SNAP (Food Stamp) soft drinks....

[Martin Fisher]

4 hours ago, quiet1 said:

....if Coke is not allowed, what about fruit juices?

 

Perhaps a standard similar to what's mentioned in the referenced paper above.

"The proposal, more exactly, is to exclude sweetened beverages containing more than 10 calories per cup, excluding fruit juice without added sugar, milk products, and milk substitutes."

[Martin Fisher]

Philadelphia's new beverage tax imposes a 1.5 cent per ounce tax on sweetened beverages.

That's bad news for struggling SNAP folks who choose to buy such.

That's $2.16 per 12-pack or $1.01 per 2-liter.

More money from a limited budget that won't go toward nutritious food.

Sad!

 

Philadelphia's definition:

 

"What is taxed

The tax is not just on sodas. This tax is on any non-alcoholic beverage, syrup, or other concentrate used to prepare a beverage that lists as an ingredient any form of caloric sugar-based sweetener, including, but not limited to sucrose, glucose, or high fructose corn syrup.Drinks considered “diet” or “zero calorie” are also taxed. Specifically, this tax is on any non-alcoholic beverage, syrup or other concentrate used to prepare a beverage that lists any form of artificial sugar substitute, including stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, and advantame."

"While concentrates or syrups are also taxed, their tax rate is based on the final beverage produced, not the raw syrup or concentrate."

 

"Examples of sweetened beverages

Soda (regular and diet); non-100%-fruit drinks; sports drinks; sweetened water; energy drinks; pre-sweetened coffee or tea; and non-alcoholic beverages intended to be mixed into an alcoholic drink."

 

Philadelphia Beverage Tax

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[Martin Fisher]

Interesting report....

 

"...health experts are raising questions about whether it makes sense to allow SNAP purchases for unhealthy products such as soda and candy. Advocates are also looking for ways to incentivize healthy food purchases. While much attention has focused on how farm subsidies fuel our cheap, unhealthy food supply, SNAP represents the largest, most overlooked corporate subsidy in the farm bill."

 

"This report examines what we know (and don’t know) about how food manufacturers, food retailers, and banks benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps)."

 

Food Stamps: Follow the Money

 

[lindag]

You only have to mention school breakfasts to get under my hide.

And please don't start throwing rocks, of course I don't want children going hungry, but when did it become someone else's job to feed kids?  There are just so many you people who are multiplying without any regard as to how they'll support their offspring, they just don't worry about it because someone else will come along and do their job.

My biggest issue is where will it all end?  I already have spent thousands and thousands of dollars over my life to support the school system,  am I going to have to pay to raise all those children as well?

[rustwood]

47 minutes ago, lindag said:

they just don't worry about it because someone else will come along and do their job.

 

Or they don't worry about it at all and the children go hungry through no fault of their own.  People should take proper responsibility, but they aren't always going to do it (or they may suddenly find themselves without the means to do it).  These programs didn't create these problems, they were created to address problems that were already long established. It would be nice if there wasn't a need to help people get enough to eat, but I don't think that is the case.

 

[quiet1]

1 hour ago, lindag said:

You only have to mention school breakfasts to get under my hide.

And please don't start throwing rocks, of course I don't want children going hungry, but when did it become someone else's job to feed kids?  There are just so many you people who are multiplying without any regard as to how they'll support their offspring, they just don't worry about it because someone else will come along and do their job.

My biggest issue is where will it all end?  I already have spent thousands and thousands of dollars over my life to support the school system,  am I going to have to pay to raise all those children as well?

 

Unfortunately, statistics say yes - those kids are much much more likely to grow up to be functional and contributing members of society if we support them even if their parents are dropping the ball, which is better for society overall.  There was a study done a bit ago looking at something like just providing free pre-school at age 4 and the difference it made in how many kids went on to get good jobs, etc. was startling.

 

There are plenty of people from all walks of life busily reproducing who really shouldn't be, heck knows I went to high school (private) with a lot of kids who were fed well but neglected worse than many kids of parents who spent time with them but couldn't afford to feed them enough. Making babies isn't particularly difficult.

