Professor, "poor people " really? I use food stamps, 65 yrs old, and although it's very difficult to make ends meet on SS, I try and use my SNAP allowance wisely to last until the next month. We are single mothers, seniors, the disabled, and working families trying to have a decent quality of life. Believe me, calling us poor people, perpetuates the stigma of SNAP users.
19
Regardless of weather you buy your food or get your food with food stamps the solution might be to make junk food more expensive and healthy good cheaper. Instead of subsidizing the sugar industry, subsidize the fruit, whole grain, legumes & vegetable industry. Subsidize the organic dairy industry and producers of cheese & yogurts. Subsidize egg producers, local fishermen, and grass fed beef & lamb. At the same time tax junk food just like we tax cigarettes and alcohol. If it can only be cooked in a microwave double the tax ( worse invention ever ). Require schools to prepare good food from scratch. If the French can do it, we can do it. Instead of hiring food servers in schools, hire chefs.
19
Maybe if diapers and cleaning supplies were covered parents might be less stressed and have the energy to make better choices.
9
Hunger is Obesity.
5
96 fewer calories a day to combat obesity? Not exactly a convincing argument to restrict people's choices about which foods they eat. Assuming someone would eat exactly 96 calories below maintenance it would still take 36 days to lose a single pound. You need to lose a whole lot more than a pound to not be obese anymore and so it would take years to lose the weight and because the restriction is only 96 calories daily you may never give in to temptation. For years. Completely unrealistic.
2
Let them eat steak! And lobster! The cost is puny compared to diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and other obesity ills. The first rule of weight loss: Make a healthy diet sustainable by ONLY eating DELICIOUS food. Paleo works wonders. Pass the crab legs, please. :- )
13
Let them eat food for free!! Now, that's a healthy economic diet. Because, it get's more to the heart of where food comes from. And really, it's the design of the food item, and the creativity that goes into that design, that people actually pay for: the paycheck for the idea. Time to stop scamming the population, the World Citizens.
Aaron E. Carroll's ending sentence of the article: "It might be worthwhile for the Department of Agriculture to extend the experiment a bit more." , actually contributes to obesity.
1
Here's an even better idea: round up the poor and put them in camps. Then we'll feed them only the food we believe they should eat. We can also force them to exercise and limit their TV viewing to material we consider appropriate.
But we probably won't do it. Political Correctness again....
Of course, there's that small group of people who might advocate letting people make their own choices, for good or ill. Freakin' Illuminati.
But we probably won't do it. Political Correctness again....
Of course, there's that small group of people who might advocate letting people make their own choices, for good or ill. Freakin' Illuminati.
10
96 calories less per day. Wow! At the often-stated 3500 calories equals one pound of fat, they'll lose about a pound per month. Better than gaining it, I suppose.
1
It's clear that you cannot legislate healthy eating. You cannot force people to buy and eat what is good for them. If you restrict food stamps to only healthy food, people will find a way to cheat the system and get what they really want. The best, most workable solution is to teach cooking in elementary school. Take those 4th graders to the grocery store, give them each their own shopping cart and tell them to pick out a healthy meal that they will take back to school and cook in a home economics room.....instruct those who pick out fast, unhealthy options what to look for and how to fix it themselves. Kids have power over their parents! Teach them! I fear that schools are so fubarred with corruption and overpaid administrators that this will never happen, but hey, throw that idea out there and see if it sticks......
22
I agree. I am a firm believer in bringing back "life skills" in junior high and high school (accounting, check balancing, food prep, home-ec, etc.)
36
It might be useful to remember that many people who use food stamps also live in food deserts without easy access to big, well stocked grocery stores. Sometimes people have to eat what's available and for too many people the available choices are not the healthiest choices.
It's also worth remembering that there is almost nothing that we eat that isn't demonized by somebody. Where do we draw the line when it comes to imposing other, probably richer, people's standards on the diets of poor people?
It's also worth remembering that there is almost nothing that we eat that isn't demonized by somebody. Where do we draw the line when it comes to imposing other, probably richer, people's standards on the diets of poor people?
19
I agree Jim, that there are a lot of inner city markets where the poor can only buy inferior quality food. I disagree though, that there isn't "any" food we can't restrict to the SNAP program. Candy, chips, chocolate, ice-cream, etc., could these things be restricted?
9
Not, you can't tell people in a free country marked by capitalism that they CAN'T eat something. You commenters really need to go visit other places to see how good we have it here.
This is social engineering becoming a nightmare.
This is social engineering becoming a nightmare.
3
Pretty much everyone agrees that candy, cookies, and potato chips aren't good for you.
2
This is a fascinating study showing the synergy between incentives and prohibitions.
Two points may be of interest:
1. Up until the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill SNAP recipients were prohibited from buying: candy, soda, cake, steak and lobster. Removing those restrictions may have caused some of the
Increases in obesity.
2. A follow up experiment that addresses whether weekly or biweekly SNAP benefit distribution might counteract some of the "full wallet" behavior that prompts the purchases of sugary foods by recipients who currently get their benefit on a monthly basis.
Two points may be of interest:
1. Up until the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill SNAP recipients were prohibited from buying: candy, soda, cake, steak and lobster. Removing those restrictions may have caused some of the
Increases in obesity.
