Ban sugar drink purchased with food stamps - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xazy · 10-07-2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

New York Asks to Bar Use of Food Stamps to Buy Sodas
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought federal permission on Wednesday to bar New York City’s 1.7 million recipients of food stamps from using them to buy soda or other sugared drinks.

The request, made to the United States Department of Agriculture, which finances and sets the rules for the food-stamp program, is part of an aggressive anti-obesity push by the mayor that has also included advertisements, stricter rules on food sold in schools and an unsuccessful attempt to have the state impose a tax on the sugared drinks.

Public health experts greeted Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal cautiously. George Hacker, senior policy adviser for the health promotion project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said a more equitable approach might be to use educational campaigns to dissuade food-stamp users from buying sugared drinks.

“The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,” Mr. Hacker said. “However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.”

The mayor requested a ban for two years to study whether it would have a positive impact on health and whether a permanent ban would be merited.

“In spite of the great gains we’ve made over the past eight years in making our communities healthier, there are still two areas where we’re losing ground — obesity and diabetes,” the mayor said in a statement. “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.”

New York State, which administers food stamps locally, signed on to the request, which was received by the Agriculture Department on Wednesday evening.

“We appreciate the state’s interest,” a spokesman, Justin DeJong, said. “We will review and carefully consider the state’s proposal.”

In 2004, the Agriculture Department denied a request by Minnesota to prevent food-stamp recipients from buying junk food. The department said that the plan, which focused on candy and soda, among other foods, was based on questionable merits and would “perpetuate the myth” that food-stamp users made poor shopping decisions.

Congress debated but rejected restricting the purchase of sugared drinks with food stamps as part of a 2008 farm bill, Mr. Hacker said. But this year, the chairman of the House’s Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota, said the House should think about such a ban in its deliberations over the next farm bill.

Mr. Bloomberg and his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, said the ban would help curb the city’s obesity epidemic, which they contend has been fueled by rising soda consumption over the past 30 years.

City statistics released last month showed that nearly 40 percent of public-school children in kindergarten through eighth grade were overweight or obese, and that obesity rates were substantially higher in poor neighborhoods. City studies show that consumption of sugared beverages is consistently higher in those neighborhoods.

Dr. Farley and the state’s health commissioner, Dr. Richard F. Daines, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday that the ban would not reduce the ability of food-stamp recipients to feed their families. “They would still receive every penny of support they now get, meaning they would have as much, if not more, to spend on nutritious food,” Dr. Farley and Dr. Daines wrote. “And they could still purchase soda if they choose — just not with taxpayer dollars.”

The health of New Yorkers, and particularly obesity, is one of the mayor’s signature issues. During his first term in office, Mr. Bloomberg expanded the city’s smoking ban to almost all indoor public places, and he is proposing to expand it to beaches, parks and plazas. New York City has banned trans fats in restaurants and requires restaurants to post calorie counts.

The city’s campaign against sugary drinks has been especially aggressive. This week, it introduced ads showing a man drinking packets of sugar. But its attempt to persuade the State Legislature to impose a tax on the drinks was met with skepticism and opposition from the beverage industry and grocery owners.

Tracey Halliday, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Association, said of the mayor’s request: “This is just another attempt by government to tell New Yorkers what they should eat and drink.”

The number of New Yorkers qualifying for food stamps has grown more than 35 percent in the past couple of years, mirroring a nationwide trend. And the mayor’s proposal could raise concerns about equity, since it is aimed at one segment of the city, its poorest. When Minnesota sought its ban, welfare rights advocates there accused the state of being patronizing to food-stamp users.

Anticipating such criticism, Dr. Farley and Dr. Daines said that the food-stamp program already prohibited the use of benefits to buy cigarettes, beer, wine, liquor or prepared foods.

The ban would affect beverages with more than 10 calories per 8 ounces, and would exclude fruit juices without added sugar, milk products and milk substitutes. A 12-ounce soda has 150 calories and the equivalent of 10 packets of sugar, according to the health department. City health officials say that drinking 12 ounces of soda a day can make a person gain 15 pounds a year.

Dr. Farley and Dr. Daines said that over the past 30 years, the consumption of soda and other sugary beverages in the United States had more than doubled, paralleling the rise in obesity. They blame that trend for the rising rate of diabetes, which now afflicts one in eight adults in New York City, and is nearly twice as common among poor New Yorkers as among wealthier ones.

Told of Mr. Bloomberg’s request on Wednesday, one food-stamp user, Marangeley Reyes, 24, of Harlem, said the mayor should not dictate what foods she bought. Ms. Reyes had just emerged from a Shop Fair supermarket on Lenox Avenue with a 20-ounce bottle of Orange Crush — she drinks at least one a day. But after giving it some more thought, she said, “I probably shouldn’t be drinking so much soda.”

It is an interesting idea to fight obesity. The question is does the government have the right to tell us what to use our money for. Then what if it is money given to us by the government, can it say we want you to buy what we feel is the healthy choice. Personally I think it is a very slippery slope.

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 07:39 AM

I'll play stupid just to kick off the debate:

I think it's pretty easy. Soft drinks are a luxury item with no nutritional value. The food stamp program is designed to provide sustenance, right?

snowy · 10-07-2010, 07:41 AM

What slippery slope? I don't see it. The government is handing this money out with little or no strings attached--they could add a lot more than they do, and honestly, I think they probably should.

