As liberal as I am, I agree with restricting purchases with food stamps/food debit card. The point is to provide nutritious foods and being able to buy soda, ice cream, frozen pizzas, and such just undermines the purpose of the program. WIC restricts purchases to certain items, why not food stamps? If you agree to accept this program, you should accept being restricted on what you can buy on it. Meat, vegetables & fruit, grains, & staples. This is what should be considered acceptable purchases. Not soda, candy, cigarettes, and booze.

1 Pepsi Soda (12 fl oz) contains 155 calories
1 Plain donut (1.5oz) contains 185 calories
1 Glazed Dunkin Donut contains 190 calories
1 Bagel with Cream Cheese contains 250 to 350 calories

http://www.calorie-counter.net/calories-in-a-donut.htm

How about ice cream? Is ice cream okay? Fudgecicles? Popsicles? Cool Whip? Maraschino cherries?

How about flavored, sweetened yogurt? Frozen yogurt?

Chocolate milk? Poptarts? Pancake syrup? Tang?

Cheetos? Cheez Whiz? Individually wrapped American cheese slices? Velveeta? Spam? Vienna sausages?

Looks like a slippery slope to me, folks. Surely there are better ways to help low-income folks make wise food and nutrition choices.

Hey, I have an idea – maybe Blumberg could require that grocers sell orange juice and milk to food stamp holders for the same price as the cheapest soda pop. Then I would be willing to reconsider my position.

People with or without jobs purchase the same junk food, and I would guess that the obesity rates are the same.

So the “point” is that if you give someone something do you have the right to control its use by the user. In a nation that used to be based on freedom for all, is now considering feudalism.

The plutocracy feels that the people that they have pushed into poverty with their greed based policies is not only receiving too much, but need to be healthier to perform their servitude without ending up in the highly expensive ER.

So basically the wealthy shoot us in the leg and then complain that we will end up in the ER. IMO there is a very simple cause and effect here, and the real issue is how deregulation and weak ineffective government is causing ever greater poverty.

To acknowledge poverty would be an admission that the trickle down of Reaganomics is false…so we have to discuss government control of a group that ideologically does not exist after 30 years of trickle down.

Look at that image at the top of this article…all rich powerful men…all fat as pigs. Hypocrisy.

The grocery line is a poor place for education, by restricting purchases of specific items it creates a problem for the consumer and business owner alike. The solution is to pay the health costs associated with high sugar/processed foods at point of sale. This move the education from the line to the shelf. Healthcare is close to 20 percent of our GDP, and while food choice is not the only factor, it is significant.
What if we put a high tax on these foods for all consumers?

Set the tax at the rate of the healthcare percent of GDP. So if we can get our health costs in control, the tax on these foods will drop. The reason this is not on the table in Washington is the system for funding elections for ‘our’ representatives.

Sorry folks, if you accept food stamps, you should accept having those purchases be restricted and buy food that is nutritious and fresh, not frozen pizza and white castle hamburgers. Maybe nutritional counceling should be mandatory for all food stamp recipients. I don’t buy crap food and I am limited on my food purchases based on my budget, so why should people who are using my tax dollars be able to buy whatever they want? I am all for having these safety nets, but there should be some restrictions on how the funds are used.

One can not currently purchase alcohol or cigarettes using their food stamp card. Prepared foods, such as fast food, can not be purchased, as well.

The food stamp program needs to be viewed as a support, an adjunct, a temporary assistance. For too many, it is more, however, unfortunately. I see both sides of the issues. Solutions are about striking a reasonable balance. Sodas, snack food (junk snack food) and candy should probably be restricted. Dictating how much fat, meat, whether vegetables are fresh, frozen or canned to the recipient may be taking it too far.

I don’t know that every restriction/modification in regulating our society need be looked at as a slippery slope or some kind of dangerous precedent, but I also think we should be careful in how quickly we welcome intrusiveness into people’s lives, as well as how quickly we judge others’ circumstance through our own situation without true empathy.

In a way, it is one of many signs of the times that we even debate this issue. Thirty-forty years ago people didn’t make comments publicly about judging a poor person standing at the grocery check-out counter who had a six pack of sodas and food stamps in hand. Our society feels so acutely a sense of a dwindling slice of a proverbial pie being handed out that any controversy about what is done with tax dollars or any action of a fellow citizen is up for harsh scrutiny. It seems any time there has been a discussion of health care, taxes, society, etc., even on this forum, there are those invariable judgmental comments about “others” and their slovenly ways. I’m sure we’ll get some today. Somewhere between “it’s none of my business what types of food a SNAP recipient purchases” and the program should only cover certain food items, is the answer. Trouble is, many people with a strong opinion about this issue attach themselves to one side or the other without considering the answer can be both…

There is some irony that a billionaire, Bloomberg, would be in a position of power to “unveil an initiative” excluding sodas from SNAP.

How about making junk food items really, really expensive? This would be more egalitarian. Or would it?

Once upon a time peasants ate more healthy food choices than aristocrats because ideas about nutritious food were backwards.

Things would be much simpler if nutrition weren’t a pseudo-science. There are so many unexamined assertions about things like fat consumption that are completely wrong that it’s hard to trust anything that nutritionists contend is the conventional wisdom. So right there you have a meta-issue to address before you can get consensus on an issue like this.

That said, I don’t like seeing my taxes being used to subsidize food purchases that are clearly unrelated to good health and that are probably antithetical to it. Why not pay for cigarettes and whiskey if you’re going to pay for soda? Is diabetes that much cheaper to treat over someone’s lifetime?

Brett: Poke around Michael Pollan’s site, lots of great writing on food policy there:

http://michaelpollan.com/

I’m pretty sure Tom interviewed him a while back on this show…

I completely agree xSampleX: I too don’t like to see my taxes used to subsidize anything that causes problems. The question is, as we figure this stuff out and attempt to use social engineering (rule changing) to change behavior, shouldn’t we aim at people and/or companies that do the most damage first? Of course, attempt to get people weaned off soda (empty calories) but if soda is bad for poor people, it’s no doubt also bad for all of us. So, Bloomberg ought to step up and get it out of his own company’s cafeteria to make his own workforce healthier.

Aiming first at poor people on food stamps seems heartless when we have so many other people in our society who are doing things that are unhealthy for all of us.

Soda is not an alternative to anything healthy, period. I read that unless food prices come down people will continue to eat food that has little nutritional value of which I agree, but water is better for you than soda if those are the choices. Taxes pay for Food Stamps, and in this economy, they are needed but so is instructing people on making healthy food decisions. Tooth decay is accelerated in those who are avid drinkers of soft drinks and other sugary beverages which leads them to the dentist which taxes also pay for, it’s a vicious cycle. So yes, I believe you should not be allowed to purchase drinks that contain corn syrup and sugar. Diabetes and obesity are two more afflictions the hard working tax payer cannot afford due to improper choices.

Richard,
Pollan is great; I’ve a few of his books. Thanks for the link

Liz: not everyone who is receiving food assistance is unemployed- some are simply in very low-paying jobs. And if you are working very hard for very little pay and have children to care for, you probably see pre-packaged meals as a Godsend.

You can’t buy Dunkin Donuts or McDonald’s with food stamps or food assistance.

Poor people tend to buy cheap processed products and soda and high fat, salt and sugar are cheaper than buying meat and vegetables. Forget about fruit, it’s way to expensive for most people on these programs.

You can eat cheap and healthy, rice and beans for one.
This can feed a family of 4 for under $10 with a few vegetables and you are good. This subject was on before a few months ago and it seemed to go know where then and I suspect it will now. The conservative boot strap crowd will site the usual false information about people taking advantage and wanting to be poor by choice (remember the welfare queen from Reagen) and the rest will hum and haw and some will be indignant. The bottom is wages for the majority of people in this country have been flat for over 30 years. There is no job security anymore and for most people they are a few months away from the street if they lose their jobs. This is the reality of this country.

Richard, yes, I agree there are too many agricultural subsidies, corn in particular, many going to supposedly “small farms” owned by members of congress or their families or huge agri-businesses that forces small farmers out of the market.

Brett, many years ago I was on WIC during a period of time when both my husband and I were out of work/underemployed and our 2 boys were small. I most certainly was judged in the grocery line with exaggerated sighs from the cashiers and people making comments on my non-WIC purchases and I was very careful with my budget and food purchases-no processed or pre-made foods. I once bought a cake mix and one 1/2gal ice cream (it was my son’s birthday)with my regular grocery money which I paid for after my WIC purchases. The lady in line in back of me said loudly “must be nice to be able to buy junk on the public’s dime”. I was mortified and I was paying for that with my own money. Trust me, people pay attention.

WIC was good because you recieved coupons for specific items and I even was able to use some at a Farmer’s Market plus they gave me nutritional counceling as part of the program. I helped me through a difficult time until we were able to make it on our own. Which is how these programs should be utilized.

According to National Geographic, 27% of all food prepared and ready to eat in the US each day is thrown in the trash and those food scraps total 17% of all garbage. Food stamps or not, rich or poor, food doesn’t seem to be of much value to many Americans.

