SNAP (Food Stamp) soft drinks....

[Martin Fisher]

 

15 minutes ago, cdh said:

SNAP is an agricultural subsidy program as much as it is a feeding people program.  USA  agricultural policy incentivizes and rewards massive overproduction of corn and soy, and the subsidies are there to help move engineered corn and soy byproducts in the market.  You're not going to get restrictions on SNAP card users, when the other beneficiaries are counting on them to buy the HFCS laden stuff that you're characterizing as junk.  If you want less junk in the system, move the incentives and subsidies away from rewarding farmers for growing so much stuff that gets turned into it.

 

The middlemen benefit the most.

[chefmd]

SNAP and WIC are not cash and that makes them restrictive to begin with.  Nor they are intended to cover all food expenses, hence Supplemental.  Government places restrictions on many programs that it runs such as Medicare reimbursements to (not poor) Docs and Hispitals.  It is reasonable, IMHO, to exclude junk food just as alcohol and cigarettes are excluded.

[quiet1]

11 minutes ago, chefmd said:

SNAP and WIC are not cash and that makes them restrictive to begin with.  Nor they are intended to cover all food expenses, hence Supplemental.  Government places restrictions on many programs that it runs such as Medicare reimbursements to (not poor) Docs and Hispitals.  It is reasonable, IMHO, to exclude junk food just as alcohol and cigarettes are excluded.

 

People who can't cook (due to time or ability) are not going to magically start being able to do it if you prevent them from buying the processed "junk" food that they live on now. It just doesn't work that way - the magic wage fairy does not increase the hourly rate they make at one job so they can afford to drop the second one and have time to cook. The landlord fairy is not going to come and make them have a place to live (if they are homeless) or make their appliances all work. The grocery fairy is not going to plop a decent supermarket down the street so they have sensible access to groceries on a regular basis and can get fresh produce. All it does is mean there is less useful they can buy with the benefits that are supposed to help them, so the money they do have from other sources has to go further which generally just makes things worse.

 

I mean, there is a reason why many food pantries now stock pet food or work with a group that supplies pet food to the food pantry users - turns out lots of people with pets will do whatever they can to keep the pets fed too, and that meant they were feeding some of the food from the food pantry to their pets and not getting proper nutrition themselves. (Elderly folks in particular were a problem in this regard, apparently.) Provide food for the pets, and the people eat the regular food from the food pantry. Same concept - things have unintended consequences.

 

The other thing is that junk food is usually cheap per calorie, which is the way a lot of poor people shop - if $2 buys you either 500 calories of junk food or 250 calories of fresh produce, the junk food looks like a much better buy, especially since it is usually shelf stable and easy to prepare.

 

 

[Martin Fisher]

 

A hot ready-to-eat rotisserie chicken and the like can't be purchased with SNAP, but soft drinks, candy, potato chips, etc. can.

What sense does that make?

Seems to me the opposite should be the case if folks are in dire straits and can't cook for whatever reason.

 

[kayb]

Adding to one thing @quiet1 mentions, and I forgot to, is "food deserts," vast areas where access to good grocery stores just does not exist. These are both in rural areas -- there are any number of places within an hour of me that don't have a grocery store within 10-15 miles and many of the poor don't have a car, but also in cities, where some neighborhoods have no groceries within walking distance  and mass transit, if it exists, sucks. Big swaths of communities have no food outlets except convenience stores and, in the South, Dollar General. And a big portion of what either offers is, guess what, junk food. Certainly no produce or fresh meat.

 

@DiggingDogFarm, I completely agree on the rotissere chicken. Much healthier, and more meals per buck.

 

I really don't think I'd have a big issue with soft drinks being excluded, other than the fact it feels like shaming the poor. Not that that's going to go anywhere, anyway; soft drink lobby's too big.

 

WIC is a very different program from SNAP. It is narrowly targeted at children, and limited to a specific, narrow list of foods, like formula, milk, cereal, fruit, cheese, etc. If it still works the way it used to, clients receive product-specific vouchers entitling them to certain amounts of formula, milk, fruit, juice, etc.

 

 

 

[Martin Fisher]

Just now, kayb said:

I really don't think I'd have a big issue with soft drinks being excluded, other than the fact it feels like shaming the poor.

 

I'm definitely not for shaming the poor, I'm for better nutrition for the poor.

 

5 minutes ago, kayb said:

"food deserts," vast areas where access to good grocery stores just does not exist.