I think SNAP benefits need to be accompanied by education in healthy food options and where to find them in the local area, and the government should have the right to tell people who receive SNAP benefits what they can buy with said benefits. I really don't think soda should be an allowable purchase with SNAP benefits.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 07:48 AM

I vote slippery slope. What next? A ban on all products containing HFCS? Processed corn products at all? Or better: Food stamps can only be used to buy fresh produce, dried legumes, and whole grains. Everything else is a "luxury."

EDIT: I don't think that soda consumption is causing the obesity problem. It is a big factor, yes, but if you remove this from the picture, it can easily be filled with other crap. Are they still allowed to buy sugar?

PonyPotato · 10-07-2010, 09:14 AM

What about diet sodas?

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 09:24 AM

Don't fuck with my diet sodas.

...

Baraka,

Sugared soft drinks are, of course, only a small part of the obesity problem in America.

If food stamps could get people off their couch for half an hour a day, that'd be the win.

If food stamps could change serving sizes and the Super Ultra Big Gulp culture, that'd be the win.

Input is only a small part of the problem. You can't feed someone into fitness.

(I mean, you could... but... that'd be a really broken program; one that dispenses only beans)

Amaras · 10-07-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

Don't fuck with my diet sodas.

...

Baraka,

Sugared soft drinks are, of course, only a small part of the obesity problem in America.

If food stamps could get people off their couch for half an hour a day, that'd be the win.

If food stamps could change serving sizes and the Super Ultra Big Gulp culture, that'd be the win.

Input is only a small part of the problem. You can't feed someone into fitness.

(I mean, you could... but... that'd be a really broken program; one that dispenses only beans)

I agree wholeheartedly. Can you imagine people's reaction to being told
what to eat? They'd go nuts.

genuinegirly · 10-07-2010, 09:32 AM

I tend to be of the opinion that food stamps should be only for basic food items. Things like rice, beans, flour, yeast, salt, sugar, generic-only canned vegetables, canned beans, frozen vegetables, eggs, milk, and cheese. No meat, no fresh or specialty-brand anything. Stuff to help you eeek by with your basic nutritional needs met. Food stamps should have some amount of stigma and hassle associated with their use. Then again, I am more familiar and comfortable with community foodbanks than foodstamps.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 09:36 AM

I think the feds should eliminate subsidized corn.

The net effect would be fewer cheap food products made with cheap processed corn substances that add empty calories. Subsidize something else instead...like fruit and vegetables or something. Make them ultra cheap.

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 09:40 AM

Bingo. But good luck, the corn problem isn't just about cheap food and HFCS.

Cimarron29414 · 10-07-2010, 09:45 AM

corn has already skyrocketed due to the dumbass government putting corn in our gas tanks.

Food stamps should only purchase raw ingredients. Absolutely no finished foods.

dogzilla · 10-07-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Article

It is an interesting idea to fight obesity. The question is does the government have the right to tell us what to use our money for. Then what if it is money given to us by the government, can it say we want you to buy what we feel is the healthy choice. Personally I think it is a very slippery slope.

Two problems with this.

First, what's to prevent somebody from buying something else from the approved food list, then selling it or trading it to get soda?

Second, if Bloomberg is successful at this, what's to stop him from trying to control sales of soda to the general public? New York has already tried one extension of nanny-state mentality by imposing a soda tax.

Also, this doesn't solve the obesity problem. As far as I know, ring dings and potato chips are not prohibited foods. Nor frozen pizzas, etc, etc.

Xazy · 10-07-2010, 09:53 AM

To me that is the biggest concern since what is to stop them force you to eat a very strict diet after they slowly whittle away all items that can be 'harmful' for you. This is only the first step, and soda while is bad for you, is that the main item that is causing obesity, that I can not say.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 10:03 AM

I don't think there is any "main item that causes obesity." I think what causes a lot of obesity is cheap, processed, convenience foods that lack nutritional value—this includes a swath of what we see in stores that sell food that aren't farmer's markets or the like. Targeting and banning soda and sugary drinks for 20% of the population is myopic.

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 10:04 AM

Yeah, but that 20% of the population has a bigger percentage of those that are obese. In America, the poor people are fat.

...

There is no one main item causing obesity. The obesity pie, if you will, is compromised of many little slices that all add up to one big FUPA.

Americans are Ignorant - Lack of proper nutrition education / meal planning knowledge
Americans are Lazy - Fast food being cheaper / easier than healthy food
Americans are Simple - Soda being a ubiquitous beverage (see Fast Food)
Americans are Gluttonous - Serving sizes being Double Extra Mondo H'yoog
Americans are Sedentary - Idea that exercise is for pro-athletes and dorks in short-shorts
Americans are OK with Being Fat - Trend toward accepting "plus size" people as a more normal body image (*)

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 10:11 AM

When you get an increasing number of people who are simultaneously overweight and malnourished, you know there is something wrong with the food system and food culture.

Yeah, the the problem too is that Americans are also often deceived: health claims on food often distract from the fact that these same foods have things added to them (salt, sugar, corn products, etc.), even canned foods that are supposed to be good for you such as fruits and vegetables, soups, etc.

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 10:17 AM

Whaddya mean a Flintstones chewable and a cupcake aren't a part of this complete breakfast?

...

Also, the author's name? Try to say that five times fast.