This notion that “healthy food”, is to expensive, I beg to differ. Some things are and some are not.

1. Whole grain oats – .10 cents a serving
2. Dried lentals – .9 cents a serving
3. dried split peas – .9 cents a serving
4. Wild brown rice – .8 cents a serving
5. Carrots $1.50 per bag – Chips – $3.50 per bag

A very short list of very healthy and availible choices, there are dozens of other examples. Buying in bulk is even cheaper.

Consider, $5 for movie popcorn, $5 for Starbbucks coffee, $1.50 for 7-11 M&M’s, $1.25 for 16oz soda. Rich or poor many spend thier money on such things. People simply do not value thier own health. My health is my most valuable possession.

I was sorting through blue berries in the grocery a couple of years ago and a person to my right said, “I don’t know how you can afford those”. I replied back, “thier cheaper than a coronary”.

If food stamps are needed to get by, those recipiants made need to sacrifice other things they are spending money on, but sadly, unless thier health is of any real value to them, they will choose chips over carrot. And that goes for the rich as well

People fall on hard times, I lost my job 17 months ago and was unemployeed for months, but I still ate my oats and carrots every day.

It used to be, “let them eat cake!” Now it’s, “don’t let them eat cake!” I wish those royals would make up their minds!

Obviously the best solution is Soylent Green.

I would like to see laundry detergent and toilet paper allowed, but absolutely NO prepared foods.

The list could be very limited. pasta, fruit, vegetables, eggs, sugar, flour, etc. One can make sweets from these ingredients. Processed foods are not really “food”.

We are supporting obesity and poor health, while we are trying to attain health care. it is an oxymoron that is costing our country our health and expense.

those who want to buy the prepared food will spend their earned money on that, just like cigarettes and liquor.

Between the first and tenth of month (food stamp receipt dates) I frequently see people at the grocery store with a cart loaded with soda and other junk food and pay with their EBT card. We should not be subsidizing obesity and unhealthy food. Many people have no income and only receive food stamps, they live in subsidized housing and pick up cans with deposits. A better idea would be to ban junk food and soda and let them buy toilet paper and other personal hygiene items.

Just so long as they do NOT advocate FOR artificial sweeteners instead! Aspartame can be a neuro-toxin, causing small seizures and ADHD-like symptoms in susceptible individuals. Susceptibility MAY have to do with PKU status, but older people do NOT know their PKU status!

The seizures MAY be SO small that even doctors do NOT recognize the proper diagnosis even when told repeatedly!!!

My point is EXTREMELY important!

Step in the right direction. Next all we need is a Farm Bill that actually supports the production of nutrients rather than just mass.

Do Mayor Bloomberg (and others) believe that sugar-sweetened beverages are worse than the chemical-sweetened beverages?

It’s a great first step to restrict the “unhealthy” food choices, but to also offer new, fresh food alternatives and education as to how to prepare and serve them. Fresh foods are not readily available in many neighborhoods, and more needs to be done to offer them to people on assistance through farmers markets, etc.

yes.. food paid for by the government (the tax payers) can and should be controlled. people have the right to buy/eat what they want – and they can – with their o wn money – not the tax payers. and the health benefit is a bonus.. with nationalized healthcare it everyone’s concern! we should not pay for junk food, and then have to pay for your health problems because of it!

Oh please spare me Cory. You are taking this to an extreme. What is the problem of expecting people using food stamps to buy real food with it? I don’t think that is a lot to ask. Would you rather the program go away? It is a benefit to those folks who need it, but there should be limits on the types of food they buy with it and that food being nutritionaly sound should be one of them.

One would hope that if people need help paying for food, they would spend their limited money on something of nutritional value. However, we know that isn’t always the case. Even if they buy quality food with the assistance money, booze and cigarettes are purchased with other money.

Food stamps should be for food and as a society we have to redefine what food is. Because a substance is sold in a grocery store for edible consumption does not make it food.
Fat and carbohydrates, even soy proteins may be controversial, but they are food. Sugar has no nutritional value. It is a metabolic addictive substance that leads to disease in many people. Why should tax payers be forced to support this and the medical treatments that result. Money not spent on sugar water is available for nutritious foods. People can by sugar water with their own money.
Agribusiness will vehemently disagree with me.

how about just fresh whole foods: fruits, fresh veggies, meats and bread. in other words, a healthy diet.

Cory I’m not on food stamps and I eat rice and beans.
I get your sarcasm but Bloomberg has point although it’s a bit much coming from a billionaire however we have problem in this country with obesity. There are parts of West Virginia were the dental problems are so chronic due to the huge consumption of Mountain Dew by children and young adults. The local health care folks call it Dew mouth not unlike meth mouth. There people drink this stuff all day long from morning until bed time.

I run an emergency food pantry so am right on the front line of this issue. I am also liberal but it drives me crazy when I stand in the market and see people with 3 carts containing NO FOOD whip out their EBT card. I am making a concerted effort to increase the amount of fruit, produce and whole wheat/grains items we offer.
I strongly feel SNAP should be restricted to healthy whole foods ONLY. Radical but we as a nation are eating ourselves to death.
It is a complicated, multifaceted issue.

The point is Tom that soda isn’t nutrition. All it is is refined sugar, a pure stimulant. It’s more like a drug, providing “refreshment”. It’s why it works so well with caffiene in it. You can get so much more bang for your buck from fresh produce, or even a fruit juice, which can give the same pick me up. They do it with vitamins and natural sugars though, which are arguably better for you. More money spend on fruit and juice, stimulates the sector of the economy that needs be grown right now. This is why being able to spend food stamps at farmers markets was one of the best things ever to happen in this area.

Also, there are already things programmed immediately into the cash registers. That’s not that hard, and it someone makes a mistake, oh well, it’s not that big of a deal. It’s just an important statement to make, that nurishing your body is better for everyone’s health in the end, rather than just continuously stimulating it.

I think there is less of a stigma for not being able to use food stamps for junk food than the stigma of being obese and toothless.

Most Americans think of food on a day to day basis less as something sustaining and nutritious, and more as a pleasure, a treat. The difference between low income and higher income people is that people who have less can’t afford most other treats – but they can afford food that seems like a treat. If you have the income to go to the movies, buy nice clothes, or go away for a vacation, it is a lot easier to look at food as a matter of health. (I’m not saying it is impossible for someone who has few options to take a hard line on the food they eat, but it’s a lot harder.)
And please don’t say low income people already buy nice clothes and go to the movies – maybe a few do but most do not, and I speak from experience and from now working with low income people.

It’s a bold faced lie that the cheaper items are more food! They’re just puffed up with air.

Jeffe 10:18

I have not drank a soda since June of 2003, water is much. I feel that most people surely can figure this out. If these healthy things are not availible, then surely, “if people CHOOSE to value thier health enough”, surely they can band together and pave a way to a healthier life.

It isn’t that difficult to grow tomatoes, onions ect. Even if you have to grow them in pots. A person can do something, rather choosing to do nothing. Do you agree?

As the lecture below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

shows, the content of food and the merchandising of food no longer is about nutrition and satiation but rather the opposite. The producers of product knowingly use those chemicals and substances which will increase hunger and be non-nutritious.

I never read labels before seeing the youtube above. I do now and for two reasons: to reduce food cravings through avoidance of these sugars (in the lecture) and to punish those producers who would use those products as a poison.

Closer to being On Point there is the issue of what parents *have* to get that their children will eat which is also a problem in the advertising saturated world. It’s a bigger problem than food stamps.

Yes Amy! Lets spend some more of tax payer’s money on programs to educate people on how to use their food stamps and manage their grocery bill!!!

The education needs to start at the moral and ethical level. Where children learn what is morally right and wrong. Using food stamps to get cash, sitting on food stamps and welfare because you’re too lazy to get a job, feeling entitled to be taken care of by the government, etc. Those values and morals come from families!

There is a lot of research that shows that women, when their educational level rises, are able to get a job, support their families and better provide for themselves and their children.

So, lets spend tax payer’s money on educating women not to be on food stamps, not to be on welfare, to be a productive member of the society and pay taxes.
If we are spending money at all, I think it should be spending where it would bring more value and be more efficient.

I am divided on the issue.
On one hand, I don’t like government telling people what to do and limiting options, and this case its viewed as “freedoms”. On the other, people on food stamps should ‘know better’. But they don’t. And we, tax payers, end up footing the bill for their health care and medical treatment. Because we, tax payers, pay for food stamps, welfare and health care for those poor people who cannot afford it.
So … its a stick with two ends.

I think the restriction of soda from food stamps options is a lesser evil.
But then again, if you give up a little bit of your “freedoms”, where do you draw the line? where “too little” becomes “too much” and maybe in years to come we would have government telling people not on food stamps what to eat and what to buy and what to do.

People use the argument that this won’t solve the problem. But, if it just solves 10% of the problem it is a step. Instead of objecting to anything that is not a 100% solution, partial steps should be embraced. Maybe an answer is no more than 1 soda per month. (With computers it could be programmed into the cards.) Eliminating sugary soda from some peoples diet may indeed help with the obesity problem. What is wrong with trying a first step? If in fact eliminating sugary drinks solves 10% of the problem, it would leave “just” 90% of a problem to go

There are MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS if someone is not going to take food aid that they NEED because they are EMBARRASSED. I am all for unemployment benefit extensions and everything, but I would readily suspect someone suffering from hunger because they are too embarrassed to use foodstamps, is also suffering from joblessness because they are too embarrassed to ask for a job.