 

I've lived it.

I grew up in a rural area, I've never had a drivers license and I've always been poor mostly due to medical issues.

 

Where I live now Dollar General is the closest store that sells 'groceries' — it's within walking distance.

You're right about the fresh meat and produce but they do have plenty of other foods that aren't generally considered junk.

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, kayb said:

WIC is a very different program from SNAP. It is narrowly targeted at children, and limited to a specific, narrow list of foods, like formula, milk, cereal, fruit, cheese, etc. If it still works the way it used to, clients receive product-specific vouchers entitling them to certain amounts of formula, milk, fruit, juice, etc.

 

In California it is still that way. One of my children needed WIC assistance a while back and it is a very focused program.

[quiet1]

3 hours ago, kayb said:

Adding to one thing @quiet1 mentions, and I forgot to, is "food deserts," vast areas where access to good grocery stores just does not exist. These are both in rural areas -- there are any number of places within an hour of me that don't have a grocery store within 10-15 miles and many of the poor don't have a car, but also in cities, where some neighborhoods have no groceries within walking distance  and mass transit, if it exists, sucks. Big swaths of communities have no food outlets except convenience stores and, in the South, Dollar General. And a big portion of what either offers is, guess what, junk food. Certainly no produce or fresh meat.

 

@DiggingDogFarm, I completely agree on the rotissere chicken. Much healthier, and more meals per buck.

 

I really don't think I'd have a big issue with soft drinks being excluded, other than the fact it feels like shaming the poor. Not that that's going to go anywhere, anyway; soft drink lobby's too big.

 

WIC is a very different program from SNAP. It is narrowly targeted at children, and limited to a specific, narrow list of foods, like formula, milk, cereal, fruit, cheese, etc. If it still works the way it used to, clients receive product-specific vouchers entitling them to certain amounts of formula, milk, fruit, juice, etc.

 

 

 

 

Honestly at this point, enough stores have decent in-house food prep that expanding SNAP to cover those items might do more to improve nutritional intake than banning anything in particular. It isn't as cost effective as some of the processed stuff you can buy, but it's closer to properly cooked, and is about as easy to pick up and take home as frozen stuff. Heck, some of those microwave packets Rotus posted photos of from his local place looked really quite respectable, and all you do is stick it in the microwave.

 

We have programs now around here so farmer's markets take SNAP (or whatever it's called locally) - if we could figure that out I feel like other changes to make it easier to buy better food (instead of harder to buy junk) should also be possible.

 

(As I understand it, the city also subsidizes farmer's markets in some neighborhoods where they'd be otherwise unprofitable. I don't think they pay the sellers as such, but I think the city does something like covers the cost or part of the cost of the infrastructure and organization, something along those lines so the sellers can afford to sell even though the number of sales isn't as high as in other places. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but we have a local farmer's market when it is warm enough due to the program, and it's been there for a few years and seems to do pretty good business these days because people have gotten used to having access to it. I think that is an issue, too - it takes time for people's buying habits to change when different things do become available. Why get used to stopping by a farmer's market if it's only going to be there for one summer and then vanishes again, you know?)

[gfweb]

3 hours ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

I'm definitely not for shaming the poor, I'm for better nutrition for the poor.

 

 

I've lived it.

I grew up in a rural area, I've never had a drivers license and I've always been poor mostly due to medical issues.

 

Where I live now Dollar General is the closest store that sells 'groceries' — it's within walking distance.

You're right about the fresh meat and produce but they do have plenty of other foods that aren't generally considered junk.

 

We've got no Dollar General nearby. Other Dollar stores, yes. They sell trash bags and extension cords.

 

What kind of food does DG have?

[Martin Fisher]

2 minutes ago, gfweb said:

What kind of food does DG have?

Quite a few items.

Milk, bread, eggs, frozen ground beef, sausage, canned tuna,  canned mackerel, canned sardines, dry noodles, spaghetti sauce, Alfredo sauce, all basic baking ingredients, biscuit mix, many Mexican or Tex-Mex products, canned fruits and vegetables, herbs and spices, cereal, condiments, pickles, olives, coffee, tea, etc.

[gfweb]

Sounds like real food @DiggingDogFarm. Are they really at a dollar or less?

[Martin Fisher]

Just now, gfweb said:

Sounds like real food @DiggingDogFarm. Are they really at a dollar or less?