Anemona Hartocollis. Yikes. I bet she's got a 'stache.

snowy · 10-07-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

I tend to be of the opinion that food stamps should be only for basic food items. Things like rice, beans, flour, yeast, salt, sugar, generic-only canned vegetables, canned beans, frozen vegetables, eggs, milk, and cheese. No meat, no fresh or specialty-brand anything. Stuff to help you eeek by with your basic nutritional needs met. Food stamps should have some amount of stigma and hassle associated with their use. Then again, I am more familiar and comfortable with community foodbanks than foodstamps.

Well, and when the USDA did the calculations to figure out how much money in SNAP benefits need to be offered to meet minimal nutritional needs, they calculated it based on cooking with staples. Unfortunately, there's no educational component associated with using SNAP, so many people on SNAP benefits don't have the knowledge to be able to cook a meal from scratch. Further, many of them don't have the time to cook a meal from scratch--or they think they don't. SNAP benefits are largely used by the working poor.

And Baraka: SNAP benefits are accepted at many farmer's markets around the United States now. This is why I suggested there by an educational component--the awareness level regarding SNAP benefits and farmer's markets is abysmally low. Our local farmer's market even offers a program that offers those who use SNAP benefits at the farmer's market an extra $6 to spend.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowy

And Baraka: SNAP benefits are accepted at many farmer's markets around the United States now. This is why I suggested there by an educational component--the awareness level regarding SNAP benefits and farmer's markets is abysmally low. Our local farmer's market even offers a program that offers those who use SNAP benefits at the farmer's market an extra $6 to spend.

Yeah, but how accessible are farmer's markets in New York City? How does it compare to supermarkets and convenience stores?

snowy · 10-07-2010, 10:48 AM

Actually, NYC's Greenmarkets have done a really good job of addressing the issues of food access. They're one of the organizations working the hardest in this country at the moment to get at the heart of the access problem. They have 51 greenmarket locations.

Greenmarket Farmers Markets | GrowNYC

Here's a list of locations that take EBT cards to get tokens (how SNAP benefits are administered at farmer's markets):

EBT/Food Stamps and Food Access in Greenmarkets | GrowNYC

And here's an article from the AP that covers the farmer's market/SNAP benefits issue:

The Associated Press: Farmers' markets draw few food stamp users

aceventura3 · 10-07-2010, 10:49 AM

This ban is simply silly. Ask 100 people who have used or use food stamps and 99 of them will tell you how they would get sugary soft drinks if they want them. The ban simply will create a minor inconvenience. The key, it that these drinks are relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives. If the price of orange juice was the same as Coke - the consumption of orange juice would exceed that of Coke for people on food stamps.

ring · 10-07-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Food stamps should have some amount of stigma and hassle associated with their use.

This statement is extremely offensive to me.
No salad, fresh fruit or squash, for me, eh?

Perhaps the government should issue bright neon t-shirts stamped
with an appropriate stigma slogan, that have to be worn while
in the check-out lane.

I rely on foods stamps versus community food banks, because)1
I am gluten-intolerant. 2: Most food items to be found in the food banks
are rank over-processed food. Canned soups are full of monosodium glutamate. I won't eat a five pound slab of Velveeta cheese food or ring bologna. Sorry.

I do buy & subsist on mostly whole grain rice & beans, frozen veggies,
olive oil, & cheap frozen catfish nuggets.
Salt & pepper & garlic powder are a luxury you are telling me I don't deserve.
Well, that & the fresh food.

I haven't had a soft drink or a ding-dong or a potato chip in a long time,
nor do I want them.

I can just imagine how the Coca-Cola peoples are lining up their lobbyists
to fight this sort of action. They had big hissy fits about their products
being taken out of the public schools.

dc_dux · 10-07-2010, 02:31 PM

Many in the SNAP program do not have easy access to the healthiest foods. You dont find a Fresh Foods market in low income areas.

The growing acceptance of ETP cards at farmers markets is a plus but there is still a "food desert" in many low income urban areas.

Quote:

"You can't choose healthy food if you don't have access to it," said Mari Gallagher, principal of the Chicago-based Mari Gallagher Research and Consulting Group, which has researched food deserts across the country.

...

It's hard to pinpoint exactly how many people are living in these food deserts without studying each location in depth, she said. In Detroit, Gallagher's firm studied 50,000 city blocks. They found that at least half a million of the city's nearly 1 million residents are living in a food desert. In Chicago, more than 600,000 of the city's nearly 3 million are living in food deserts.

Food stamp recipients gain access to area farmers markets | Joint Center Health Policy Institute

I agree that a greater emphasis on educating SNAP recipients on accessible options is a good approach.......further restricting the use of the SNAP benefits is more difficult...where do you draw the line?

ASU2003 · 10-07-2010, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I vote slippery slope. What next? A ban on all products containing HFCS? Processed corn products at all? Or better: Food stamps can only be used to buy fresh produce, dried legumes, and whole grains. Everything else is a "luxury."

EDIT: I don't think that soda consumption is causing the obesity problem. It is a big factor, yes, but if you remove this from the picture, it can easily be filled with other crap. Are they still allowed to buy sugar?

Have we done any real independent medical studies on how our bodies process HFCS? I think we should ban food stamp users from buying HFCS with them.

And diet is a large part of the obseity problem. Even Rush Limbaugh has lost weight with his no exercise diet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

corn has already skyrocketed due to the dumbass government putting corn in our gas tanks.

Corn here was the same price as it was in the 80s & 90s this summer. And I would put the blame for higher corn prices onto the factory farms that control the corn that gets to market and have enough of them working together to control output and set a price they want.