What organization funds the organization that Ellen Vollinger works for? Sounds like Coca Cola and Pepsi has their hands holding Ellen’s strings.

I feel that if the government, be it federal or local, is providing a free food service to the public it should be able to set limits and dictate what it can be spent on.
It’s FREE. Quite complaining, is what i think.

I’m bothered by the entitlement arguments being made. Why should we be entitled to free junk food paid by the public dollar? What happened to ask not what your country can do for you? So what about “scaring” people away from using food stamps? Wouldn’t that encourage beneficiaries to get off food stamps?

There’s a cultural issue as well. On “30 Rock” Tracy Morgan males a comment on orange drink being a poor cultural substitute for baby formula, and in Appalachia and deeply rural parts of the south there’s “Mountain Dew syndrome” where kids under 10, even toddlers, have rotten teeth because soda is given instead of healthier drinks like milk because you can get soda so much cheaper. The issue there becomes how do you make healthier drinks, like milk, cheaper without further detriment to the farmers that are already underpaid.

It’s much the same for healthy foods. Organic food is way out of range ($6@gal of organic milk vs $2.30 for regular milk), but healthy food is still more expensive and eats away at those FS funds. Go price a box of, say Kashi cereal vs a box of Frosted Flake.

*****

Would a two-tier system work, where you could get more food if you make better choices? Maybe let the EBT card users choose a green card that limits their purchases to healthier items and in return they get an extra 10% more? The saving in health care costs might justify it because it would lessen the need for diabetes and other health issue care.

*****

WIC is ok, but it’s always changing. It seems like some payola scam for certain brands, when other brands are just as good, maybe even better, and cheaper.

****

My family and I are on Food Sramps and WIC and we’d have no problem with

Marie-Antoinette (1755-93): Let them eat cake!

Michael Bloomberg (2010): Don’t let them eat cake!
Posted by Zeno

You do know that the ‘cake’ Marie-Antoinette was referencing was the bottom portion of a loaf of bread?

She wasn’t suggesting they eat a light and sugary dessert.

At the time, the lower half was hard and dry, thus not ‘suitable’ for the rich but good enough for the poor.

Here’s the basic thing: If you don’t agree with the restrictions, don’t take the food stamps. It’s as easy at that. If you don’t like the rules, don’t participate.

Tom I agree, but a lot of people do not know how to grow anything. I don’t drink soft drinks or eat junk food myself and I’m on a very limited budget. If I had children I would be be on food assistance. I grew tomato’s this year and I had a bad crop this year. Last year there was the blight. My greens did very well however and I’m eating a lot of them.

This is as much about education as it is about poverty.

I think there is a real possibility for confusion on the part of stores and consumers. For example, Sunny Delight (the breakfast drink) is essentially sugar water with fruit flavor. What about buying Gatorade for your child who plays sports? Hi-C, again essentially favored sugar water, does provide “nutrition plus calories” — Is it food? Does the ban apply to sweetened iced tea or lemonade? What about the powdered form of these beverages. The list goes on and on.

It seems to me that “sugar sweetened beverages” is not as simple as soda.

I feel that there should definitely be restrictions on the types of food that can be purchased with food stamps. Nutrition classes should be mandatory for any recipient of food stamps. I realize that a lot of lower-income communities are limited in healthy food options, but it should not be acceptable for tax payers to support the on-going obesity problem in America.

“Closer to being On Point there is the issue of what parents *have* to get that their children will eat which is also a problem in the advertising saturated world. It’s a bigger problem than food stamps.”
Posted by Lon C Ponschock

Totally agree! Poor parents have far fewer choices,across the board,already. Advertisers relentlessly pitch candy-colored garbage at our kids and then we have to try to keep them from craving it. Who wins this sick game? One guess. The soft-drink corporations will get our money one way or another. We should look at that, like we finally examined the big tobacco conspiracies.

Please quit condemning the working poor, OK? Walk a mile in my moccasins and THEN you can be the judge.

Excellent idea: tax EVERYONE’S consumption of these non-foods. This take the spotlight off of poor people and puts it on everyone. I wonder how fast Bloomberg would remove these drinks from his place of business (both bloomberg, Inc and the Mayor’s office) if they were taxed heavily.

I am a nutrition major on my way to becoming a dietitian. Funny, we were just discussing this in my obesity and weight control class! Growing up, we struggled to get by, however, we were certain to get 3 nutritious meals a day. My parents made sure never to introduce soda into our regular diet, this contributes to my present eating habits, and for that, I am grateful. My question is, why would anyone consider soda to be a food staple? There is so much obvious evidence that it is bad for you. It contributes to so many health problems. Just like the campaign to reduce smoking, maybe we should single out this particular substance. But, good luck to you, Bloomberg. It doesn’t really matter if people like it or not. Its really about how $$ much Pepsi and Coke would sink in to prevent this from happening. Talk about an uphill climb. Its worth it, though!

We also need to be sure that anyone who receives government healthcare, also is banned from using tobacco, McDonald’s & fried foods, Chips, Colas, and they should have to check in to a workout center at least twice a week. Those over 200 lbs should have to check in daily until they are fully repaired. This should always be the case when giving away others’ money. If we can ever get universal coverage, I’m going to work hard to insure these sorts of much needed changes. The first thing we need to remove is fast food, then much of the vegetables sold at Wal-Mart are also unhealthy because of the way they are produced today. This is what we need, but we need a lot more, and we need these universal government programs so we can accomplish these things in a quicker fashion. As politically incorrect as it may sound, most people today are dumb and fat, and they need a government that helps them to make decisions. I mean there are just millions of people who weigh over 200 pounds, no one should weigh that much, and they need help now and they obviously can’t do it themselves.

The point of SNAP is to boost nutrition, and junk food just does not cut it. Those are my tax dollars at work and I want them spent wisely. Another issue is that sadly adults do not always make the best choices for children. This poor decision making should not be subsidized by the government!

About 12 years ago I received WIC for my children. I am thankful for my fellow Nebraskans who gave me that hand up during a different recession while I was in college.

This gave me two things to think about on this topic. With the same amount of aid I could get three bottles of real fruit juice, or twelve bottles of fruit flavored sugar drinks.

My wife and I did the right thing, but I could see how the sugar drink is a weed choking out the product trying to do the right thing.

One caller suggested more education, but here in Omaha, we have had schools accept contracts with coke and pepsi for exclusive rights and advertising.

This teaches our children two bad things. It give the idea that sugar drinks, and asparteme are harmless. But even worse, it teaches kids that their own school will sell them out.

Of course soda is cheap, it is nothing more than water, corn syrup (subsidized farmers), food coloring and a little flavoring.

Good morning,

A one-gallon jug of spring water is 89 cents at most grocery stores. Sugar-sweetened soda is not the only drink that’s cheap.

People do not understand. Eating and living healthy is expensive; take it from me. I’m a vegetarian and it’s expensive living this lifestyle. Fresh fruit and vegetable are expensive. Teaching children a healthy lifestyles does not mean anything if their families cannot afford it. Think about that!

I think that in general we should be distinguishing food from “edible foodlike substances,” to use Michael Pollan’s phrase. Food stamps should not be used for the latter.

Perhaps a better approach than restricting the use of food stamps is to heavily subsidize a basic set of healthful foods, such as unprocessed fruits and vegetables. We are now subsidizing junk food through our agricultural policies, which is why they are less expensive than healthful foods. The funds could come from a tax on edible foodlike substances and a cutback in subsidies to commodity corn.

Slippery slope is Glenn Beck’s rhetorical weapon of choice. Too bad it’s a flagrant logical fallacy. The question is whether soda should be restricted through food stamps period. “It’s not gonna stop there” simply does not count as a counter-argument.

Dear Richard,

I am sorry, I must not have made my point very transparent. I agree with most of your response. I support Food Stamps but I also support healthy foods for all people no matter what the income. Unfortunately I am a mere mortal with no power and can do little to change the status quo. My opinion is all I have and perhaps as a daughter of a health guru and one myself, some advice to anyone who will listen.

A whole organic 5 pound chicken…5.99
a 5 lb. bag of potatoes………………..4.99
2 heads of organic broccoli ………….5.99

Dinner for 5………………………………17.00

Just a point.

These are my prices here in Vermont.

…and I include hi fructose sweeteners as artificial and agree with the comments of the most recent caller re corn and soy.

New York has been making bold steps with the health of people as a top priority. It’s tough love people! Soda and sugary drinks are not good for anyone. Just ask a type two diabetic.

Soda should not be covered by food stamps. On the other side of the coin, people are bombarded by unhealthy food in every aisle of the grocery store….and it’s CHEAP. This has to change immediately!!! People buying fruit snacks and popsicles might as well be buying soda. Grocery stores are full of unhealthy processed food with misleading labels.