 

No, merchandise is priced like Walmart, not a dollar or less like Dollar Tree and the like.

[MetsFan5]

Sorry but anything government funded and paid by tax payers is going to have limits. We don't live in an egalitarian country. (Assuming people contributing to this conversation are from the US, as these are US programs). 

  I've lived on ramen type of poor and now have a nice life. Soda shouldn't be covered. 

[Martin Fisher]

FWIW...

The case for and objections against excluding sweetened beverages from SNAP.

"Impact and Ethics of Excluding Sweetened Beverages From the SNAP Program, Anne Barnhill, PhD"

"Funding SNAP participants' purchase and consumption of sweetened beverages does not further SNAP's primary aims, which are to alleviate hunger and improve the nutrition and health of low-income people. Sweetened beverages do not alleviate hunger because they do not satiate.9 Nor do sweetened beverages improve nutrition, because they have minimal nutritional value.10 The addition of sweetened beverages simply makes the diets of SNAP participants worse by adding excess calories and sugar, which contribute to overweight, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases."

 

[rotuts]

its a shame that a SugarTax  , of some amount , is not universal.

[rustwood]

Here is a more recent and broader review article from a top-shelf journal:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494810/

 

It seems there is a good case for restricting these purchases in the SNAP program (and elsewhere).

[quiet1]

1 hour ago, rustwood said:

Here is a more recent and broader review article from a top-shelf journal:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494810/

 

It seems there is a good case for restricting these purchases in the SNAP program (and elsewhere).

 

'That doesn't address any of the social or psychological points. It briefly mentions them and then just blows past to a position of "you have to be careful how you make the laws, but restricting must be good!" approximately.

[Allura]

On 1/15/2017 at 3:22 PM, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

That would be nice.

How?

Realistically? 

Basic Income. Much less administrative costs, no one cares what you do with the money. It replaces ALL programs, so no one plays politics or tries to enforce morality with it. 

One reason I can see for soda is it's a very simple source of caffeine. No (iffy, possibly yucky) water needed (could you afford the bill or was it shut off), doesn't need to be heated, doesn't even need a cup. Maybe because they LIKE soda. I hate the stuff, but that's me. It's really none of my business.

[Martin Fisher]

I don't think caffeine is an important 'nutrient.'

[chromedome]

No, but staying functional without it is sometimes challenging. Especially if you're working multiple jobs, as many SNAP recipients are. Essentially, income supports subsidize employers who don't pay a living wage. Of course, that's a whole other discussion. 

 

I don't care for soft drinks myself, basically all I drink is water, tea and one cherished cup of strong coffee a day. Still, there's something to be said for that one little "luxury" that makes the rest bearable. A can of Coke wouldn't be that for me, but I always had butter for table use when my kids were growing up, even during times when I fed the family for a month on what most people considered a week's budget. It was worth it to me. 

[rustwood]

16 hours ago, quiet1 said:

'That doesn't address any of the social or psychological points. It briefly mentions them and then just blows past to a position of "you have to be careful how you make the laws, but restricting must be good!" approximately.

 

I think we may be reaching the point of agreeing to disagree.  The review article I quoted says, "Restrictions on SNAP and similar benefits have been criticized for singling out and stigmatizing poor families, potentially discouraging them from participating in government benefits programs [58,63]."  The first reference is the article @DiggingDogFarm quoted and the the second is another by the same author.  The abstract of the first citation says "Other objections question the equity of excluding sweetened beverages from SNAP; these objections are important but not ethically decisive."  The second reaches a very similar conclusion.  So yes, be careful, but those concerns need not be an ethical barrier to reform.  Plenty of other references support the dietary benefits of reducing SSB intake.

 

Of course there is no such thing as 100% conclusive research (e.g. climate change) - especially in an area such as this.  I personally tend to believe these arguments and that the SSB industry is going to leverage whatever angles it can to maintain their profits.  With that said, some will use the statistic that started this discussion to build support to to eliminate or significantly cut funding for the SNAP program.  I am 100% against that.  I am open to compromising on well reasoned reforms though - especially if the compromises are necessary to maintain overall support for SNAP and similar programs.  [potentially inflammatory political comment self-censored here]

 

FWIW, I very much enjoy Coke, but I generally don't drink it very often because I suspect my enjoyment is far outweighed by the deleterious health effects of freely consuming it.  That notion has recently been reinforced by Gary Taubes.  His book, The Case Against Sugar, has just been released so he has been appearing in the media a lot lately.  I haven't read the book (yet) but I heard an lengthy interview with him somewhere.  I can't imagine completely eliminating sugar in my diet, but there does seem to be a large body of evidence to support at least reducing sugar intake. I think about it whenever I reach for the sugar, but I still reach for it.