 

I actually think school breakfasts are a good idea in general, though - my housemate can most certainly afford to feed his kid, but the school district does breakfast for everyone (and lunch) and having the meal at school seems to get kids into the swing of the school day better. I guess it acts like a transition period between arriving and classes starting? He's in 6th grade so the teacher/adult assistance required for eating is pretty minimal, not like with little kids who might need more help. So food at school can have a role besides just feeding hungry kids. (Our school district did away with the means testing for meals a couple of years ago - once you figure in administrative costs apparently it works out cheaper for us to just feed everyone free than to have people chasing around to make sure kids who need it are signed up, and other kids pay, etc. And the social workers and case workers are now free to focus on serious issues like kids showing signs of learning difficulties or major home problems.)

 

[lindag]

thank you for sharing your perspectives.

 

 

[quiet1]

4 hours ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

Perhaps a standard similar to what's mentioned in the referenced paper above.

"The proposal, more exactly, is to exclude sweetened beverages containing more than 10 calories per cup, excluding fruit juice without added sugar, milk products, and milk substitutes."

 

If sugar is awful, though, then even fruit juice without added sugar should be considered pretty bad - many fruits have plenty of sugar in them as it is and usually when you have juice you consume an awful lot relative to actually eating a piece of the same fruit. (Look how much juice you usually get from a single orange, for example, compared to a typical glass of orange juice from a bottle.) So that is inconsistent.

 

(Actually, I'd like to see a better breakdown of the numbers since the NYT article appears to be quoting figures that include fruit juices as part of soft drinks, and given that people have long been taught that fruit juice is a good thing and soda is bad to give kids, people could be buying fruit juices to replace sodas and people looking at the numbers in the article are assuming it's mostly soda. But someone buying fruit juice actually is making a 'good' choice per historical teaching about beverage choices.)

 

(Excuse me if I missed something in the article or am not clear, we are having a bunch of plumbing replaced - yay old houses - and there is so. Much. Jackhammering. right now, I can't hear myself think.)

[Martin Fisher]

1 hour ago, quiet1 said:

 

If sugar is awful, though, then even fruit juice without added sugar should be considered pretty bad

 

I agree but it''s a harder sell than other sweet beverages.

Edited January 17, 2017 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[quiet1]

1 minute ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

I agree but it''s a harder sell than other sweetened beverages.

 

True. I am pleased that they aren't lumping milk in with everything else based on calories, though.

 

It makes me cranky that our local school for a while was giving the kids skim milk only as part of trying to be 'healthy' - first, kids need a ton of calories relative to size, so if you're giving them good food in reasonable portions (which certainly we should be doing at school) then they don't need to be having 'diet' foods, especially since fat and protein are what make you feel full. Second, the major 'good things' in dairy products are vitamin D and calcium which are fat soluble. No fat, no absorption of the calcium. So if you're giving the kids milk as a snack (which they do for younger kids) and giving them skim milk and nothing with fat (usually the milk is paired with fruit these days since nut allergies mean peanut butter crackers are out) then nutritionally you aren't doing much better than a soda anyway. They've since switched to low fat/2%, which is better. 

 

(Hilariously, for a while the choices were plain skim milk, or chocolate or strawberry flavored 2%. So from the point of view of calcium and feeling satisfied with the snack, the better choice was the added sugar flavored milks. Resident kiddo was pretty happy to have the excuse to drink the tasty flavored stuff, but as nutritional options went it wasn't the best.)

[Martin Fisher]

10 minutes ago, quiet1 said:

I'd like to see a better breakdown of the numbers

 

The full report is here.

Unfortunately it's an analysis that includes both cash and SNAP food/beverage purchases.

There's no study (that I know of) that looks at just SNAP purchases and their effect on health.

[Yiannos]

1 hour ago, lindag said:

I don't want children going hungry, but when did it become someone else's job to feed kids?

 

There are children out there who, without these programs, would go hungry on a daily basis. So do we just let them starve? Or starve until we can educate people so that this problems goes away (never)? There will always, always be hungry children out there and like it or not these kids are our future. Maybe I'm just a stupid hippie or something but it takes a village...

[Martin Fisher]

I don't think anyone wants to see children starve.

Most kids seem to survive just fine without school breakfast or lunch during summer break which is 2-1/2 to 3 months.

Where does that food come from?

For the needy — SNAP, charity (food banks.etc.)