Also, more local stores and farm stands should accept food stamps. I’m sick of giving federal money to places like Walmart. Food stamps can improve local economies if only people could use them at local stores.

Nobody is infringing anyone’s rights to buy whatever they want. They are only saying that the Government will not pay for it. And why should they? If someone is giving you something for free, they should be able to give you whatever they want to give you. And don’t say that poor people have to drink soda because healthier drinks are more pricey – WATER FROM YOUR TAP IS FREE!

People need encouragement to eat healthier. Instead of giving people crappy junk food for free, make it easier to get healthy foods for free.

The results of taking soda from consumption of food stamps recipients will not become evident in just a couple of years.

These are life long, several years, effects that you are talking about and if Bloomberg claims that after two years it made the food stamps recipients in NYC healthier, that is a big pile of BS.

What I just heard – cutting the total amount of food stamps because they are not being used for soda anymore, is more realistic reason for taking soda out.

Low-income people do not have the time to attend a nutrition education class. Yes, education is a good idea, but I know that I don’t have time for education if I’m working two jobs to keep my apartment.

Thank you, Cath Goddard for your comment, sounds like a very well-reasoned argument and you have experience with this situation.

Also, I appreciate Marlene Schwartz’s comments on the tax on soda for EVERYONE. This is one of the most important conversations to have. We need the economic incentives in place to discourage purchase of these products,as well as other unhealthy alternatives to whole foods. In the meantime, I believe NYC’s demonstration project is a wonderful idea. Demonstration projects are meant to gather evidence about how a program works, can we please remember that it can give us the chance to educate people about our food system and their own health.

One small step in the right direction…..I don’t think that it’s wrong to limit what can be bought with government assistance….Not paying for cola is not a slight, but it could be one way to try to curb the rising costs Medicaid costs!

This is not a charitable activity. The money used for this program was acquired with use of a gun (just try not to pay taxes), not voluntarily given. If it were given in a charitable act, the whole system would actually be working. The government’s good intentions, as usual, has backfired.

To the what if 1 in 8 cant’s buy junkfood comment: they still can “buy” it, just like anyone else, and it actually incentivizes them to earn cash for desired stimulants!

it is fast and famine approach to poverty including false sense of wealth. The once a month turn from weekly or bi weekly amounts contribute to FSP problems. It is also the way payrolls and benefit programs release moneys. We promote the compulsive purchases public behavior by promoting a sense of need or doing without necessities and deprivation.

Several comments have mentioned the difficulty of counteracting the influence of advertising on their children’s food choices.

I love this sequence from the film The Corporation. It describes how an advertising firm commissions sophisticated studies so that they can coach children in the most effective strategies for nagging their parents into buying them things, including unhealthful food. This is what parents are up against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi63rXnuWbw

I was googling for Eat Well For Less Money, published in the wake of World War II, but found reference to James Beard’s How to Eat Better for Less Money 1954 (Simon and Schuster) (he of the advent of cuisine awareness). And Wikipedia gives the following:

“Financial needs caused Beard to sign endorsement deals promoting products that he might otherwise have not used or suggested in his own cuisine, had he been financially independent. Beard entered into an endorsement project with the Green Giant canned food company. Kamp explains that Beard felt that he was a “gastronomic whore” for doing so. Apparently, mass-produced food that was neither fresh, local, nor seasonal, was a betrayal of Beard’s gastronomic beliefs, but arose from his desire to pay for his cooking schools.[14]
“In 1981, along with friend Gael Greene, Beard founded Citymeals-on-Wheels, which continues to help feed the home-bound elderly in New York City.”
(That is from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Beard )

I was hoping he wrote a book about how to feed people well for less, but he was out whoring for the food industry for his own economic need. Wow. In any case, post-WWII, the families to be fed were larger than current families. A single mother with a 2-year-old are not going to be cooking and consuming a large casserole.
So: We need some books about great food, easy to put together, for the size “families” that are actually looking for such food.

Junk food is not cheaper than healthy food. Last year I decided to cut my family food budget in half, and I found I could do that only by buying healthy food and not wasting money on empty calories. I’m down to $18/person per week now, by buying mostly chicken, turkey, fish, eggs, a huge variety of vegetables and fruit, milk, oatmeal, and beans. I’ve learned how to be a gourmet cook with these basic whole foods, and every meal we have is delicious, colorful, and healthy, with lots of variety.

I lived in the Bronx for seven years on a very limited grad student budget. My husband & I found creative ways to eat well & eat cheap. One of the problems is that food preparation TAKES TIME. You CAN EAT CHEAPLY if you plan properly. But you have to be willing to put in the time in the kitchen. There is a lot of instant gratification that comes with sugary drinks and pre-packaged food and I think people fall into the “it’s there & I don’t have to do anything but tear open the package” trap. I used to make an 8-quart pot of chili that would last us forever. It cost me about $35 to make.

Grace: I’m sure we agree on 99% of this stuff. My point is not to defend the drinking of soda as a “right,” more that we need to aim our social engineering eye at less vulnerable segments of society who in the end, cost us even more.

I think Bloomberg’s got a good idea, but it should be at the back of a line of other ideas that will help legislate better health for all New Yorkers and all Americans.

To do this first looks mean. It’s akin to saying that it’s all those illegal immigrants who have driven the American economy into the ground. We tend to pick on “them” because its easy. Less easy to fix the larger issues.

Corn subsidies and the resulting harm both corn fed beef and corn syrup do to all of us (well, most of us) dwarf the soda/food stamp problem.

This is yet another complex issue that is presented in a binary way and reduced to its simplest terms so people can get it. The corn issue is a bit more complex and because of that coupled with the fact that poor people can’t match the agribusiness lobby, Bloomberg can safely attempt to do this.

All of this is going to be moot if we can’t pass a tax on carbon but that’s also too complicated for many to fully grasp.

My brother in law’s fiance’ (w/ 2 small children) receives WIC benefits and often has more food then they know what to do with. WIC allows ridiculous portions, often she has 3 or more dozen eggs, gallons of milk and lbs of cheese and has to give them away so that they don’t go bad. What kind of regulation is that?

I think restriction on foods allowed in these programs makes perfect sense, it is supposed to be nutrition and make sure people don’t starve, so staples – bread, meat, dairy, vegetables/ fruit, the food pryamid would should be allowed. Any products that are frivolous and “wants” instead of “needs” should not be included.
If you want to buy soda, buy soda, but buy it on your dollar instead of my tax dollars. Same with chips and other extras. People are just so spoiled in America that we have forgotten what we actually need to survive and be healthy.

Aside: my brother in law and his fiance cannot get married b/c they would lose their health and food benefits for their 2 kids. What does that say about these programs? My brother works his butt off to take care of them, and really just needs healthcare for his kids as his job of 10 years does not provide, but they wouldn’t get anything if he was “in the picture” on paper. So my sister has to be a “single” mom. How stupid and frustrating is that?!

I was a food stamp recipient back in the 80′s when they were paper coupons (and the Reagon administration attempted to allow ketchup to be considered a “food” item in school lunches). I take ZERO issue with NY asking to elinimate soft drinks in the SNAP program!! Beer and wine have more nutritional value than sodas, and yet we intrinsically know that allowing these purchases is a bad idea.

Ellen Bollinger (the person against the request) makes an illogical argument….”they can’t afford whole wheat bread, so let them have a coke????” (paraphrasing) Frankly, I feel certain her position has much more to do with power and politics, then concern for SNAP recipients.

SNAP Program should not allow the purchase of sodas – period.

What do any of you care, what people on food stamps buy or eat? Let me tell you, if they are on foodstamps, their lives pretty much such. If they want a soda, have a soda.I don’t drink soda,I am not on foodstamps but I don’t give a —- if someone else wants one. Yes, it would be nice if everybody could afford and wanted to eat well. The government is tooooo big, big brother is too —— big, and they need to stop telling everybody where they can work, and can’t, what they can do and can’t, and now what they can eat/drink and can’t. get out of here.

If Bloomberg is so concerned about obesity/diabetes, why then is he not using his power and position to suggest an “initiative” on restrictions to how the corporate manufacturers market their products? In every grocery store I go into I see an endless canvass of brightly-colored promotional campaigns by the likes of companies such as Coca-Cola™ and Doritos™. “Upgrade your bag of _____to extra large and receive a second bag free!” or “buy a one litre bottle of_____and get 75 cents off the second bottle!” or “buy a six pack of Coca-Cola™ and get a bag of Doritos™ free!” …He would rather target SNAP recipients, I suppose, than corporate America.

I wonder if all the ‘designer’ vitamin waters are eligible for purchase with food stamp money. They are just as nutritionally worthless as soda and are owned by the same giant soda companies.

They were developed to keep the money flowing into the corporate coffers when people stopped drinking as much soda and turned to ‘basic water’ drinks. “Well, let’s just advertise the heck out of overpriced water as a healthy alternative to soda.” ‘Healthier?’ yeah, less sugar, but no food value. Plus, you are messing with your body’s vitamin and mineral balance.

Eat healthy food, drink water. Add unhealthy stuff in MODERATION and not at the taxpayer’s expense.

