.
We sell water in a bottle, that technically also has zero nutritional benefit, huge waste of money, but is socially acceptable.

Water is required for many bodily functions.  If somebody doesn't get any of it, they could die fairly quickly.  I agree bottled water is a huge waste of money and is socially acceptable.

Beer on the other hand is socially accepted but as a common luxury.
- Employee goes for a beer after a hard day of work, no one questions his choice of terrible taste.
- Father is unemployed and living off of life savings throws back a couple beers everyday at home: socially unacceptable!

I don't have a problem with either of those scenarios - and there are a lot of "unemployed" retired folks here who enjoy drinking beer that would probably agree with me.

Different example,
If a person lived nutritionally well and healthy and cheaply on a daily multi vitamin and loaf of bread and sugar water, would you still be against it?

If a hypothetical person could be healthy eating those things would I still be against SNAP covering soda?  Yes, of course.  I'm not sure what your point is here.

They need to live, and they meet those needs. Why do they need to meet those needs under your specific conditions in regards to what is healthy for them?

I'm not arguing that we should create a system where it is restricted.  SNAP is already set up that way.  You can only buy things that someone has determined to be "food", with many exclusions.  You can't buy hot food, you can't use it at restaurants, you can't buy alcohol, or tobacco.  You also can't do many wonderful things with it, like buy gardening supplies, or donate it to charity.  You can't buy pet food, or medicine, soap, or toilet paper.  People still buy and consume those items of course, using money from savings, work, unemployment insurance, etc.  SNAP is supposed to be a stop-gap to prevent people from starving, essentially, and I don't believe that buying and drinking soda's meaningfully contributes towards that goal.

[mm1970]

Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.

What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).

So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.

I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.

It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?

Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.

Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.

I assume, however, that you are subject to the military's height/ weight and physical fitness requirements, no?  Which at least may control your choices.

[Metric Mouse]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.

Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health?  I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit.  Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.

I the point isn't that soda is a health food. It's that restricting people's choices is bad as a general practice, and that programs that seek to do this are no more successful at cultivating good habits or successful outcomes than programs that dole out support with few strings attached.

[accolay]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.

Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health?  I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit.  Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.

I the point isn't that soda is a health food. It's that restricting people's choices is bad as a general practice, and that programs that seek to do this are no more successful at cultivating good habits or successful outcomes than programs that dole out support with few strings attached.

Well, the point for me is exactly that soda isn't healthy, and isn't food at all. Sure, restricting choice for people is bad as a general practice, but I'm not sure that it applies to the problem at hand. I'm still not hearing an argument to convince me why restricting non-food items from SNAP is a bad idea.

Here's an interesting TED talk about choice. Unsure if it would actually apply to soda and SNAP, but interesting nonetheless:
https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)

[iris lily]

I have a family member who's owned convenience stores and worked in grocery for much of his life.  He has talked about all the exact same things here and more - people paying for X dollars on SNAP, then having a second huge grocery cart with $200 in alcohol and other crap they pay for in cash (never credit, as cash is untraceable), while talking on their $650 iPhone Plus and wearing $1000+ worth of fancy clothes and jewelry and driving home in a Lexus.

This sounds like the fake welfare queen stereotypes that went around in the Reagan era and are perpetuated by Fox News.  I would need to see pictures as it seems like if it has happened it would be a minuscule number.  I grew up in a poor area during the Reagan/HW Bush era and never once saw what you are describing.  Of course no iPhones then, but still.

No amont of anecdotal evidence will convince you, just as a small amount of anecdotal evidence confirms my bias, as you would say.

Last week my friend drove a couple of kids from the projects home from school. They wanted her to stop at the grocery store to buy bottled water for their mother since that is the only kind of water she will drink.

In my city we have great tap water, it wins awards for taste.

But no matter, the woman living in public housng can somehow afford bottled water. Oh wait, I guess that is because she pays $12/month rent. She has low rent payments because the taxpayers fund her housIng.

We are AWEsOME!

[cpa cat]

If I'm filling out an application for SNAP then I'm voluntarily looking for help with my grocery bill. Why would I be offended that the help had restrictions and I wasn't allowed to buy junk food with it? Makes sense to me. If SNAP exists because some people can't afford to feed themselves and their families healthy food, then it should be used for healthy food. What's the point of it if it's not used for that?

On the other hand, the S stands for supplemental. People will buy soda anyway. They have access to other cash. They're going to find the $2 for Coke one way or another. So then it comes down to the principle of the issue, right? We're not really stopping people from buying junk food if we restrict food stamps.

And let's face it, the more restrictions, the more expensive the program becomes to administer. So if the cost of SNAP goes up because there's additional monitoring and regulations, but we accomplish absolutely no net benefit whatsoever other than patting ourselves on the back for the principle of the thing, then who the F cares if SNAP is being used to buy a Coke?

[Gin1984]

We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect.  If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?

Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.

Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health?  I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit.  Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.

I the point isn't that soda is a health food. It's that restricting people's choices is bad as a general practice, and that programs that seek to do this are no more successful at cultivating good habits or successful outcomes than programs that dole out support with few strings attached.

Well, the point for me is exactly that soda isn't healthy, and isn't food at all. Sure, restricting choice for people is bad as a general practice, but I'm not sure that it applies to the problem at hand. I'm still not hearing an argument to convince me why restricting non-food items from SNAP is a bad idea.

Here's an interesting TED talk about choice. Unsure if it would actually apply to soda and SNAP, but interesting nonetheless:
https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)

Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP?  How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you?  I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead.  If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.