(Or you can blame the purchasing power of the dollar not being anywhere close to what it was in the 80s/90s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Food stamps should only purchase raw ingredients. Absolutely no finished foods.

Sounds good to me.

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Many in the SNAP program do not have easy access to the healthiest foods. You dont find a Fresh Foods market in low income areas.

The growing acceptance of ETP cards at farmers markets is a plus but there is still a "food desert" in many low income urban areas.

And wouldn't the free market fill in if there is a demand (even if it is forced) in the low-income neighborhoods for fresh food or natural food?

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Food stamps should only purchase raw ingredients. Absolutely no finished foods.

This would kind of suck for the homeless.

blahblah454 · 10-07-2010, 04:52 PM

I suppose I feel the same way about people buying junk food with government money as I do about people purchasing cigarettes and alcohol with their welfare checks.

genuinegirly · 10-07-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ring

This statement is extremely offensive to me.
No salad, fresh fruit or squash, for me, eh?

Perhaps the government should issue bright neon t-shirts stamped
with an appropriate stigma slogan, that have to be worn while
in the check-out lane.

I rely on foods stamps versus community food banks, because)1
I am gluten-intolerant. 2: Most food items to be found in the food banks
are rank over-processed food. Canned soups are full of monosodium glutamate. I won't eat a five pound slab of Velveeta cheese food or ring bologna. Sorry.

I do buy & subsist on mostly whole grain rice & beans, frozen veggies,
olive oil, & cheap frozen catfish nuggets.
Salt & pepper & garlic powder are a luxury you are telling me I don't deserve.
Well, that & the fresh food.

I haven't had a soft drink or a ding-dong or a potato chip in a long time,
nor do I want them.
.

Ring, I meant no offense. But I also cannot apologize for my words. For what it's worth, I did include salt in my list of basics. Fish is meat and therefore a delicacy in my mind, no matter how inexpensive.

Growing up, my family was either dependent on the food banks or donating to them, depending on if Dad had a job. Perhaps our Bishop's Storehouse and Manna were entirely different from those you have available. It is difficult for food banks to accommodate allergies, and it is good that you have found a way to meet your dietary needs. When it comes to stigma, I did not mean to imply that one should stick out as they make their purchases, rather I meant that there should be some negative social pressure that would motivate people to move on from the system as soon as they are capable. Perhaps the difference in our ideologies is that I view food stamps as a stop-gap emergency program to see families through the worst times, rather than a long-term or permanent solution. The reality is that few people share my viewpoint, and perhaps it is best that they do not. The economy has changed drastically since the '80s, and my family's occasional 2 months without an income seems insignificant compared to the year+ of unemployment that people now face.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

When it comes to stigma, I did not mean to imply that one should stick out as they make their purchases, rather I meant that there should be some negative social pressure that would motivate people to move on from the system as soon as they are capable. Perhaps the difference in our ideologies is that I view food stamps as a stop-gap emergency program to see families through the worst times, rather than a long-term or permanent solution.

Like welfare, a majority of recipients don't receive the benefit permanently. In the case of SNAP, the average recipient receives benefits for about nine months.

Another fun fact is that about half of them are children. Many who make up the balance are either elderly, disabled, or both.

Slims · 10-07-2010, 06:18 PM

...The government shouldn't be handing out food stamps at all.

I do support not letting people starve (at least not until they prove they are unwilling, rather than unable to work), but I feel we should be handing out food directly rather than giving people the ability to 'shop.'

By giving someone the ability to make choices you give them the ability to make bad choices, which is what got them into the sort of situation requiring food stamps in the first place.

By handing out nutritious but bulk-purchased bare-bones subsistence foodstuffs directly we could:

-Drop the net price of social programs funded by taxpayers while still providing the same level of nutrition.
-Eliminate (or at least largely reduce) the popularity of selling food stamps for a lesser amount of cash....Who wants to buy a wheel of government cheese?
-Regulate the total caloric intake of fatties who want ME to pay for their meals by simply providing them with only 2,000 calories a day in food...enough to live off of, not enough to weigh 500 pounds.
-Encourage a quick return to being a productive member of society because you would have to make money before you would enjoy eating again.

Erias · 10-07-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Things like rice, beans, flour, yeast, salt, sugar, generic-only canned vegetables, canned beans, frozen vegetables, eggs, milk, and cheese. No meat, no fresh or specialty-brand anything.

What a shitty diet. Just because some uneducated hipster douches don't think meat is important doesn't mean that it isn't actually a pretty important aspect of normal human needs, especially for younger people growing up. And no fresh vegetables is just retarded. I guess a $1.45 10lb sack of potatoes is too much to ask for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Food stamps should have some amount of stigma and hassle associated with their use.

Because obviously being poor during rough economic times means you're just some sub-human trash that should be ridiculed. Being poor and on food stamps must mean you're a bad person and should be a social pariah who doesn't even deserve the ability to purchase food without social stigma.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

...The government shouldn't be handing out food stamps at all.

I do support not letting people starve (at least not until they prove they are unwilling, rather than unable to work), but I feel we should be handing out food directly rather than giving people the ability to 'shop.'

By giving someone the ability to make choices you give them the ability to make bad choices, which is what got them into the sort of situation requiring food stamps in the first place.