I agree with the ‘healthy food’ bonus idea. 10%? Heck, DOUBLE IT. Cut the price of real food in half and double the cost of junk food when the items are scanned at the register. One of our markets (Hannafords) has stickers on healthy foods. Not too hard to figure out what you could buy for half the price posted on the shelf. If you are paying $2.50 for a gallon of V8 juice and $4 for a can of soda, the decision should be easy.

The government is tooooo big, big brother is too —— big, and they need to stop telling everybody where they can work, and can’t, what they can do and can’t, and now what they can eat/drink and can’t. get out of here.

Stillin, simple: if they do not like the rules they don’t have to accept the program.

To Melissa @11:31

This is an earlier posting of mine, the cost of eating unhealthy will cost for life, with the medical cost factored to take care of the disease and sickness caused by unhealthy choices. Just consider.

According to National Geographic, 27% of all food prepared and ready to eat in the US each day is thrown in the trash and those food scraps total 17% of all garbage. Food stamps or not, rich or poor, food doesn’t seem to be of much value to many Americans.

This notion that “healthy food”, is to expensive, I beg to differ. Some things are and some are not.

1. Whole grain oats – .10 cents a serving
2. Dried lentals – .9 cents a serving
3. dried split peas – .9 cents a serving
4. Wild brown rice – .8 cents a serving
5. Carrots $1.50 per bag – Chips – $3.50 per bag

A very short list of very healthy and availible choices, there are dozens of other examples. Buying in bulk is even cheaper.

Consider, $5 for movie popcorn, $5 for Starbbucks coffee, $1.50 for 7-11 M&M’s, $1.25 for 16oz soda. Rich or poor many spend thier money on such things. People simply do not value thier own health. My health is my most valuable possession.

I was sorting through blue berries in the grocery a couple of years ago and a person to my right said, “I don’t know how you can afford those”. I replied back, “thier cheaper than a coronary”.

If food stamps are needed to get by, those recipiants made need to sacrifice other things they are spending money on, but sadly, unless thier health is of any real value to them, they will choose chips over carrot. And that goes for the rich as well

People fall on hard times, I lost my job 17 months ago and was unemployeed for months, but I still ate my oats and carrots every day.

I found a couple of the calls on the program today to be little more than propaganda: the one about bodegas allowing EBT cards to be used for gasoline, cigarettes, etc., and the one from East Kentucky where, supposedly, SNAP recipients are using their EBT cards to buy sodas then reselling the sodas to, as he put it, “tobacco shops” so the recipients can buy drugs. 1) shop keepers need to use licensed vendors to purchase their wholesale name brand products for sale 2) EBT cards can not be used to purchase products not covered by the program 3) If someone knows of systematic, systemic fraud and abuse by shop keepers, REPORT THEM!

They have choices. Their choice is to either fend for themselves or accept restrictions on the program they choose to apply for and use.

It’s almost certain that sugar and grains are responsible for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and alzheimers (among other ailments such as appendicitis and gout).
I would say education about the cause of these diseases is what’s important, but there’s no consensus. Everyone still wants blame dietary fat, cholesterol and salt while thinking of soft drinks and sweets simply as ‘empty calories’.
But either way if you want to know why wages have remained flat for 30 years, just consider what has increased dramatically in the last three decades: health insurance.

As a former assistance recipient, I agree that ALL JUNK FOOD should be off limits to Food Stamps.I also think VITAMINS,DETERGENTS, AND TOILET PAPER should be allowed to be purchased. Also, I think the old system of distributing healthy food staples such as raisins, oatmeal, flour, cornmeal,beans, honey etc. should be re-instated.Why was this ever stopped?
I also think extra $$$ should be added to EBT cards just for fresh fruits and vegetables, eggs and yogurt.
Also we have serious problems do to huge corporations skewing the food industry in the directions of junk food for profit instead of nutritional food for the good of all.

Ellen,
I just looked it up; in some states, folks can get cash back from their EBT card! WOW! That needs to stop!

Kathy: The distribution of surplus commodities ended mostly because we don’t have surpluses of those things anymore. Healthy food production is down in the USA and we export 70% of the big commodity items. I volunteered to verify claimants and hand out commodities when I was in college (1983), and the flour, cheese and even the powdered milk would be pretty expensive today. With food production consolidated and globalized, where would you get it? You wouldn’t believe the number of small dairies that have closed in the last thirty years….

Wine and beer have more nutritional value than soda.

Apparently, in some states, some other state assistance services have been fused with the federal SNAP program. Monthly benefits can be accessed by the one EBT card. This is clearly a flaw in the system and needs to change. Additionally, shop owners not abiding by the rules of SNAP should not be allowed to participate in offering access to the program in their stores.

Brett, now I’m recalling that the cash from the EBT card was used mostly for cigarettes, which the convenience store owner found notable, that plus the lottery tickets.
I agree with Grady Lee Howard that low-wage jobs can be those impossible to do without more “charge” than “real food” can give you. Imagine being asked to work like a machine, bored and anxious at the same time, that sort of thing. You are lucky if you can find a “cocktail” of something that can get you through the day, and then through the night. Being fully alert and fully functional is a disadvantage if you’re trying to live like that. You have to provide a certain cloud for yourself.
But I think young people don’t realize how sick poor nutrition can make them. I’m almost 64, and a body this age doesn’t have as many enzymes, doesn’t extract as much nutrition out of even an excellent diet, and I don’t burn as many calories; so calories have to provide exactly the right nutrients. I notice within days if I’m getting the wrong proportions. When I was younger, I ate more, and I really couldn’t notice the costs of mistakes. I suppose younger people would think, “Gee, I lived on soda and chocolate bars all the way through college; why can’t I keep doing that?” Maybe four years is the limit for that diet; and once older, I quickly lose the proper rhythm of sleep and energy; I get infections, viruses; whatever the body does to indicate physiological stressors, it does that.

While we are at it, let’s regulate what kids in college eat if they get financial aid from the government. Oh wait, we give them cash aid and not food stamps. I wonder why that is?

While we are at it, let’s tell middle class people they can only use a certain portion of their tax rebate to buy food that we think is healthy for their families. Let’s use the child credit for example.

The short of it is this, we as a country love to tell poor people what to do. Poor people are of course, not making these policies, and hardly participate in these types of debate. So middle and upper class people, with a sense of benevolence and a inkling that they know what is best, create policies that apply to others but not to themselves. Do unto others as you would do onto yourself.

When I buy food, I buy both soda, juice, and a variety of other drinks. Having your kids drink soda is not a sign that they have bad nutrition, albeit, having your kids drink soda alone, I imagine cannot be healthy. Really, if we want nutritious meals for families on SNAP we would give them more money to buy better food, organic food at the farmers market, and instead these families buy rice and beans and pasta because it is cheap. Soda is cheap as well.

Why don’t we just go after the soda company and create an additional tax on them in the same way we do with tobacco and alcohol. Raising the price of soda will make everyone, rich and poor alike less likely to buy soda. Oh wait, I get it. We want to attack poor people because it is easier than attacking big corporations like Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

Ellen,
I have spent the last twenty minutes or so looking online at how different states handle the use of EBT cards for SNAP. I am aghast, to say the least. Abuse as well as an unbridled sense of entitlement are two arguments conservatives always use against programs like SNAP, and the way some states procedurally handle benefits seems to promote both problems. In Virginia, EBT cards for SNAP can only be used for food purchases in stores (no prepared foods, no cigarettes, no cash back, no alcohol).

In my state, there have been some politicians suggesting a tax on sodas. The soda lobby then began pouring money (or setting up shadow non-profits with names like “Concerned Citizens for a Free America” I should say) into ad campaigns showing a concerned mother imploring viewers to let their leaders know that citizens don’t want more taxes, intrusion into personal freedoms, big government, etc., that sort of thing.

Well, in reading the comments there doesn’t seem to really be much controversy.

“Nutritional foods are at least twice as expensive than the alternative.”

Not so sure. Let’s check the numbers:

Some prices directly from Peapod (an online grocery store):

Salad Dole Fresh Discoveries European (10 oz bag)- $2.50
Salmon Steak (1 lb)- $8.99
Baking Potato (ea.)- $.59
Dinner for two total: $12.67

Compare this to:

Two “Fillet ‘O Fish” meals at McDonalds: $11.60

So for 50 cents more per person, one can have a tasty and healthy dinner, and these are at Peapod prices, which aren’t the best.

Twenty-niner,

You can buy Wild Salmon flanks at Kroger averaging about $12 per flank. At 4oz per serving, it will provide 6 servings. I am not assuming your posting did not take proper protions into account, but many people consider a serving size that is really two and three servings at once.

“At 4oz per serving, it will provide 6 servings.”

Agree 100%, portions in the country are way out of whack. But with even giant American-sized mega portions, healthy food is not that expensive.