2. A follow up experiment that addresses whether weekly or biweekly SNAP benefit distribution might counteract some of the "full wallet" behavior that prompts the purchases of sugary foods by recipients who currently get their benefit on a monthly basis.
5
#1 is absolutely untrue.
8
100% untrue - do some research. #2 would create more issues. Families, or individuals, using SNAP often don't have the ability to get to the store weekly or by weekly. Therefore their SNAP dollars don't go far enough and they have no choice but to buy cheaper food to extend their food dollar.
It's always about punishing the poor. How about increasing the benefit. The current benefit is based on an outmoded diet that requires a fully functioning kitchen and time - two commodities often missing for the poor. Studies prove that people who are given an adequate amount of nutrition dollars buy the same foods as those not on the program, including fruits and vegetables.
It's always about punishing the poor. How about increasing the benefit. The current benefit is based on an outmoded diet that requires a fully functioning kitchen and time - two commodities often missing for the poor. Studies prove that people who are given an adequate amount of nutrition dollars buy the same foods as those not on the program, including fruits and vegetables.
6
Until people get it into their heads that activity - used as broadly as possible, but in volume, so to speak - *must* be tied to food consumption, there just won't be much "fight" against obesity.
And many of those "people" are the nutritionists making claims about what one ought and ought not eat. And we really, really need to get away from the idea that "carbs" and/or starches are somehow "bad". White rice?
Beyond food choices and activity, though, it is still not so black and white an issue. There is much ignorance in general culinary skills that pushes people towards eating out of a box or worse, from the drive-thru. Add in the ridiculous amount of time people must spend working, which is often bookended by a time-sucking commute/travel to and from work, and I can say as an ex-chef, one often does not feel like cooking even a simple meal after a day of work or classes.
Yet, one must.
Vegetables prepared simply - steamed, steam-sauteed, roasted/baked, braised - and grains, beans, pasta w/simple tomato sauce, rice, noodles, plus lots of fruits. Meat is not evil either, but there really is no reason to eat meat only 1-2 times a week, and only in small amounts. Even so-called 'bad' meats, such as sausage, work so well in flavoring foods, and when used in such manner, you just don't need much (e.g., 2-3 ounces of chorizo will flavor a dish for 2 adults, a couple quarts of soup/stew, etc.)
Education. Activity. Moderation. Planning. Simple, yet difficult, but doable.
And many of those "people" are the nutritionists making claims about what one ought and ought not eat. And we really, really need to get away from the idea that "carbs" and/or starches are somehow "bad". White rice?
Beyond food choices and activity, though, it is still not so black and white an issue. There is much ignorance in general culinary skills that pushes people towards eating out of a box or worse, from the drive-thru. Add in the ridiculous amount of time people must spend working, which is often bookended by a time-sucking commute/travel to and from work, and I can say as an ex-chef, one often does not feel like cooking even a simple meal after a day of work or classes.
Yet, one must.
Vegetables prepared simply - steamed, steam-sauteed, roasted/baked, braised - and grains, beans, pasta w/simple tomato sauce, rice, noodles, plus lots of fruits. Meat is not evil either, but there really is no reason to eat meat only 1-2 times a week, and only in small amounts. Even so-called 'bad' meats, such as sausage, work so well in flavoring foods, and when used in such manner, you just don't need much (e.g., 2-3 ounces of chorizo will flavor a dish for 2 adults, a couple quarts of soup/stew, etc.)
Education. Activity. Moderation. Planning. Simple, yet difficult, but doable.
7
While I agree with your suggestions, the issue is far more complex than the simple solutions offered here. Access to fresh food and quality and cost of food are also contributors. Tomatoes are $3-4 a pound, decent bread is about $4 a loaf, fresh apples in season are $2 a pound. Asparagus and fresh green beans are about $3 a pound. Fresh fish is up to between $7-10 a pound depending on species. Just how many of those items will the meager benefits of food stamps cover when the average benefit is $127 a month per person? The average family of four received $449 per month in 2015 (source: http://www.cbpp.org/research/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benef..., or about what I spend for a family of two every two weeks.
It is always easy to bear a burden when it is not your own.
It is always easy to bear a burden when it is not your own.
14
"Carbs" in general are not bad, because there are obviously foods which are mostly carbohydrate and healthful: vegetables, beans, whole fruits. Maybe even actual whole grains, properly prepared.
Refined carbohydrates, meaning sugar and flours, are more fattening than other foods through their effects on the insulin system.
Refined carbohydrates, meaning sugar and flours, are more fattening than other foods through their effects on the insulin system.
1
Agree, agree, and my family of 2 spends about the same, maybe a bit less because we have a fantastic year-round Farmer's Market. Food, generally, is not too expensive, but wages for those at the bottom are ridiculously (criminally) low. And as you say, $127 is about a single week's grocery trip, albeit a very healthy week. The rest of the month would be quite thin, like bouillon and water.
Sad indeed.
Sad indeed.
3
"The School Lunch Program" helps provide meals to more than 31 million children each school day."
Paul Ryan repeatedly claimed last year that free school lunch and breakfast programs should be ended because they "shame" children who receive these meals. Ryan claimed he was promoting ending the programs after receiving a letter from a boy who said he was 'ashamed' to be eating a free school breakfast and that he wished his food could be in a brown paper bag like children who did not eat free school meals. Ryan claimed it's evil to shame children with free school meals. Ryan did not address what alternatives some children (31 million????) would have if the free school meals were terminated and the children were left to go through the school day without eating breakfast or lunch.....