By handing out nutritious but bulk-purchased bare-bones subsistence foodstuffs directly we could:

-Drop the net price of social programs funded by taxpayers while still providing the same level of nutrition.
-Eliminate (or at least largely reduce) the popularity of selling food stamps for a lesser amount of cash....Who wants to buy a wheel of government cheese?
-Regulate the total caloric intake of fatties who want ME to pay for their meals by simply providing them with only 2,000 calories a day in food...enough to live off of, not enough to weigh 500 pounds.
-Encourage a quick return to being a productive member of society because you would have to make money before you would enjoy eating again.

Aside from the other problems I see with this, this would create costly, bureaucratic logistical and ethical nightmare.

Slims · 10-07-2010, 08:32 PM

There is no way it's less costly for (deadbeats) to purchase brand-name (unnecessary) soft drinks in order to meet their caloric requirements than to simply hand out a loaf of moldy bread and some cheese. Or, for that matter, a 50 pound bag of potatoes which were on sale for $10.99 at my local farmers market recently...That will feed a lot of people for a while.

There is no ethical problem either....If you want a free handout it should be on our terms. you have no right to 'expect' Coca Cola or the ability to sell your food stamps.

Even better: If you want to eat you have to assist with the distribution of said food items free of charge. Basically: If you want to eat the soup you need to work in the kitchen, at least occasionally.

As far as I am concerned I think it is ethically preferable to provide no public services whatsoever than to continue on the way things currently are. A good percentage of food-stamps and welfare are used to purchase drugs, rims, and flat-screen TV's....How is that ethical? I get shot at to earn my money, and I would much rather spend it on my daughters education, paying off student loan debt, etc. than on someone who is too lazy to work.

I feel much more charitable to those who live a truly spartan existence and are still struggling. However my house backs up to subsidized housing and at least in my neighborhood, every trailer has a crappy car with an expensive paint job/rims and the owners are home at all times of the (work) day watching TV, drinking, throwing bottles in the yard, selling drugs, and generally being parasites.

They can go piss up a rope if they want to claim it is unethical for me to give them food rather than what equates to money.

Lastly, if I/we (via the government) are going to take my or anyone else' earned money and give it away to a third party, it is perfectly ethical to place any restrictions on it we want to...such as don't use my money to eat your way to type 2 diabetes which I will also have to pay for.

Don't like it? Great, then don't take the handout.

It is unethical and wasteful to give away what belongs to someone else. Inexcusably so when you give away more than the bare minimum they really need.

levite · 10-07-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Article

It is an interesting idea to fight obesity. The question is does the government have the right to tell us what to use our money for. Then what if it is money given to us by the government, can it say we want you to buy what we feel is the healthy choice. Personally I think it is a very slippery slope.

It's an interesting idea, but it's completely improper.

First of all, like Xazy says, where does it end? No sugary drinks. What about snack cakes? Salty snacks? Fatty meats? Butter? Caffeinated beverages? Non-organic produce? Will the law ever be satisfied until and unless poor people are using their food stamps with the consultation of a nutritionist? Or at some point will the government just make it easy on the bureaucrats and demand that everyone on food stamps be vegans? I'm sorry, but you can't do that in a free society.

Second of all, if the problem is obesity among the poor, can you get exemptions from these bans on what you can buy with food stamps if you prove that you spend a certain number of hours working out? What if you have a naturally high metabolism? If not, then isn't that unduly restrictive? And if so, isn't it just discriminatory?

If a certain food product is really that bad for people, the best way to deal with it legally isn't to bar food stamp users from purchasing it per se, it's to slap a fat surtax on it, universally, which is not covered by food stamps. Makes it more expensive for everyone, and financially impractical for the poor. Use the revenue to help fund school lunches and public health care.

dippin · 10-07-2010, 09:07 PM

I completely disagree with the idea and think its a ridiculous attempt at social control.

And it's not about the slippery slope, its about the dehumanization of the poor.

Sure, they are using "public" money. But the same thing isn't about to happen to other recipients of public money (which is why this is not about a slippery slope argument).

That is, the problem isn't with "what's next." It's with this sort of control itself. Why is it ok to enforce this sort of social control over the poor, but not over, say, medicare recipients? People who go to public schools and universities? People who use publicly subsidized hospitals? People who drive on roads?

Why aren't people clamoring for laws requiring medicare recipients to stop drinking, smoking, etc lest they lose their benefits? Why aren't people clamoring for expelling and banning for life all students who don't maximize their learning potential? Should anyone driving on a public road be required to carpool, only drive cars with maximum safety records, and so on?

Again, the problem isn't that this requirement will lead to the ones above. Because it won't. The problem is that this clearly dehumanizes the poor: "everyone else who gets other forms of public assistance may do as they please, but you, the poor, clearly isn't as bright as everyone else so we will make your decisions for you?"

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 09:42 PM

As a side note about social programs, I never understood why everybody was so cranky about taxes until I actually made enough money to start paying them. I guess before today I was too poor to be a Libertarian or Republican or whatever it is that well-to-do white people are.

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

There is no way it's less costly for (deadbeats) to purchase brand-name (unnecessary) soft drinks in order to meet their caloric requirements than to simply hand out a loaf of moldy bread and some cheese. Or, for that matter, a 50 pound bag of potatoes which were on sale for $10.99 at my local farmers market recently...That will feed a lot of people for a while.

Okay, first, I'm not sure how many people on the program could be considered "deadbeats," especially since I'm not sure what you mean by that term. Second, how is it cheaper to dole out food than to dole out food stamps?