I keep hearing how cheap junk food is; maybe if you measure in price per calorie, but if you measure price per nutrient, it is actually quite expensive.

twenty-niner has a point about being a savvy shopper, good menu planner and reasonable home chef in providing meals to one’s family; Tom S. has a good point about portion sizes (of meat in particular) being too high in the average US diet, but neither factor in how places like McDonald’s™ and Quick-Mart™ offer coupons and promotional deals to entice poor people. Filet O’ Fish sandwiches for a buck, two two-litre bottles of soda for a buck, two for one coupons in the mail, and so on. Wendy’s offers a Jr. Cheeseburger Deluxe™ or a Crispy Chicken Sandwich™ on their dollar menu. And Don’t forget the Happy Meals™ for three dollars, or the 59cent taco deals at Taco Bell™ or the 89cent burgers at Hardee’s™

“Wendy’s offers a Jr. Cheeseburger Deluxe™ or a Crispy Chicken Sandwich™ on their dollar menu. And Don’t forget the Happy Meals™ for three dollars, or the 59cent taco deals at Taco Bell™ or the 89cent burgers at Hardee’s™”

Good point, but I remember reading that the establishments don’t actually make money on their dollar menus (and coupons). They are just ploys to get people in the stores, so they can be up-sold on more expensive fare. I think the real problem is that dollar-menu items are now winding up as appetizers to go along with the full meals.

It would be interesting to see some stats on how these dollar menus have affected the average purchase per customer. They have clearly done well for McDonald’s bottom line.

I enjoyed the coverage of Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to no longer allow food stamps to be used in NYC for the purchase of soft drinks. The connection between the consumption of soft drinks with possible obesity and diabetes health problems was a clear reason for me to be in favor of not allowing the use of food stamps for the purchase of soft drinks.

I heard people that were in favor of continuing to allow the use of food stamps to purchase soft drinks give a reason that someone might be in the check out line with soft drinks and become stigmatized by the humiliation of holding up the line because they are not able to use their food stamps and are not able to pay cash. I am not in favor of humiliating anyone in the check out line, but couldn’t clear instructions be placed where the soft drinks are shelved that the purchase of these items requires cash because food stamps no longer can be used to pay for them.

I also heard people express their right to consume what they want. I agree that they have the right to purchase and consume any legal grocery item with their own money. They do not seem to see my point of view that I do not have to pay for that right if it impacts their health and subsequently makes it prohibitively expensive for our country to provide health care for those who need it and did not inflict their health problems upon themselves as these consumers are doing based on their right to consume soft drinks that may result in their possible obesity and diabetes.

The proposal to eliminate sodas is an interesting balance between health and personal freedom, but everyone seems to be ignoring the far more important point, namely, the skyrocketing poverty that is driving more Americans to food stamps. This is yet another consequence of 30 years of class warfare by the far right aristocrats and the corporations. 30 years of tax cuts and deregulation have massively shifted the wealth from the middle to the top. Growing numbers on food stamps is not an isolated effect, it is all one with the stagnant median wage, the unemployment, the vanished savings and home equity, and the high household debt. Everywhere you look the middle class has lost and the elite have gained.

The scary thing is that, after the disastrous results of voodoo reaganomics, the GoP has no proposals but more of the same.

We are a family of 5, three kids and a household income of 20,000/year and current recipients of food stamp benefits. I personally agree with a restriction on soda being purchased with food stamps. There already exists restriction on items purchased with food stamps, energy drinks to name one, restricting soda would be the beginning to a much needed process. It is obvious there is an increase in poverty, which leads to an increase in welfare benefits like food stamps, which also leads to more government spending. The government shouldn’t be responsible for society’s soda fix? Nor should it be responsible for it’s candy fix, donut fix, or treat fix. People who are “starving” need to eat items of substance and in actuality spend on items that are unnecessary and unhealthy. There are studies linking soda to obesity, which is also draining the governments pockets. It is obvious that we not only have an increase in poverty but steady increase in obesity, just like smoking, the first step to fixing these issues is government regulation. It can start with food stamps. And while they are at it, CANDY shouldn’t be purchased with government money either. It is just moronic to think that because someone is poor the government should buy their candy and soda. It’s not called treat stamps, it’s food stamps, buy some food!

It’s not called treat stamps, it’s food stamps, buy some food! Teashia Stennet

Totally agree!!!

Agreed that sadly some are completely at the bottom of the finanial barrel. And yes I do choose organic, Crohn’s disease will change ones life completely.

I feel that if enough people would make the neccesary change with thier diets, sending the message that they want to take control of the destiny of thier health, I beleive it would eventually transform what food is offered from the grocery store to the resturant.

I can even invision neighborhoods banding together and growing most of the veggies, say one home grows only tomatoes, the next grows potatoes, the next carrots and so on. Then these neighbors could equally distribute one to another and trade for what they want and need. Their is a company/group up in Canada doing something similar, home owners give up their backyards and this group comes in and plants and produces a garden, in the end everybody invovled gets thier take of the produce. Anything left over is sold at a local farmers market. Things like these are possible a millions times over right here today and your above mentioned single mom could participate with such a project and in return receive some of the “fruits” of such efforts.

There isn’t one answer for all the food problems, but without some forward thinking and action from the consumer, things will stay as they are.

You’re arguing semantics to justify the most condescending, repellent proposal I’ve heard in a long time. If it’s got calories in it, it’s food. Hey, here’s a modest proposal– Let’s bar the poor from buying zero-calorie sodas with their food stamps. On the basis that, having no calories, they aren’t food.

Lisa @ 4:13

2/3 of Americans are overweight and 1/3 are obese. Not all of those numbers come from the poor. Even the billioniar Oprah Winfrey has been telling you this for 20 years.

Wow! I heard this program while in the car this morning and have since announced to family and friends that if they want any cola drinks at my house, they’ll have to bring their own bottle. While I applaud Mayor Bloomberg’s idea, I think it will be interesting to see how the controversy plays out.

“I can even invision neighborhoods banding together and growing most of the veggies, say one home grows only tomatoes, the next grows potatoes, the next carrots and so on”

lol some may call that communism, or one of those hippy communes you hear about.

Ellen,
I see areas (the “food deserts” you mention) where there are no large supermarkets that are easy to get to, and those same areas are overrun with convenience stores and fast food joints.

I would love to see land granted to communities to grow food; what a wonderful form of philanthropy for someone to donate land, supplies and expertise to grow food in a given community. It takes a lot of effort, though. We are periodically able to assemble a cast of volunteers in our garden; still, there are long stretches of time where no one seems interested in participating, and it is hard to keep up momentum for many of the long-term volunteers.

Oops, there’s my next student, two minutes early!

Brett, my city has farmland that used to provide food for the huge county mental hospital about a mile out of town. (As I understand it.) That hospital has been closed for about a decade. There is a jail a little farther out, and I’m not sure if maybe inmates were part of the original land-use plan. Anyway, now there are no volunteers, exactly. People sort of “own” their territory. You are assigned an area if you want it. I believe people can use water supplies up there, but basically people who can get there with cars are the farmers. However, this worked amazingly well. People play tennis and tend their garden tracts, with equal vigor. So the city has bought up more farmland that became available this spring. Actually two farms. There were huge battles between those who wanted more soccer fields, hockey fields, etc., versus those who want more public growing space.
I believe the result was that both farms were bought by the city. We are broke, but somehow the money was raised. In my city there are some rich people, and they take up collections when something like this happens. Save the dam. Save the wildlife corridor. Save this, save that. We won’t starve if we secede.

Sadly there is alot of land that grows nothing but grass. Yard grass of course. People spend hundred if not thousands of dollars per year, mowing and mowing grass. Watering and watering grass that will be dead for six months out of the year. But these same people won’t dare stick their hands in the soil for the betterment of their families or themselves.

They would rather climb onto their high horse, spoutting off in the direction of Capital Hill and big corporation, claiming them to be the source of the problem. But never do these same like minded individuals claim they too are part of the problem.

Micheal @ 5:56,

I am 42 and still have my 30 inch waist, the same one I had in high school and will keep it til the day I die. Strange how some can’t be made happy, they point their fingers at those who chose to be healthy and they point their fingers at those who mostly chose not to be.

What is your solution?

Whilst I agree that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)beverages + foods ought to be limited for human consumption (although, HFCS is in practically everything today!!) I disagree w/barring people receiving Food Stamp Benefits from purchasig soda.

Employers have already denied 1 in 8 adults full time employment, financial security, + healthcare benefits, so now let’s deny them what might be their only luxury.

I suggest Food Stamp Benefit receivers receive nutritional education (dovetailing w/the same education they receive in high school?) rather than outright deny them access to soda by way of their EBT card.

C’mon! Where’s our compassion???

government should be able to dictate what the food stamps will pay for. Soda has zero nutrition and does nothing for those children. Families should get a lesson on budgeting and purchasing nutritional items. I also feel that food stamps should not be used for non food items.

Don’t get me started on the frustrations of the welfare programs and other assistance such as section 8 which only encourage people to stay poor.

Won’t these folks just switch to diet sodas? That means more ‘empty calories’. Why not just ban sodas altogether?

Really? People get real. This money is a gift from the gov’t. You are entering into a contract with an aid agency. Look at wic. This money is NOT a right. You can buy soda just not with MY MONEY. I don’t have any issues with you needing foodstamps for awhile. This argument is ridiculous. You are taking free money. Maybe it should move to actual food instead of allowing you to go to the grocery store. You have to visit a foodbank and make your choices there.