Don't you wonder why a mean dishonest jerk like Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House?
Paul Ryan repeatedly claimed last year that free school lunch and breakfast programs should be ended because they "shame" children who receive these meals. Ryan claimed he was promoting ending the programs after receiving a letter from a boy who said he was 'ashamed' to be eating a free school breakfast and that he wished his food could be in a brown paper bag like children who did not eat free school meals. Ryan claimed it's evil to shame children with free school meals. Ryan did not address what alternatives some children (31 million????) would have if the free school meals were terminated and the children were left to go through the school day without eating breakfast or lunch.....
Don't you wonder why a mean dishonest jerk like Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House?
19
He is Speaker because he perfectly reflects the mean, dishonest, corrupt members of his party in political office across the country. They are so disconnected from the reality of the rest of the country they make Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" quip look compassionate.
16
What about putting the school lunches in brown paper bags? Crumple them up and they are good to go. Seriously.
6
I don't care if someone uses SNAP to buy some ice cream or chips instead of more kale and bananas. There, I said it. Let them use their SNAP dollars to pick their own food. Poor people are already being strangled by too few options and too many restrictions. Adding more isn't going to make their lives any better. Its just going to make their lives even more stressful. I want SNAP users to be able to choose from the same variety of foods that everyone else does. Don't make eating into a punishment.
42
Anae: I grew up on welfare and the old-fashioned food stamp coupon booklets. I don't remember what my mother could or couldn't buy with the food stamps, but I do think that there should be limitations. My mother, and we children, didn't know nutritional food from junk food. My mother could have used some advice, even from the government, on what she should buy for her children. Sad, but true.
16
People on food subsidies are already have restrictions - by food types and by how far the money will go. While I understand the author's good intention, but this is another form of "poor penalty." Restrict guns. That will be a greater good for the public health. The outcry against that "service" will come from a very different socioeconomic class.
8
Cynically, I also wonder if some of the pressure to avoid the restrictions comes from food manufacturers. After all, it will be the highly processed food that will be restricted.
Hand-in-hand with any changes at the SNAP level, there needs to be mass changes in how food is subsidized overall in this country via a perverse tax incentive program that subsidizes certain crops over others. In fact, most of the subsidies go to commodes like corn and soybeans, used to create cheap oil and sugar. What about subsidies for nutrient-dense vegetables and grains that are brought minimally processed to the whole public?
Hand-in-hand with any changes at the SNAP level, there needs to be mass changes in how food is subsidized overall in this country via a perverse tax incentive program that subsidizes certain crops over others. In fact, most of the subsidies go to commodes like corn and soybeans, used to create cheap oil and sugar. What about subsidies for nutrient-dense vegetables and grains that are brought minimally processed to the whole public?
15
Why not extend your logic to ALL grocery purchases? I have noticed that it is not only the poor who are obese. Why are we controlling them when we not controlling the eating habits of everyone else?
It is not that the poor have bad eating habits. It is the our food is a disaster for everyone who eats it. Obesity rises around the world wherever the American diet of fats, sugar, and chemicals passed off as food goes.
Leave the poor alone. They are demeaned and lied about enough. People buying crab legs with food stamps is another variation of Reagan's "welfare queen" trope. Frankly, crab legs are better for them than most of the stuff sold in the grocery store. Toss out the processed foods. Period. For all of us.
If you want the true culprits of the obesity epidemic, look to Big Agra and General Foods. Trust me, Congress will do absolutely nothing about that, so don't further the demonizing of the poor through SNAP regulations and taxes on sugary drinks. Work to improve the availability of grocery stores that sell fresh produce in inner city neighborhoods, expand community gardens in every vacant lot, encourage fresh food trucks in urban neighborhoods, and end food deserts. You cannot blame people for eating the only foods that are accessible to them. If it is safe for McDonald's to be in a neighborhood, it is safe for Safeway.
It is not that the poor have bad eating habits. It is the our food is a disaster for everyone who eats it. Obesity rises around the world wherever the American diet of fats, sugar, and chemicals passed off as food goes.
Leave the poor alone. They are demeaned and lied about enough. People buying crab legs with food stamps is another variation of Reagan's "welfare queen" trope. Frankly, crab legs are better for them than most of the stuff sold in the grocery store. Toss out the processed foods. Period. For all of us.
If you want the true culprits of the obesity epidemic, look to Big Agra and General Foods. Trust me, Congress will do absolutely nothing about that, so don't further the demonizing of the poor through SNAP regulations and taxes on sugary drinks. Work to improve the availability of grocery stores that sell fresh produce in inner city neighborhoods, expand community gardens in every vacant lot, encourage fresh food trucks in urban neighborhoods, and end food deserts. You cannot blame people for eating the only foods that are accessible to them. If it is safe for McDonald's to be in a neighborhood, it is safe for Safeway.
26
Remember when fat (in food) was the cause of obesity? Now we know it's not. It's the processed foods and sugar in its many forms. But also, the amount of hormone-disrupters in our food chain from the antibiotics and other drugs given our meat suppliers (the animal) is another culprit. Obviously, the food chain is poisoned. And now that big business has jumped on the organic bandwagon, that class of food is going to be suspicious.
