New York asks to bar use of food stamps to buy sodas

We've discussed the concept here before, but now New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is seeking federal permission to stop recipients of food stamps from using them to buy soda.

New York Times story here.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm conflicted on this one.

On the one hand, I object pretty strongly to the idea that the government can tell needy people what kind of food they're allowed to eat.

On the other hand, soda is completely nutritionally pointless.

At the end of the day, I think it's better to err on the side of personal choice, but I might be willing to be talked out of it.

(I'm VERY in favor of banning school cafeterias from selling junk, though.)

Yeah, I've been conflicted on it before, too. The deciding question for me is, "Does soda reasonably count as 'groceries'?" People can't buy alcohol or take-out with food stamps either, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

On the one hand, I object pretty strongly to the idea that the government can tell needy people what kind of food they're allowed to eat.

---

But, the government is telling them what food they can buy with money the government is giving them.

On the one hand, I have little issue with seeing food stamps like a gift card, where it's only good in certain places, or only good for certain things. On the other hand, I'm really glad the state of Kentucky didn't have this sort of policy when I was accepting assistance after Katrina.

It's funny that in the "land of the free" social engineering projects like that have such traction. I'm not 100% one way on this either, I'm pretty pro-letting people kill themselves any which way they wanna but since its the government dime I suppose they can impose their will on recipients. FWIW we don't have food stamps here, people on welfare are given cash.

It's not their money so I have no qualms. If the government said only Fresh Produce, Meat and Staples and these items were available to those in need I would be OK with it to. (Clearly would not work today) Heck, NYC has very good tap water overall, I would even be OK with no drinks except perhaps milk based on what Exy explained about fruit juices. They want sugary treats, buy it with non-food stamp money or go without. I really don't have a problem with this idea. The whole thing is a mess though and so just removing soda is an easy step.

Agree that this complicated. Hate that folks might waste money better spent on eggs and black beans on Pepsi Max, but telling people how to spend hand-out money feels like rubbing salt in wounds.

That said, I am aware of some program in Illinois that dictates precisely how the money is to be divvied up among certain food types. I watched a guy buy a bunch of stuff like this Walgreens. This pissed me off, actually, because this guy was buying groceries at freakin Walgreens, stupid, as there was several grocery stores within walking distance of the place.

There should be dignity in charity, but that's tough when there's also abuse or just ignorance. Also, who am I to deny some struggling poor sap a can a Squirt?

Imagine this leading to official parsing of unemployment checks or social security money.

"Hey grandma! Put down that Mr. Pibb! Let's see if we can't steer you into something with a little fiber."

Instead of food stamps, why don't they just hand out the food instead?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Instead of food stamps, why don't they just hand out the food instead?

---

There's an odd attitude about this sort of thing. AG referred to America as the "land of the free", but there are very particular ideas about "freedom" in regards to tax money. There's a common fear of people freeloading, using money in ways it wasn't intended, taking more benefits than they need, etc. So rather than simply give money and let people figure it out, they get food stamps and then you see arguments about what food stamps can actually pay for.

There's already a precedent for controlling what food and drink items people can buy with food stamps, as I mentioned above. Of course, the funny thing is that I just discovered from talking to my sister that if you buy an uncooked pizza from a pizza shop, you can pay for it with food stamps because now (as uncooked food) it counts as groceries.

If they simply gave people food instead of assigning food stamps, then you'd run into the ideas about freedom of choice and the unfairness of such a system. Nobody else should be able to decide what you're eating, except when they decide what you can't eat.

Not to mention the logistics of trying to hand out food to that many people. The amount of manpower and money it would take to gather, package, and distribute all that food to that number of people would be a little crazy, I'd think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Not to mention the logistics of trying to hand out food to that many people. The amount of manpower and money it would take to gather, package, and distribute all that food to that number of people would be a little crazy, I'd think.