I would also like to state that people would be just as obese if their soda was sweetened with sugar. Same calories. HFCS is VERY close in composition to table sugar. It’s not HFCS that is the bad guy. It’s those delicious sodas.

The beverages in this study were sweetened with sucrose, whereas in the United States almost all calorically sweetened beverages are sweetened with HFCS. Thus, we need a second randomized controlled study that compares sucrose- and HFCS-sweetened beverages.

Here we see no real scientific link of HFCS to obesity. I am against eating corn in everything. However, I am for education. Sucrose is 50-50 glucose-fructose. HFCS in soda is 45-55. Not a big difference. Not enough to change the fact that people ingest hundreds sometimes thousands of empty calories a day in soda. It won’t matter if it’s from HFCS or Sugar. Fructose is absorbed differently that glucose. No different than when you eat fruit.

When we make HFCS out to be that bad guy we miss the ENTIRE point of overconsumption. Calories in>calories out= weight gain over time.

Personally, I wish the government would stop subsidizing corn, which would very quickly bring balance to food prices. It only makes sense that low-income people will consume cheap food, and making unhealthy food cheaper through government subsidies only encourages poor health. Ending subsidies could save taxpayers’ money in many ways while also avoiding many politically dangerous topics.

There’s no reason for food stamp benefits to cover non-nutritional food. Why there is even debate on this topic is ridiculous! I was on food stamps for awhile and I remember being thrilled that I could finally afford something other than ramen noodles and fake juice. The privilege of being able to buy fresh produce and other nutritious foods is something that should be emphasized instead of just lamenting not being able to buy what people with money are buying.

We already tax ‘essential’ (bread, milk, beans) food items and ‘non-essential’ (soda, twinkies, doritos) differently. Why not just make the food stamp cut-off where the tax cut-off is, and disallow purchase of any ‘non-essential’ food items? Since there is already a line drawn in the sand, this would be a relatively easy change to introduce and enforce.

I agree with Mayor Bloomberg.
I am a health professional — giving hungry people food that may contribute to their having health problems just makes it worse for the people we are helping (who do not have health insurance)!!! This will cause more burden to the tax-paying citizens!

simply put, WIC is a frustrating program. My mother in law was a social worker for 20 years and she’ll tell you that WIC is not that effective despite its goal of being a nutrition program.

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/foodassist/wic.shtml

Also, why not just tax the soda? An equally big problem is that regardless of Food Stamps, Soda is cheap and widely available at nearly every restaurant in this country, and is even less expensive at a fast food restaurant.

From twenty-niner, at 1:45 PM

““Nutritional foods are at least twice as expensive than the alternative.”

Not so sure. Let’s check the numbers:

Some prices directly from Peapod (an online grocery store):

Salad Dole Fresh Discoveries European (10 oz bag)- $2.50
Salmon Steak (1 lb)- $8.99
Baking Potato (ea.)- $.59
Dinner for two total: $12.67

Compare this to:

Two “Fillet ‘O Fish” meals at McDonalds: $11.60

So for 50 cents more per person, one can have a tasty and healthy dinner, and these are at Peapod prices, which aren’t the best.”

I like numbers, so I looked up some more. As noted above, 4 oz is the generally accepted rule for meat and fish serving size, so I have redone your calulations for 4 people:

14 oz of salad greens @ $0.25/oz (3.5oz serving) $3.50
16 oz (raw weight) farmed salmon (4.0oz serving) $8.99
4 baking potatoes $2.36

Total Cost $14.85

Now for some more numbers. The caloric content of the above meal is about 405kcals (35-salad+210-raw farmed salmon+160-med baking potato). That is not even a third of the recommended intake for a healthy INACTIVE 6 year old child (estimated 1300kcals See: http://www.bcm.edu/cnrc/bodycomp/energy/energyneeds_calculator.htm) Healthy low activity adults need 1400-2000 kcals/day. Children and adults with a higher activity level need more calories. So this level might work for a weightloss regime, but is not adequate for the long term.

I will also point out that this budget does not include usual staples for this sort of meal, which are not expensive per meal, but must be paid for in the course of a month, such as oil/vinegar or other salad dressing, seasonings — salt/pepper/etc, butter or yogurt for the potato and so on. Nor does it include milk or anything else with much calcium – unless you eat the salmon bones:-)

Moreover, the maximum SNAP benefit for a family of 4 was $668/month as of the end of September 2010 (See: http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=12&pageID=3%20&subpages=yes&dynamicID=310). If we assume this level of spending for dinners ($14.85/day for 30 days) this uses up $445.50 for less than a third of required calories, leaving $222.50 for the remainder of the meals. That is (assuming 3 meals per day) $3.70 per remaining meal (so less than $1/person/meal). Perhaps they could be frozen pizza which averages $1 per serving on peapod’s website (and does have a modicum of calcium).

While it is possible to get healthy and sufficient food for a family on this sort of budget, it is quite a lot of work. And people who are straining to make ends meet often don’t have extra time to get to far away stores if they don’t have any good ones nearby. Or to learn to cook with unfamiliar ingredients. Good meal planning and preparation takes time and time is something the economically distressed are often without.

It can be very easy to assume that what works for oneself will therefore work for everyone. Alas, it is seldom true.

I agree with the comments of Jeffe and Tom S.

Here are a few more cost saving ideas. Hot cereals are more nutritious, less addicting, and cheaper than boxed or bagged cereals. How about filling up a 2 liter bottle with tap water and forgoing the soda?

Cheap food is not really cheap because it is over-stimulative. When someone drinks a soda, they are not satiated or nourished. Thus, they will head back for the chips (salt and fat) for more stimulation and even more malnourishment. Its a horrible food feed-back loop with no feed-back inhibition. The only prescription is to become satiated with more nourishing food.

“Until prices for healthy food goes down it’s illogical to expect the poor to spend an larger chunk of there money on food they can’t afford while at the same time not targeting any other groups.

If it is only because they get government tax dollars than everyone should as well (since we all get some form of government tax dollars).”

Poor people cant afford organic food–or veggies–soda doesn’t feed them either–its a waste of time and money. They may have less portions but it will be 1000x more value and they will have health and strength and speed and brainpower.

You are absolutely right Michael–organic food needs to be subsidized so that all-consumers, all citizens rich or poor can afford it–and it should be easily accessible.

“Bloomberg is absolutely correct. To say he is playing god is absolute cow manure. With that reasoning than all decision made for the public and in government is playing God. Nonsense. The powerful corporations pushing and lobbying government with billions of dollars to shape our community and decide what i eat (because organic food is difficult to attain) is playing god and messing with my freedom. Junk food is not food. ”

I would guess my post was too subtle for the well fed crowd. I agree that his should be controlled..BUT why are all of the nations problems blamed on the poor first, ANSWER they have the least power.

The real point of this conversation should have been why do we start using government regulations for this issue before we use government regulations to correct all of the MUCH MUCH larger and costly issues FIRST.

IMO this issue is to provide distraction from those much larger and important issues of plundering taxpayer wealth. Its the moral equivalent of blaming the financial crisis on the poor, and like a magician everyone was watching the left hand of POWER, while they are stealing with the right.

This issue, although important should be at the back of the line. Solve the problem of corporate government and the oligarchs first, and by then this issue will have resolved itself.

As a school nurse I have a lot to say, more than can be said here about children, poverty, obesity, self esteem and educational success.

I have lobbied for wellness policies, removal of soda from school and healthier school lunches and have seen the positive effects of making these changes. Several years back it would be common to have a child come to the health office toting a huge soda and now they come with a water bottle. Say what you want about packaging but this is overall a good thing.

People and kids are resilient and adapt. Everyone complains when things change but when kids start raving about the salad bar, fresh wrap sandwiches, the vegetarian curry and the tri colored peppers and “oh mom can you do a kale stir fry like school?”, you know you are on the right track.

Limiting choices is a good thing. The food support program’s goal is to improve the the health of our society so that children and adults can better function as productive human beings. We never asked for 48 flavors of soda or 89 types of sugary cereals. The companies that produce these products will go where the money is. If we shun their products in favor of healthier ones, they will get the message and get creative.

Stand back and let NY try this. I look forward to pushing for the same in my state.

John @ 9:05

The science is there and it is as follows. When food is consumed and the body digests it and begins to absorb it into the blood stream, the pancreas begins to produce insulin, the insulin enters the blood stream and this gives you energy. Now, if all of this insulin is not used through activity, “calories burned” then the body must do something with this excess insulin and the only choice it has is to convert it into fat which is then stored on the body.

The processing of sugar began about 100 years ago, before this there was only pure cane sugar, its natural form. The processing makes it easier to put it into more products. Then there is grain processed sugars, such as the grain processed sugar in beer and alcohol. These forms of sugars or the easiest for the body to digest and enter the blood stream very quick. And the quicker the sugar is converted to insulin, the higher the insulin spike. And if you don’t burn off these calories, they convert to fat, every time.