4
Karen L
You are absolutely right. Our entire food production chain is a horror story. Our bodies are full of chemicals from antibiotics and fertilizers. Even infants are born per-polluted. The chemicals in our diets, our carpets, our drapes and furniture are entering our bodies and those of developing fetuses. But, oh, it is the soda that is the culprit. Hogwash!
You are absolutely right. Our entire food production chain is a horror story. Our bodies are full of chemicals from antibiotics and fertilizers. Even infants are born per-polluted. The chemicals in our diets, our carpets, our drapes and furniture are entering our bodies and those of developing fetuses. But, oh, it is the soda that is the culprit. Hogwash!
1
I know this won't be popular, but if we want to lower obesity rates, how about a little self control.
We as a country are devoted to feeding our population with the cheapest food possible. HFCS is one of these foods. Chicken farms where we double the growth rate of chicken are another. Totally destroying the benefits of bread by removing the wheat germ and replacing it with synthetic chemicals is one that has had disastrous effects on our health. And then there are the GMO foods like corn and beet sugar.
It is the government that has made us fat and is destroying the health of this country. It is the poor that pay the biggest price.
The worst part is the businesses that have such a foothold that they cannot be stopped because of economic concerns. Thus they are allowed to continue to poison all of us.
It is the government that has made us fat and is destroying the health of this country. It is the poor that pay the biggest price.
The worst part is the businesses that have such a foothold that they cannot be stopped because of economic concerns. Thus they are allowed to continue to poison all of us.
9
The "government" only allows this because it has been captured by industry. Corporation determine what bills are introduced, what they contain and which will become law. Get money out of politics because it is literally killing us.
5
This is pretty complex. It's not just a matter of encouraging people to eat "right". Fatty, salty, sugary junk foods are addictive. They taste good and are comforting. They require little to no prep. Healthy foods can be an acquired taste; fruit doesn't taste sweet to someone raised on a steady diet of soda and candy.
I know from my experience in farming and vending at Farmer's markets as well as volunteering at a food pantry that often low-income people gravitate towards foods that don't require cooking or are easy to prepare. The canned ravioli and not the dry beans. The corn and potatoes and not the kale and spinach.
Another mystery to me is why so many SNAP recipients go shopping when the benefits come in and blow it all at once. Many don't seem to get that it will still be in their account to spend 3 weeks later. So they buy lots of prepared foods, shelf stable junk etc. and not the perishable produce and dairy products.
It will probably need to be a combo of incentives and disincentives, education on buying healthy products, promotions, recipes and cooking instruction and teaching a different way to view food, shopping and cooking. Not a simple fix. I do think that providing financial incentives to those who keep their weight to within a healthy BMI would be a good start though.
I know from my experience in farming and vending at Farmer's markets as well as volunteering at a food pantry that often low-income people gravitate towards foods that don't require cooking or are easy to prepare. The canned ravioli and not the dry beans. The corn and potatoes and not the kale and spinach.
Another mystery to me is why so many SNAP recipients go shopping when the benefits come in and blow it all at once. Many don't seem to get that it will still be in their account to spend 3 weeks later. So they buy lots of prepared foods, shelf stable junk etc. and not the perishable produce and dairy products.
It will probably need to be a combo of incentives and disincentives, education on buying healthy products, promotions, recipes and cooking instruction and teaching a different way to view food, shopping and cooking. Not a simple fix. I do think that providing financial incentives to those who keep their weight to within a healthy BMI would be a good start though.
3
Food storage can be a problem for some poor people. Small or malfunctioning refrigerators means fresh foods spoiling. Inadequate cooking equipment and lack of time means a greater reliance on ready-to-heat/eat meals rather than cooking from scratch.
12
Another unaddressed issue that our fruits and vegetables are a disgrace. People don't eat them because they are just lousy. They are picked before they ripened. Most never develop their true flavor. Peaches are sour and as hard as a rock; strawberries are oversized, mealy and flavorless; tomatoes are grown for the thickness of their skin for shipping, not the ripeness of their flavor. I haven't eaten an apricot in many years because they are woody and flavorless. Pears are one of the very few fruits that survive the onslaught of factory farming because they do ripened off the tree. Carrots and green beans picked fresh are very sweet, as are so many others.
If you want to know what a piece of fruit or a fresh carrot really tastes like, go abroad.
If you want to know what a piece of fruit or a fresh carrot really tastes like, go abroad.
18
My guess is that quite a few SNAP users are getting a ride, or otherwise have to make their transit fare worth the trip, so they are buying a larger order of mostly shelf-stable items. As to the dried beans, I'm not a food-stamp recipient, but even so, I will not pay for the electricity to run a stove for the time necessary to cook them. Lentils might cook in about 30 minuted, but nothing else does. Canned are a better buy, and are often more thoroughly cooked. I remember in the health-food 1970s, cooking dried beans that never really softened up. Other than letting the EBT cards purchase a hot item like the rotisserie chicken mentioned by someone else, I want the cards to stay as is. The cries for restrictions that show up,every time the NYT runs one of these articles, appall me.
7
A better way to help than restricting food choices would be to offer classes with nutritionists which teach how to eat a healthy diet and how to make healthy food choices to combat diabetes, obesity, heart and mobility problems. Many impoverished people eat an unhealthy diet because they never learned what a healthy diet is and what the consequences of poor food choices are on their health.