[Yiannos]

Just now, DiggingDogFarm said:

Most kids seem to survive just fine without school breakfast or lunch during summer break which is 2-1/2 to 3 months.

Where does that food come from?

 

Where I live, these programs are available at public schools all year long.

[Martin Fisher]

Just now, Yiannos said:

 

Where I live, these programs are available at public schools all year long.

 

Not here.

[Yiannos]

2 minutes ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

Not here.

 

Then there is more work to be done, I guess.

[quiet1]

22 minutes ago, Yiannos said:

 

Where I live, these programs are available at public schools all year long.

 

Around here, too. Or if not at the school, then at city sponsored day camps. They try to have some kind of program over long breaks, too, so kids don't go hungry when school isn't in session. Often those programs are at a community building, not the school itself, but the city is definitely involved in organization and funding, it isn't just an independent charity thing. (We have those, too. Churches and so on.)

[Porthos]

4 hours ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

"What is taxed

 

... .Drinks considered “diet” or “zero calorie” are also taxed.

 

So it's more than sugar. It includes choices that don't add sugar calories. If sugar is the culprit then the law is flawed. And here I thought California, where I live, makes some crazy social engineering laws ...

[quiet1]

It just occurred to me that another issue involved is that the tap water in many places with a high population of people on food stamps, at least in urban areas, is likely not safe to drink due to issues like lead in the water from old and poorly maintained pipes. (Everyone has heard of Flint now, but it isn't the only place with the issue.) So then do you spend money on water, which has no nutritional value, or on sweetened drinks, which at least provide calories?

 

(I don't even know if you can get bottled water using food stamps.)

 

We just had a thing here because they changed the chemicals in the water in some areas and it wasn't protecting against lead leeching from pipes as well - my household was all using bottled water until we could get the water properly tested because the house is from 1920-1930 and I think the pipes to the house in the street are about the same age.

[Martin Fisher]

Bottled water can be purchased with SNAP benefits.

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[ElainaA]

10 hours ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

Not here.

They are available not very far from you. Cortland County, just north of where you live, provides summer feeding programs in most towns - open to anyone 18 or younger. Some towns only do lunch, many do both lunch and breakfast. And Loaves and Fishes provides either lunch or dinner (on alternate days) year round. I know Tompkins  and Onondaga counties also have similar programs - I would be really surprised if Broome did not. 

[Martin Fisher]

16 minutes ago, ElainaA said:

They are available not very far from you. Cortland County, just north of where you live, provides summer feeding programs in most towns - open to anyone 18 or younger. Some towns only do lunch, many do both lunch and breakfast. And Loaves and Fishes provides either lunch or dinner (on alternate days) year round. I know Tompkins  and Onondaga counties also have similar programs - I would be really surprised if Broome did not. 

 

There is some SFSP availability here in Chemung County but it's not easily accessible for everyone — there's nothing in my immediate area nor several other areas in the county.

Nothing at all available 25 miles south in rural PA where I grew up.

Edited January 18, 2017 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[ElainaA]

@DiggingDogFarm Sorry - From your comments, I thought you were in Broome not Chemung. 

[Martin Fisher]

Just now, ElainaA said:

@DiggingDogFarm Sorry - From your comments, I thought you were in Broome not Chemung. 

 

No need for you to be sorry.

I'm the one who's sorry — sorry I live in Chemung county! 

[kayb]

On 1/16/2017 at 8:40 AM, rotuts said:

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

 

Never happen. For my comment upthread re: soft drink lobby, just read "sugar lobby."

 

On 1/16/2017 at 7:05 PM, chromedome said:

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. 

 

Much to be said for that.

 

On 1/17/2017 at 0:21 AM, JoNorvelleWalker said:

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.

 

 

Much to be said for THAT, too!

 

ETA (because I just read the last page of the thread): I agree with several comments upthread that childhood hunger IS often the result of parental thoughtlessness or indifference. No matter. It's not the kid's fault. We should feed EVERY kid, not punish them for having a sorry set of parents ("Sorry" in this case being used in the colloquial sense of "not worth a damn and should never have reproduced.)

 

It's not the child's fault he was born. If he's not capable of providing his own food, society ought to feed him, just because it's the humane thing to do.

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by kayb (log)