Quote:

There is no ethical problem either....If you want a free handout it should be on our terms. you have no right to 'expect' Coca Cola or the ability to sell your food stamps.

Ethics aside and food choices aside, there's one problem: it's not a free handout. You may want to look up the eligibility requirements.

Quote:

Even better: If you want to eat you have to assist with the distribution of said food items free of charge. Basically: If you want to eat the soup you need to work in the kitchen, at least occasionally.

Well, there's the issue of child labour, and the elderly who aren't in good shape for that kind of work. And the disabled? They might be up for it depending on their situation. So you want to do a kind of workfare so people can get their food? Hm. Aren't they already getting their food? They take the food stamps and go shopping, don't they? Distribution is cheaper if you use existing systems (grocery stores) and get the end user to gather their own (shopping). Isn't that efficient?

Quote:

As far as I am concerned I think it is ethically preferable to provide no public services whatsoever than to continue on the way things currently are. A good percentage of food-stamps and welfare are used to purchase drugs, rims, and flat-screen TV's....How is that ethical? I get shot at to earn my money, and I would much rather spend it on my daughters education, paying off student loan debt, etc. than on someone who is too lazy to work.

How much is a "good percentage"? I think those abusing the system are amongst the minority. And don't worry, I'm sure most of the recipients aren't too lazy to work. It's not worth it to fret over worst-case scenarios. For example, the money going to pay off your student loan debt isn't funding Islamic terrorism. Probably.

You have a very skewed view of the poor, which is unfortunate. Do you think the rich are all corrupt con artists?

Quote:

I feel much more charitable to those who live a truly spartan existence and are still struggling. However my house backs up to subsidized housing and at least in my neighborhood, every trailer has a crappy car with an expensive paint job/rims and the owners are home at all times of the (work) day watching TV, drinking, throwing bottles in the yard, selling drugs, and generally being parasites.

So this is your snapshot of the how the SNAP program is being used? That's not very scientific.

Oh, and there's this (which is a link I snagged from the TARP thread):
Boost in Food-Stamp Funding Percolates Through Economy - WSJ.com

Quote:

They can go piss up a rope if they want to claim it is unethical for me to give them food rather than what equates to money.

Are you talking about the guys in your neighbourhood?

Quote:

Lastly, if I/we (via the government) are going to take my or anyone else' earned money and give it away to a third party, it is perfectly ethical to place any restrictions on it we want to...such as don't use my money to eat your way to type 2 diabetes which I will also have to pay for.

It is unethical and wasteful to give away what belongs to someone else. Inexcusably so when you give away more than the bare minimum they really need.

You know what would be a good solution? Maybe sell their children as food to gourmet grocery stores and five-star restaurants.

By the way, what system of ethics do you subscribe to? It seems rather dysfunctional.

Plan9 · 10-07-2010, 10:01 PM

Did someone drop a copy of The Lord of the Flies in the thread?

Iliftrocks · 10-12-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Two problems with this.

First, what's to prevent somebody from buying something else from the approved food list, then selling it or trading it to get soda?

Second, if Bloomberg is successful at this, what's to stop him from trying to control sales of soda to the general public? New York has already tried one extension of nanny-state mentality by imposing a soda tax.

Also, this doesn't solve the obesity problem. As far as I know, ring dings and potato chips are not prohibited foods. Nor frozen pizzas, etc, etc.

True, but I think it's okay for them to put restrictions on what government money can purchase. There are always ways around the law. Heck I think I read last week that some people were buying large quatities of bottled water, pouring out the water, and turning in the bottles for the deposit, so they could buy cigarettes, and beer... Well, at least they had to work for it, right?

dksuddeth · 10-12-2010, 10:05 AM

seems to me that the 'slippery slope' is just a fallacy. at least that's what several here have told me in the past.

ASU2003 · 10-12-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

There is no way it's less costly for (deadbeats) to purchase brand-name (unnecessary) soft drinks in order to meet their caloric requirements than to simply hand out a loaf of moldy bread and some cheese. Or, for that matter, a 50 pound bag of potatoes which were on sale for $10.99 at my local farmers market recently...That will feed a lot of people for a while.

There is no ethical problem either....If you want a free handout it should be on our terms. you have no right to 'expect' Coca Cola or the ability to sell your food stamps.

Even better: If you want to eat you have to assist with the distribution of said food items free of charge. Basically: If you want to eat the soup you need to work in the kitchen, at least occasionally.

As far as I am concerned I think it is ethically preferable to provide no public services whatsoever than to continue on the way things currently are. A good percentage of food-stamps and welfare are used to purchase drugs, rims, and flat-screen TV's....How is that ethical? I get shot at to earn my money, and I would much rather spend it on my daughters education, paying off student loan debt, etc. than on someone who is too lazy to work.

I feel much more charitable to those who live a truly spartan existence and are still struggling. However my house backs up to subsidized housing and at least in my neighborhood, every trailer has a crappy car with an expensive paint job/rims and the owners are home at all times of the (work) day* watching TV, drinking, throwing bottles in the yard, selling drugs, and generally being parasites.

They can go piss up a rope if they want to claim it is unethical for me to give them food rather than what equates to money.

Lastly, if I/we (via the government) are going to take my or anyone else' earned money and give it away to a third party, it is perfectly ethical to place any restrictions on it we want to...such as don't use my money to eat your way to type 2 diabetes which I will also have to pay for.

Don't like it? Great, then don't take the handout.

It is unethical and wasteful to give away what belongs to someone else. Inexcusably so when you give away more than the bare minimum they really need.