Instead of punishing or restricting these people for lack of knowledge about healthy eating, offer them information about eating a healthier diet. Even a little information can turn into a healthier diet and weight loss like eating 2 or 3 pieces of fruit every day.
Much of what is promoted as 'using restrictions' is actually right wing attempts to punish and shame those who use SNAP programs, believing some users will become so uncomfortable or ashamed in the grocery store over their food choices they will abandon the program. This is an end-run around trying to force people off these programs - a dishonest one.
Nutrition is not usually taught in schools anymore. Give people tools to learn about healthier choices - instead of restricting, punishing or shaming them by withholding food choice.
Instead of punishing or restricting these people for lack of knowledge about healthy eating, offer them information about eating a healthier diet. Even a little information can turn into a healthier diet and weight loss like eating 2 or 3 pieces of fruit every day.
Much of what is promoted as 'using restrictions' is actually right wing attempts to punish and shame those who use SNAP programs, believing some users will become so uncomfortable or ashamed in the grocery store over their food choices they will abandon the program. This is an end-run around trying to force people off these programs - a dishonest one.
Nutrition is not usually taught in schools anymore. Give people tools to learn about healthier choices - instead of restricting, punishing or shaming them by withholding food choice.
7
As a master student researching equity and food access issues, and as a former SNAP recipient, I can sympathize with the desire to restrict certain purchases in an attempt to legislate healthy choices. However, I worry that these efforts into exacerbate the stigma that SNAP recipients already face. Furthermore, while SNAP recipients may be more likely to be obese, this may have more or do with a wide variety of other factors that impact food and health, such as increased stress, and unhealthy--or "obesogenic"--food environments. It's easy to blame low income people for their problems, and to put the onus on them to change their habits. It's more difficult, however, to address the larger structural challenges that have created the obesity epidemic in the United States.
38
"It's easy to blame low income people for their problems, and to put the onus on them to change their habits."
I believe that Dr. Carroll was specifically NOT doing either of these things. In fact, he is addressing an obesogenic factor: a supplemental food program that treats the food market in a laissez-faire manner. Should SNAP ignore the reality that cheap carbs and greasy snacks are allowed to shove out higher-quality foods? That is a factor worthy of master's-level research.
For what it's worth, my infant daughter was on WIC for about a year. The state provided a card and a list: heavy on dairy and other proteins, devoid of most prepared foods. We had no trouble with the restrictions, and experienced no stigmatization at the checkout line.
I believe that Dr. Carroll was specifically NOT doing either of these things. In fact, he is addressing an obesogenic factor: a supplemental food program that treats the food market in a laissez-faire manner. Should SNAP ignore the reality that cheap carbs and greasy snacks are allowed to shove out higher-quality foods? That is a factor worthy of master's-level research.
For what it's worth, my infant daughter was on WIC for about a year. The state provided a card and a list: heavy on dairy and other proteins, devoid of most prepared foods. We had no trouble with the restrictions, and experienced no stigmatization at the checkout line.
1
Why not do all of the above? Use the food assistance as an incentive AND address the larger structural challenges?
In June of 2015, it was discovered that I had type 2 diabetes. By the end of the month, I was given a prescription for Metformin. I stated the ADA diet and followed it completely for several weeks but was unable to get my blood sugar below 140. With no results to how for my hard work, I panicked and called my doctor. His response? Deal with it. I began to feel that something wasn’t right and do my own research. Then I found Lisa’s blog http://myhealthlives.com/i-finally-reversed-my-diabetes/ . I read it from cover to cover and I started the diet and by the next morning, my blood sugar was 100. Since then, I have a fasting reading between the mid 70s and 80s. My doctor was so surprised at the results that, the next week, he took me off the Metformin. I lost 30 pounds in the first month and lost more than 6 inches off my waist and I’m able to work out twice a day while still having lots of energy. The truth is we can get off the drugs and help myself by trying natural methods
10
The lobbyists for the manufacturers of junk food/beverages would never allow the legislation of SNAP benefits to lock them out. No way, no how.
Why don't we take a closer look at the free school lunches/breakfasts provided to millions of schoolchildren living in poverty throughout our country too. Both good eating habits and obesity start at a young age. I believe the school lunch program contributes to unhealthy, unfit and obese children.
Major junk food companies and fast food restaurants are advertised within children's homework worksheets. In the past I've called out my school district for this material. They claimed ignorance. Science included Pepsi, Math had M&Ms and KFC was in social studies. How about not advertising sugary crap and other garbage towards our kids day in and day out from birth? There's a start.
Why don't we take a closer look at the free school lunches/breakfasts provided to millions of schoolchildren living in poverty throughout our country too. Both good eating habits and obesity start at a young age. I believe the school lunch program contributes to unhealthy, unfit and obese children.
Major junk food companies and fast food restaurants are advertised within children's homework worksheets. In the past I've called out my school district for this material. They claimed ignorance. Science included Pepsi, Math had M&Ms and KFC was in social studies. How about not advertising sugary crap and other garbage towards our kids day in and day out from birth? There's a start.
32
Yes, get all vending machines out of public schools. Just fund the schools adequately already!
3
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan agrees with you and promotes ending free school breakfast and lunch programs.
In what world does ending these programs make sense to you?
In what world does ending these programs make sense to you?
How about making them healthier with less sugars, fats, artificial flavoring/coloring, salt, etc. Not saying eliminate them but providing better nutrition and overall better fare. Chicken nuggets and French fries are not food groups.