Complex carbohydrates, “whole grains”, are very filling and they do not cause rapid insulin spikes. It is difficult for the body to break them down, so after consuming, “proper portions” of complex carbs, the insulin release is very gradual over many hours and if there is enough, even normal activity, it will be much easier to burn through these calories.

I hope this helps.

I was joking.

Everyone knows god supports clean coal. Ethanol is a less trendy scam.

As far as gravity goes, too bad we didn’t have talk radio and the internet to smear that apple tree hugger Newton.

The government keeps complaining about people being obese and having bad health but they don’t want to really deal with it. They keep cutting spending for education which in turn makes the school districts have to decide which programs to keep and which ones to cut. Do you know which programs usually get cut first? Physical education and the fine arts programs…don’t touch the sports programs they really help keep kids active. What about those kids that don’t go out for sports?

What makes you people think that “fat” people really want to be fat? Has anyone even stopped to consider those that have hypoglycemia? Do you really think that they like having no choice but to have to have that piece of candy nearby…or having to eat every couple of hours just so that their blood sugar stays high enough to survive?

If you walk into a grocery store and take a look at the price of fresh fruits and vegetables or the organic foods, you will notice that their prices are a lot higher than the ready to heat and serve meals. For those people that argue that per serving eating healthy is affordable…do you have children? Have you been poor and had to be on food assistance programs?

A family of five barely gets $200 in food assistance if the parents are working. This family is barely able to make ends meet. Why? Probably because both parents are undereducated and can not get a job that pays more than minimum wage. The solution…simple make the fat rich people pay more taxes on what they make and give the poorer families a break…maybe then they would be able to afford the better quality foods.

A few things:

First, the posts comparing healthy grocery store foods to unhealthy fast foods are missing the point. SNAP does not pay for fast food or any other “prepared” (that is to say, hot) food. It would be more accurate to compare the price of a healthier meal for four to the price of a frozen pizza or a frozen meatloaf meal for four.

Second, many of the families receiving SNAP benefits consist of the working poor – that is to say, people who may be working 40, 60, or even 80 hours a week. Cooking healthy food is time-consuming. Sure, it’s possible – but if your feet hurt from working 8-12 hours on your feet, do you really want to spend another hour cooking dinner? If you’ve worked twelve days straight, maybe you want to just nuke something in the microwave and be done with it.

Third, junk food is one of the few cheap pleasures out there. Families on SNAP benefits probably can’t afford the luxuries that middle class people take for granted – Friday nights at the movies, pretty clothes, new cell phones. For a mother who can’t afford new toys for her kids, an 89 cent candy bar (or a 2 liter bottle of soda) might be one of the few ways available to give her kids a treat.

Fourth, there’s this attitude that the poor are only deserving of help if they’re “virtuous”, that is to say, poor people must live up to standards dictated by the wealthy and the middle-class if they’re to be allowed any help. I know there are some people commenting here who eat healthy foods only, who cook all their meals from scratch, etc. I salute you. But please, remember that not everyone has the money or time to live like you – and that this isn’t a moral failing.

Fifth, there’s the assumption that poor people don’t necessarily know that the food they choose to buy and eat (whether with benefits or with their own money) may be unhealthy. People ought to be allowed to decide how they want to care for their own bodies.

Sixth, I really agree with Luan about the kinds of government assistance that middle class people take for granted, like subsidized student loans or tax refunds. The poor should not be the only people singled out for stigma and judgment if they choose to buy things that aren’t necessarily good fo rthem.

Alexandra, a food pantry where I live was distributing afterschool snacks for a program in a low-income development, and what they distributed (what the social service agency selected and brought over) was almost exclusively junk, foods my mother would never have allowed her children, foods that she taught us was “too expensive,” not good for you; someone trying to play us for suckers.
The children (and their parents, actually, mostly immigrants) had the impression that this Food Pantry food was a normal and healthy diet.
What an eye-opener.
No wonder they were mostly fat. No wonder they were irritable and antsy, ADHD-afflicted, and often on drugs for that. I’m not a doctor, but there was always sugared juices, always sweetened, packaged snacks. No one taught them to expect anything else.
This is what’s so insidious about the American way of eating. How difficult is it to eat a banana rather than a juice that has almost no vestige of the original fruit left in it? There is corn syrup and cherry artificial flavoring? Guess what, there is added vitamin C, but “where’s the beef”? Where’s the cherry, stuffed with vitamins and minerals?
The problem was that the families did not know what to look for in terms of nutrition. I brought one young family a few salads prepared at the local Fruit Store deli, sort of Caesar salads, with plenty of delicious ingredients. That was on a Wednesday. Ten days later, I went back to visit, and those salads were still in the refrigerator. “Real food” wasn’t anywhere on the menu.
I didn’t say anything, but I thought the country has a ways to go in establishing a tradition of healthy eating. Food stamps are supposed to be one vehicle for keeping us all healthy. Not a vehicle for making our workhorses feel guilty about the few affordable pleasures in life.

John Myers, Go to GIlisting.com and there you will see that %100 whole wheat bread has a GI of 51, where as white flour bread has a GI of 71.

If I take raw whole wheat and grind it between two stones, add water, yeast, salt and honey, that is not processed. That is the way bread should be made. The way it was done thousands of years ago. And there is no need to “enrich” whole wheat as it is already full of nutrition. The process that creates white flour removes all the nutrients, so they add back some and call it “enriched”.

Simple sugars are called simple for a reason, they are not complex, as in complex carbs. Even the CDC toughts the benefit of whole grains, ie oatmeal, even for diabetes sufferers. Whether it is possible to get a sugar rush or not, as some believe, I have never heard of a “whole grain rush”.

on protein complementarity, complementing, combining (whatever term with which one is familiar):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining

Thanks, Brett. The Wikipedia article references Frances Moore Lappe, Diet for a Small Planet, published in 1971, which is right here, bottom shelf. The article says:

“the principle of protein combining seems to have been unknowingly recognized by most traditional agricultural societies in the form of dishes that combine legumes with grains. Examples include the traditional Indian combination of dal and rice, the Middle Eastern pairing of pita bread with hummus, ful medames, or falafel, the West African combination of rice and beans (since spread in a circum-Caribbean distribution to the Caribbean islands, Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America, and to the Southern United States where it is known as Hoppin’ John), and the Mexican tradition of combining beans with tortillas and other dishes made of maize.”

Will we put these same restrictions on other government funds — no using your tax refund or student loans to buy soda? We’re very quick to legislate our morals on the poor, but I don’t see the rest of us asking for the government to tell us to do with our money.

The real issue here is the farm bil and skewed AGRICULTURAL POLICY. Americans are getting eduction all the time about what to eat. Unhealthy food is much cheaper than wholesome food because the government SUBSIDIZES CORN AND BEEF farmers, so we do not have to pay the real cost of CORN SUGAR sweetened drinks and hamburgers. Restrictions on SNAP is just a low hanging fruit and certainly irrelevant when SKEWED AGRICULTURAL POLICY is driving obesity in America.

How about using the same money to create community kitchens for everyone in a neighborhood that qualifies for food stamps? Those that don’t qualify but want to eat communally could buy into it.

I HAVE BEEN ON FOOD STAMPS DAMN NEAR 5 YEARS NOW AND NONE OF MY FAMILY IS OVER WEIGHT OR ANYTHING AND WE DRINK AND EAT ANYTHING…I FEEL LIKE JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO NOBODY GAVE A DAMN ABOUT US EATING OR DRINKING ANYTHING WE WANTED SO WHY CARE NOW…AND AS FAR FOR WIC ITS REALLY FOR PREGNANT WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN SO YEA THEY HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS…BUT I FEEL LIKE IF I HAVE NO INCOME AND THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF MY FOOD…I WOULD WANT TO BUY THE THINGS THAT I WANT…LIKE FOR BDAY PARTIES SODA AND CAKE…

@ Tabbitha, I think five years of assistance is long enough. What have you done in those five years to pull yourself out of the state that allows you state assisted benefits. Five years in ample enough time to go to school and learn a trade. First, government assistance should be used as a means to ASSIST in a time of need not pay for you for the rest of your life. The assistance should not be so extravagent that it does not promote a need to improve upon a person’s situation. In my opinion the it is an appropriate for the state to be able to tell a benefit receipant what they can purchase and what they can’t. If you want the freedom to indulge in the luxuries of life so something about your situation and fund it yourself..   

im almost disabled,i have been on food stamps for almost 2 years,and wish i was working,i envy people that are working,and being productive! How ever,im a vet,i have so much body damage with arthritist now setting in bad,at almost 54 its frustrating,wish i had this benifit when i was younger,college would have been easier,take advantage for the right reasons,work if you can,it is tough out there,if not do what you can to help your self and family,and for those upper class that dont understand,quit your job,then go get a job at mc donalds or subway,and try to make ends meet,and Getting a job there or any where else will be luck,its THAT bad out there,for those who take advantage,grow up,some of wish we had what you have,and wouldnt throw it out or take it for granite,but for people like me,well,if i didnt have it,and some help i would drown,and might not make it,i thank all who have and did help me! Dont give up,it always (almost) gets better!