I will agree that there needs to be more regulations on social programs. And I think that there should be a white list of what can be bought, or rationed out.

And, I also think that they should have to do community service, go into the fields and work for a few weeks, or distribute the food if they want to receive benefits.

I just wonder if I lost my job, would I be eligible? I have enough money to survive for 3-4 years saved up, but would they make me sell stocks, sell off material items, or sell my house before qualifying? Then again, I've heard that pilots are getting food stamps because they don't have a high enough salary.

*People do work second or third shifts.

10-07-2010, 07:39 AM	#2 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I'll play stupid just to kick off the debate: I think it's pretty easy. Soft drinks are a luxury item with no nutritional value. The food stamp program is designed to provide sustenance, right? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-07-2010, 07:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	What slippery slope? I don't see it. The government is handing this money out with little or no strings attached--they could add a lot more than they do, and honestly, I think they probably should. I think SNAP benefits need to be accompanied by education in healthy food options and where to find them in the local area, and the government should have the right to tell people who receive SNAP benefits what they can buy with said benefits. I really don't think soda should be an allowable purchase with SNAP benefits. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

10-07-2010, 07:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I vote slippery slope. What next? A ban on all products containing HFCS? Processed corn products at all? Or better: Food stamps can only be used to buy fresh produce, dried legumes, and whole grains. Everything else is a "luxury." EDIT: I don't think that soda consumption is causing the obesity problem. It is a big factor, yes, but if you remove this from the picture, it can easily be filled with other crap. Are they still allowed to buy sugar? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-07-2010 at 07:51 AM..

10-07-2010, 09:14 AM	#5 (permalink)
PonyPotato Soaring Location: Ohio!	What about diet sodas? __________________ "Without passion man is a mere latent force and possibility, like the flint which awaits the shock of the iron before it can give forth its spark." — Henri-Frédéric Amiel

10-07-2010, 09:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Don't fuck with my diet sodas. ... Baraka, Sugared soft drinks are, of course, only a small part of the obesity problem in America. If food stamps could get people off their couch for half an hour a day, that'd be the win. If food stamps could change serving sizes and the Super Ultra Big Gulp culture, that'd be the win. Input is only a small part of the problem. You can't feed someone into fitness. (I mean, you could... but... that'd be a really broken program; one that dispenses only beans) __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-07-2010, 09:32 AM	#8 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	I tend to be of the opinion that food stamps should be only for basic food items. Things like rice, beans, flour, yeast, salt, sugar, generic-only canned vegetables, canned beans, frozen vegetables, eggs, milk, and cheese. No meat, no fresh or specialty-brand anything. Stuff to help you eeek by with your basic nutritional needs met. Food stamps should have some amount of stigma and hassle associated with their use. Then again, I am more familiar and comfortable with community foodbanks than foodstamps.

10-07-2010, 09:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I think the feds should eliminate subsidized corn. The net effect would be fewer cheap food products made with cheap processed corn substances that add empty calories. Subsidize something else instead...like fruit and vegetables or something. Make them ultra cheap. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-07-2010, 09:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Bingo. But good luck, the corn problem isn't just about cheap food and HFCS. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-07-2010, 09:45 AM	#11 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	corn has already skyrocketed due to the dumbass government putting corn in our gas tanks. Food stamps should only purchase raw ingredients. Absolutely no finished foods. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-07-2010, 09:53 AM	#13 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	To me that is the biggest concern since what is to stop them force you to eat a very strict diet after they slowly whittle away all items that can be 'harmful' for you. This is only the first step, and soda while is bad for you, is that the main item that is causing obesity, that I can not say. __________________ Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

10-07-2010, 10:03 AM	#14 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I don't think there is any "main item that causes obesity." I think what causes a lot of obesity is cheap, processed, convenience foods that lack nutritional value—this includes a swath of what we see in stores that sell food that aren't farmer's markets or the like. Targeting and banning soda and sugary drinks for 20% of the population is myopic. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-07-2010, 10:04 AM	#15 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Yeah, but that 20% of the population has a bigger percentage of those that are obese. In America, the poor people are fat. ... There is no one main item causing obesity. The obesity pie, if you will, is compromised of many little slices that all add up to one big FUPA. Americans are Ignorant - Lack of proper nutrition education / meal planning knowledge Americans are Lazy - Fast food being cheaper / easier than healthy food Americans are Simple - Soda being a ubiquitous beverage (see Fast Food) Americans are Gluttonous - Serving sizes being Double Extra Mondo H'yoog Americans are Sedentary - Idea that exercise is for pro-athletes and dorks in short-shorts Americans are OK with Being Fat - Trend toward accepting "plus size" people as a more normal body image () __________________ Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 10-07-2010 at 10:13 AM..