4
Go into any supermarket and you'll see the healthiest foods are usually the most expensive. Fill a cart with romaine lettuce, broccoli, kale, tomatoes, a couple of melons, a sack of oranges. a few portions of sockeye salmon, and let's say a pound of brown rice, a loaf or two whole grain bread, a gallon of organic milk and a bag of walnuts and try paying for that with a SNAP allotment.
Encouraging community gardens, and school gardens where children can
learn to everything about vegetables and fruits from seed to plate should be
a standard part of education -- and let's not forget to give a real price break
to SNAP shoppers so they can buy what they really need. And, maybe that's
really want.
Encouraging community gardens, and school gardens where children can
learn to everything about vegetables and fruits from seed to plate should be
a standard part of education -- and let's not forget to give a real price break
to SNAP shoppers so they can buy what they really need. And, maybe that's
really want.
21
Rice and beans are one of the few cheap foods available that still offer good nutrition. Sadly no one knows this.
7
This is such nonsense. I can (and do) buy & prep healthy foods for a lot less than processed junk.
1
@Allan Rydberg:
Rice and beans offer _better_ nutrition than a diet of sugar and junk food. I wouldn't consider rice and beans to be good nutrition compared to meat, eggs, and veggies.
Rice and beans offer _better_ nutrition than a diet of sugar and junk food. I wouldn't consider rice and beans to be good nutrition compared to meat, eggs, and veggies.
3
The key is to make healthy food as cheap as the junk. Several years ago when I was a teenager we depended on SNAP (I worked 2 jobs & my mom had a full time minimum wage job). When you only have so much a jar of sauce and a box of pasta will go a lot further than meat, whole grains, & veggies. If we had been restricted to just healthy food we would eaten healthier yes but we would have had a lot less to
eat.
eat.
31
"The key is to make healthy food as cheap as the junk."
And as readily available.
And as readily available.
I'm a teacher in an urban school.
Daily, the students bring in giant bags of chips and 2-liters bottles of soda (they love Mountain Dew).
Many kids arrive at school with the largest-sized Starbucks drinks, complete with whipped cream and chocolate drizzled over the whipped cream.
100% qualify for free lunch and free breakfast, but they get the money for the cr*p and the Starbucks somewhere.
Our school tried to ban the Starbucks drinks, but the parents--who usually never set foot in the school unless their child's cell phone is taken up--complained higher up the chain.
Daily, the students bring in giant bags of chips and 2-liters bottles of soda (they love Mountain Dew).
Many kids arrive at school with the largest-sized Starbucks drinks, complete with whipped cream and chocolate drizzled over the whipped cream.
100% qualify for free lunch and free breakfast, but they get the money for the cr*p and the Starbucks somewhere.
Our school tried to ban the Starbucks drinks, but the parents--who usually never set foot in the school unless their child's cell phone is taken up--complained higher up the chain.
37
The impulse to "help" poor people may well come from a place of compassion, but, more often than not, it ends in another paternalistic program. Attempting to make poor people "healthier" for their own good, by putting in place incentives to eat certain foods and avoid others, is nothing more than arrogance masquerading as kindness. This looks like yet another example of just that.
20
Amen to that.
4
"Attempting to make poor people "healthier" for their own good, by putting in place incentives to eat certain foods and avoid others, is nothing more than arrogance masquerading as kindness."
Making poor people healthier, by restricting SNAP payments for junk food, is a benefit for the people who *pay* for SNAP--the American taxpayers! (The same people who are forced to subsidize the obese unhealthy through Medicaid, higher health insurance premiums, etc.)
I'll happily pay my taxes for healthy food for the poor. There's no moral reason that anyone in this country should ever go hungry. But I won't willingly pay one penny to subsidize Mountain Dew, Fritos or cupcakes for anyone.
Restricting SNAP to healthy foods only is only sensible--as sensible as not paying for cigarettes for the poor.
It helps the taxpayer. And indirectly, it helps the person using SNAPs. And please, no whining about how the poor will be embarrassed to not be allowed to buy sugary soda. Give 'em a card that looks like any other debit card and the people behind them in the check-out line will simply assume they're smart/healthy shoppers.
Making poor people healthier, by restricting SNAP payments for junk food, is a benefit for the people who *pay* for SNAP--the American taxpayers! (The same people who are forced to subsidize the obese unhealthy through Medicaid, higher health insurance premiums, etc.)
I'll happily pay my taxes for healthy food for the poor. There's no moral reason that anyone in this country should ever go hungry. But I won't willingly pay one penny to subsidize Mountain Dew, Fritos or cupcakes for anyone.
Restricting SNAP to healthy foods only is only sensible--as sensible as not paying for cigarettes for the poor.
It helps the taxpayer. And indirectly, it helps the person using SNAPs. And please, no whining about how the poor will be embarrassed to not be allowed to buy sugary soda. Give 'em a card that looks like any other debit card and the people behind them in the check-out line will simply assume they're smart/healthy shoppers.
11
Restriction is a dangerous idea. Political factions use any excuse to control government programs; some, to eviscerate them. The most well-meaning intentions go awry. I made healthy choices when I received the maximum SNAP benefits and continue to do so, now that I receive the minimum. Education, rather than restriction, is the only safe way to engage this problem. I would not want an extremist conservative faction which favors gutting of all government programs, to have the power to decide what I eat. An Iowa Senator might require the SNAP program to favor pork over chicken, or discourage purchase of tempeh or wheat gluten. Any negative outcome is possible once you open SNAP to tinkering by irresponsible legislators.