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by rustwood (log)

[Martin Fisher]

The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung in Toronto is also very interesting.

It's as much, or more, about the causes of weight gain as it is how to reverse it.

He cites some compelling research.

Edited January 17, 2017 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[quiet1]

3 hours ago, rustwood said:

 

I think we may be reaching the point of agreeing to disagree.  The review article I quoted says, "Restrictions on SNAP and similar benefits have been criticized for singling out and stigmatizing poor families, potentially discouraging them from participating in government benefits programs [58,63]."  The first reference is the article @DiggingDogFarm quoted and the the second is another by the same author.  The abstract of the first citation says "Other objections question the equity of excluding sweetened beverages from SNAP; these objections are important but not ethically decisive."  The second reaches a very similar conclusion.  So yes, be careful, but those concerns need not be an ethical barrier to reform.  Plenty of other references support the dietary benefits of reducing SSB intake.

 

Of course there is no such thing as 100% conclusive research (e.g. climate change) - especially in an area such as this.  I personally tend to believe these arguments and that the SSB industry is going to leverage whatever angles it can to maintain their profits.  With that said, some will use the statistic that started this discussion to build support to to eliminate or significantly cut funding for the SNAP program.  I am 100% against that.  I am open to compromising on well reasoned reforms though - especially if the compromises are necessary to maintain overall support for SNAP and similar programs.  [potentially inflammatory political comment self-censored here]

 

FWIW, I very much enjoy Coke, but I generally don't drink it very often because I suspect my enjoyment is far outweighed by the deleterious health effects of freely consuming it.  That notion has recently been reinforced by Gary Taubes.  His book, The Case Against Sugar, has just been released so he has been doing appearing in the media a lot lately.  I haven't read the book (yet) but I heard an lengthy interview with him somewhere.  I can't imagine completely eliminating sugar in my diet, but there does seem to be a large body of evidence to support at least reducing sugar intake. I think about it whenever I reach for the sugar, but I still reach for it.

 

 

I find the attitude very dismissive of the other factors.

 

To be fair, I am deeply skeptical of the entire 'fitness and nutrition' lobby. The idea that a complicated issue like obesity or diabetes can be attributed to just one Big Bad Food like sugar is hard to swallow, particularly in light of the history we have of declaring something the newest Big Bad only to decide later on that no, it wasn't the problem at all really. (Fat, sodium, carbohydrates, now its mostly refined carbohydrates and specifically sugar, dietary cholesterol.) I have an auto immune disease, and the more research they do, the more it seems like they find out they don't REALLY understand what is going on. I mean, a recent drug trial got canned because it was possibly making people suicidal even though they didn't see any potential mechanism for it to have any direct influence on mental health and brain chemistry. (The expectation was that sure, being sick might lead to depression and getting better might change that, but the drug itself wasn't expected to do anything.)

 

The same thing seems to happen with other health issues - there is some thought that obesity may be related to gut bacteria populations, for example. And I believe someone else found a possible link to viral infection. Heck, the human body is complicated enough that it is entirely possible there is more than one thing causing the same symptom (weight gain) - there's more than one autoimmune disease that causes joint pain, and some of them look VERY similar if you don't know exactly what to look for.

 

That makes it very hard for me to say that it is okay to make things worse for people who are already in a bad place just because we want to believe that sugar is the Big Bad and if we get rid of soda pop everyone who gets SNAP will be healthier and no longer overweight. (Never mind that being poor is stressful which we know is horrible for your health and leads to elevated levels of hormones like cortisol which do have a role in encouraging the body to store fat.)

 

In any event, my housemate poses a question - if Coke is not allowed, what about fruit juices?

[JoNorvelleWalker]

Having relied on food stamps and charity to keep from starvation gives me standing to express an opinion.  If the goal is to keep poor people alive give them soylent green.  If the goal is to offer a degree of human dignity let them buy coke.

 

Note, soup kitchen food is generally pretty tasty.  Blessed are those that make it happen.

 

[Martin Fisher]

3 hours ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

Having relied on food stamps

 

Many of us have.