10-07-2010, 10:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	When you get an increasing number of people who are simultaneously overweight and malnourished, you know there is something wrong with the food system and food culture. Yeah, the the problem too is that Americans are also often deceived: health claims on food often distract from the fact that these same foods have things added to them (salt, sugar, corn products, etc.), even canned foods that are supposed to be good for you such as fruits and vegetables, soups, etc. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-07-2010, 10:17 AM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Whaddya mean a Flintstones chewable and a cupcake aren't a part of this complete breakfast? ... Also, the author's name? Try to say that five times fast. Anemona Hartocollis. Yikes. I bet she's got a 'stache. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-07-2010, 10:48 AM	#20 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Actually, NYC's Greenmarkets have done a really good job of addressing the issues of food access. They're one of the organizations working the hardest in this country at the moment to get at the heart of the access problem. They have 51 greenmarket locations. Greenmarket Farmers Markets \| GrowNYC Here's a list of locations that take EBT cards to get tokens (how SNAP benefits are administered at farmer's markets): EBT/Food Stamps and Food Access in Greenmarkets \| GrowNYC And here's an article from the AP that covers the farmer's market/SNAP benefits issue: The Associated Press: Farmers' markets draw few food stamp users __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

10-07-2010, 10:49 AM	#21 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	This ban is simply silly. Ask 100 people who have used or use food stamps and 99 of them will tell you how they would get sugary soft drinks if they want them. The ban simply will create a minor inconvenience. The key, it that these drinks are relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives. If the price of orange juice was the same as Coke - the consumption of orange juice would exceed that of Coke for people on food stamps. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-07-2010, 04:52 PM	#26 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	I suppose I feel the same way about people buying junk food with government money as I do about people purchasing cigarettes and alcohol with their welfare checks.

10-07-2010, 06:18 PM	#29 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	...The government shouldn't be handing out food stamps at all. I do support not letting people starve (at least not until they prove they are unwilling, rather than unable to work), but I feel we should be handing out food directly rather than giving people the ability to 'shop.' By giving someone the ability to make choices you give them the ability to make bad choices, which is what got them into the sort of situation requiring food stamps in the first place. By handing out nutritious but bulk-purchased bare-bones subsistence foodstuffs directly we could: -Drop the net price of social programs funded by taxpayers while still providing the same level of nutrition. -Eliminate (or at least largely reduce) the popularity of selling food stamps for a lesser amount of cash....Who wants to buy a wheel of government cheese? -Regulate the total caloric intake of fatties who want ME to pay for their meals by simply providing them with only 2,000 calories a day in food...enough to live off of, not enough to weigh 500 pounds. -Encourage a quick return to being a productive member of society because you would have to make money before you would enjoy eating again. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

10-07-2010, 08:32 PM	#32 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	There is no way it's less costly for (deadbeats) to purchase brand-name (unnecessary) soft drinks in order to meet their caloric requirements than to simply hand out a loaf of moldy bread and some cheese. Or, for that matter, a 50 pound bag of potatoes which were on sale for $10.99 at my local farmers market recently...That will feed a lot of people for a while. There is no ethical problem either....If you want a free handout it should be on our terms. you have no right to 'expect' Coca Cola or the ability to sell your food stamps. Even better: If you want to eat you have to assist with the distribution of said food items free of charge. Basically: If you want to eat the soup you need to work in the kitchen, at least occasionally. As far as I am concerned I think it is ethically preferable to provide no public services whatsoever than to continue on the way things currently are. A good percentage of food-stamps and welfare are used to purchase drugs, rims, and flat-screen TV's....How is that ethical? I get shot at to earn my money, and I would much rather spend it on my daughters education, paying off student loan debt, etc. than on someone who is too lazy to work. I feel much more charitable to those who live a truly spartan existence and are still struggling. However my house backs up to subsidized housing and at least in my neighborhood, every trailer has a crappy car with an expensive paint job/rims and the owners are home at all times of the (work) day watching TV, drinking, throwing bottles in the yard, selling drugs, and generally being parasites. They can go piss up a rope if they want to claim it is unethical for me to give them food rather than what equates to money. Lastly, if I/we (via the government) are going to take my or anyone else' earned money and give it away to a third party, it is perfectly ethical to place any restrictions on it we want to...such as don't use my money to eat your way to type 2 diabetes which I will also have to pay for. Don't like it? Great, then don't take the handout. It is unethical and wasteful to give away what belongs to someone else. Inexcusably so when you give away more than the bare minimum they really need. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 10-07-2010 at 08:38 PM..

10-07-2010, 09:07 PM	#34 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I completely disagree with the idea and think its a ridiculous attempt at social control. And it's not about the slippery slope, its about the dehumanization of the poor. Sure, they are using "public" money. But the same thing isn't about to happen to other recipients of public money (which is why this is not about a slippery slope argument). That is, the problem isn't with "what's next." It's with this sort of control itself. Why is it ok to enforce this sort of social control over the poor, but not over, say, medicare recipients? People who go to public schools and universities? People who use publicly subsidized hospitals? People who drive on roads? Why aren't people clamoring for laws requiring medicare recipients to stop drinking, smoking, etc lest they lose their benefits? Why aren't people clamoring for expelling and banning for life all students who don't maximize their learning potential? Should anyone driving on a public road be required to carpool, only drive cars with maximum safety records, and so on? Again, the problem isn't that this requirement will lead to the ones above. Because it won't. The problem is that this clearly dehumanizes the poor: "everyone else who gets other forms of public assistance may do as they please, but you, the poor, clearly isn't as bright as everyone else so we will make your decisions for you?"

10-07-2010, 09:42 PM	#35 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	As a side note about social programs, I never understood why everybody was so cranky about taxes until I actually made enough money to start paying them. I guess before today I was too poor to be a Libertarian or Republican or whatever it is that well-to-do white people are. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-07-2010, 10:01 PM	#37 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Did someone drop a copy of The Lord of the Flies in the thread? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-12-2010, 10:05 AM	#39 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	seems to me that the 'slippery slope' is just a fallacy. at least that's what several here have told me in the past. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."