19
@Barry Blitstein:
I would consider pork to be more nutritious than chicken, gluten, or tempeh, but I hear where you're coming from. It's a slippery slope, and the restrictions may or may not reflect what is actually nutritious.
I would consider pork to be more nutritious than chicken, gluten, or tempeh, but I hear where you're coming from. It's a slippery slope, and the restrictions may or may not reflect what is actually nutritious.
1
Did we go away from commodity food distribution and to food stamps and later EBT cards to bolster recipients self esteem or just because the later methods were more economical? Growing up in WVA I remember seeing people standing in line for commodity distributions and not understanding what was going on. Some were my classmates in Junior High School.
I believe that going back to commodity distributions or even distributing food packages to families might help achieve better nutrition and possibly improved health among the recipients. I recognize the that not all families would know how to prepare meals from some of the foods. Make it a kit food with meal plans complete with recipes. We already see services like that advertising in the NYT and in Atlanta where I live so a program of that nature is doable.
Would that stop parents from bartering for cigarettes, drugs or other items the programs is not to be used for? Of course not, I recognize where there is a will there is a way. Likewise parents who are inclined to want a healthier diet for their children will have another tool to use. The bottom line is the current program can be improved on lets move forward and help the next generation be healthier.
I believe that going back to commodity distributions or even distributing food packages to families might help achieve better nutrition and possibly improved health among the recipients. I recognize the that not all families would know how to prepare meals from some of the foods. Make it a kit food with meal plans complete with recipes. We already see services like that advertising in the NYT and in Atlanta where I live so a program of that nature is doable.
Would that stop parents from bartering for cigarettes, drugs or other items the programs is not to be used for? Of course not, I recognize where there is a will there is a way. Likewise parents who are inclined to want a healthier diet for their children will have another tool to use. The bottom line is the current program can be improved on lets move forward and help the next generation be healthier.
6
"Commodity food distribution" which involves people standing in line - often for long periods of time - can be challenging for people with health issues. Far more compassionate to give people SNAP cards and allow them to shop, possibly aided by family or friends, when they are able is far more efficient, reasonable and compassionate than forcing people to stand in long lines to be handed food they didn't choose. Poor people are already shamed, punished and inconvenienced enough in their lives because of the contempt in which the government and population holds them in this country. Don't propose changing getting food so their lives are even harder and more unmanagable than they already are.
10
I find the restrictions on "premium foods", like lobster or fillet mignon, particularly confusing. My friendly local Chinese grocery had lobsters on sale this year for 6 Canadian dollars a pound this year; frozen burgers at the same place typically cost about 12 dollars per 2.5 pound pack. Similarly, I definitely bought pork tenderloins on sale, and fillet mignon at a little over 10 dollars a pound, while at neighbour stores there was ground beef selling for 5-6 dollars a pound. For comparison, the McD meal here goes for roughly 7-8, so if you have to buy one because you didn't have time to cook yourself or had nothing in the fridge, you are already more "wasteful".
The situation when a government inspector comes in and starts checking what's unluxury enough for your sorry rear is ridiculous; it is the definition of a "big government". If I have a budget, I work with a budget.
The situation when a government inspector comes in and starts checking what's unluxury enough for your sorry rear is ridiculous; it is the definition of a "big government". If I have a budget, I work with a budget.
19
"The bad news is that we probably won’t do it."
sorry, i have more important concerns, like my own health. the bad news is that _you_ probably won't do it.
always read the labels. they are there for your benefit.
sorry, i have more important concerns, like my own health. the bad news is that _you_ probably won't do it.
always read the labels. they are there for your benefit.
2
WIC may have many restrictions on what can be purchased, but it drives me crazy that they not only endorse, but encourage, apple juice.
23
Thank you for illustrating the problem with these kinds of restrictions. No matter what kinds of food people buy, no matter what they eat, there is certain to be someone who will demonize their choices.
2
There is nothing wrong with "outlawing" access to certain foods being paid by us taxpayers. If Billy on welfare wants to spend $50 a month on Twinkies and Krispy Kremes, let him, with his own money. Isn't the purpose of all of this to provide good, high quality, nutritious food for people who can't afford it? But I forgot, when it comes down to it, all is governed by our corrupt political system and Corporate America. Peoples' best interest is never at heart.
25
Anita, Your compassion is astounding. Really, it is a model for us all.
The true purpose of food stamps is to help the farm industry, which is the reason it is in the Department of Agriculture, not Health and Human Services.
The true purpose of food stamps is to help the farm industry, which is the reason it is in the Department of Agriculture, not Health and Human Services.
4
I think another big issue related to this is that food labels are inadequate. The total amount of, let's say sugar in a product both in grams and percentage of the total product needs to be simple and clear, so too with fats. The study done didn't specify food products that seem to be healthy but contained added sugar, such as tomato sauce , frozen pizza, frozen dinners and entrees. On the surface, tomato sauce seems healthy and wholsesome but most have tons of sugar added, same for many frozen processed products. Labeling is extremely important, and having labeling simple enough an 8th grader can read and understand.
4
The average American reads at the eighth grade level. How about aiming information to the sixth grade level where it will do more good.
Yes, our foods are full of hidden sugar and salt in addition to fats. It is unpalatable for many people visiting this country and for those of us who still cook our own meals.
Yes, our foods are full of hidden sugar and salt in addition to fats. It is unpalatable for many people visiting this country and for those of us who still cook our own meals.
1
Maybe it was the obesity epidemic that Obama had in mind when he signed Republican legislation into law that cut the average family's food stamp benefit by $90?
Maybe it was also related to a farm bill and the intricacies of a "heat and eat" program that many states took advantage of. It's never all black and white (pun intended) when it comes to Washington politics and may actually have been one of the few bills passed where some compromise was made. Which meant there were winners and losers. That's how government is supposed to work. Snarky asides about Obama being at fault is nothing more than a feel-good comment for you that simplifies a complex subject.
2
I have in a box somewhere a bunch of government educational pamphlets my parents got for helping people on a “thrifty” budget choose a healthy diet. Reading this article brought back a taste memory of powdered milk (Ugh!), but kids to learn to love eggs prepared a thousand different ways.
1
How can you write an article on this topic and not mention the extent to which the sugar, corn, and soybean industries are subsidized and favored by the federal government? "Legitimate concerns" about stigmatizing poor people are way down the list behind the political power of big agribusiness.
73
"No birthday cake for your kid, Poverty Mom!" Ahhh, self-righteousness feels just grand.
43
M.L. Chadwick, it's not about the occasional treat, it's the daily consumption of soda and snacks that is the issue. Not only for people using SNAP but for too many Americans at all income levels. Re SNAP, besides restricting unhealthy foods, I would let It be used for certain prepared foods that are now restricted, such as rotisserie chicken.
14
The department's objections to opening the SNAP program to legislative changes doesn't look odd at all when you realize that hard-core opponents of the program's very existence lead both houses of Congress. Legislating changes to the program's structure opens the door to any and every amendment, cut and 'fraud reduction' measure they can (and will) throw into it. In order to protect poor people's food safety, it's safer right now to continue food stamps without the improvements that could be made. Otherwise, we're gonna throw the baby out and keep the bathwater.
16
I practice medicine in an area where 300 and 400 lb body weight is common and the welfare rate is well above average. Why in the world would we not use the SNAP program to help with this problem?
We all pay for the healthcare issues that arise from the obesity and overall poor food choices.
It is discriminatory to avoid helping people make better choices and dooming them to a miserably unhealthy life.
We all pay for the healthcare issues that arise from the obesity and overall poor food choices.
It is discriminatory to avoid helping people make better choices and dooming them to a miserably unhealthy life.
48
When "poor food" is your only choice, you eat it. Look at the rest of the country. We are all fat - children, college students - obesity is everywhere. You are practicing in the south and it is ground zero for obesity. Maybe it has something to do with a tradition of putting mini marshmallows in your mashed sweet potatoes and tons of Karo in your pies.
1
Most fast food employees require food stamps to survive, as their employers refuse to pay them a living wage - while rewarding themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses.
Is it a surprise many of them are obese?
Is it a surprise many of them are obese?
16
(Not Mark) What is the connection? They're poor so they're obese? They work at minimum wage so they eat too much? Also show me some proof that the owners of the fast food places are multi-millionaires. Most are local small business people.
10
A large portion of their profits go to a giant corporation that looks out for shareholders, not the workers bringing in the money. Yes, poor people are more obese - high-carb foods are cheaper than protein and vegetables. When you're trying to feed a household off $7.25 an hour, there's not really any other choices in the market unless you have 2-3 extra hours to shop, prepare and cook meals every day.
21
"New York City, which tried to limit soft drink sales for everyone, also asked the U.S.D.A. for permission to restrict purchases of sugary beverages from food stamps as part of a two-year experiment and was denied."
Perhaps New York City could install treadmills at SNAP grocery stores. The SNAP client would be required to insert their SNAP card into the treadmill and then walk on the treadmill for forty minutes. That treadmill session would be recorded on their SNAP card and that information would allow the client to then buy their groceries.
The Nanny State always wants to help adults by restricting their freedom to make poor choices. "If it saves just one life it is worth it."
Perhaps New York City could install treadmills at SNAP grocery stores. The SNAP client would be required to insert their SNAP card into the treadmill and then walk on the treadmill for forty minutes. That treadmill session would be recorded on their SNAP card and that information would allow the client to then buy their groceries.
The Nanny State always wants to help adults by restricting their freedom to make poor choices. "If it saves just one life it is worth it."
9
Your ideology seems to get in the way of evaluating how government programs promote or disincentivize actions. This holds true not only for poor people, but for corporate 'people', the 1%, farmers, oil companies and every other person in this country. There are macro effects of every action.
12
J. Anders:
So if we give these very poor people an extra 10% on their SNAP cards after they got off the grocery store treadmills would that restore their dignity and square them with the practice of subsidizing electric cars, wind energy, farmers, and mega-corporations?
"If it saves on life it is worth it."
So if we give these very poor people an extra 10% on their SNAP cards after they got off the grocery store treadmills would that restore their dignity and square them with the practice of subsidizing electric cars, wind energy, farmers, and mega-corporations?
"If it saves on life it is worth it."
1
It isn't the Nanny state so much as the self-righteous bigots of the Big Brother state.
2