---

Well, you could always replace food stamps with food "vouchers", sort of like how WIC does it. There are a lot of problems with that method, though, which we'd discussed in the previous thread on food stamps. Food choices being largely determined by lobbying instead of nutrition, allergies needing to be taken into consideration, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Not to mention the logistics of trying to hand out food to that many people. The amount of manpower and money it would take to gather, package, and distribute all that food to that number of people would be a little crazy, I'd think.

---

Not really. Sub-contract to a supermarket to gather the food from the shelves or storage or and leave it to the person to collect it by handing over their food stamp. Slightly more expensive but gives excellent control and you can make sure they have a healthy diet as well.

I don't believe for even one microsecond that the government actually gives a shit about providing a 'healthy diet' to anyone. These are the same people who classify ketchup as a vegetable for the purpose of feeding schoolchildren.

Which is probably why these kind of restrictions strike me as more about taking punitive measures against poor people than anything else.

That was in the 80s and quickly changed Orual. It happened under Reagan. It is not punitive in this case, it is the Mayor of NYC really trying to address one of the USA's worst problems, Obesity. He tried to get a tax on sodas and got shot down, now he is trying this. He is looking for ways to reduce obesity and this is just another attempt.

Some of his ideas are deemed a little crazy like his pollution reduction attempt where he would have charged a high toll for anyone to drive in lower Manhattan but he did force the giant NYC taxi fleet to move to Hybrids.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

That was in the 80s and quickly changed Orual. It happened under Reagan. It is not punitive in this case, it is the Mayor of NYC really trying to address one of the USA's worst problems, Obesity. He tried to get a tax on sodas and got shot down, now he is trying this. He is looking for ways to reduce obesity and this is just another attempt.

---

School lunches are still generally filled with junk. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an NYC public school lunch menu to see what these fine upstanding city government officials think is appropriate kid fare.

Also lowering obesity by taxing food/denying benefits is never, ever going to work. Especially in places where people don't have much access to healthier options, like inner cities without decent grocery stores.

Here are the links that should help you: http://www.opt-osfns.org/osfns/resou...nth=9&grade=es & http://www.opt-osfns.org/osfns/meals/default.aspx

Doing nothing at all is not going to work either so I support the trying of something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

I don't believe for even one microsecond that the government actually gives a shit about providing a 'healthy diet' to anyone.

---

I don't believe that there is A government.

And really there isn't. There is no single entity, just a vast collection of individual tax-funded operations that are loosely related and operate--more or less--to do stuff that private industry can't or wont do.

To say that the government does or doesn't "give a shit" is to miss this point entirely.

At some point legislators who might have given a shit arranged to fund certain governmental operations--but time and attrition generally erode any good intentions, reducing these endeavors to nothing more than momentum and bureaucratic routine.

At this point the government helps feed the needy not because it cares, but because it has been doing so for while. Programs like these become largely unchangeable for exactly the reasons we are discussing here.

This is a very old argument, BTW.

Brits "on the dole" in the Thirties were subject to exactly the same scrutiny. According to Orwell, most folks on the dole spent almost ten percent of their aid money on sugar, mostly for tea. Orwell argued both sides of the argument as we are doing now. Does the government further assail the dignity of the needy by limiting what recipients can buy, or do they allow folks at least a little "comfort," knowing that they aren't really extracting the maximum nutritional value from their limited funds?

Despite much outcry from the press for some sort of action, I believe that, in the end, nothing was done to direct folks on how to use their food money.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Here are the links that should help you: http://www.opt-osfns.org/osfns/resou...nth=9&grade=es & http://www.opt-osfns.org/osfns/meals/default.aspx

---

Thank you. It looks like NYC is actually not bad with the school food.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Doing nothing at all is not going to work either so I support the trying of something.

---

I''d be happier if the something didn't seem purpose-built to play into the whole 'how DARE poor people buy XXX with MY MONEY' thing. It's a lot easier to get people on board with that idea because it won't directly affect them like a general soda tax would. And they can feel self-righteous about it too.

Orual is this case it is pretty clear what the Mayor was trying to do and when his big attempt failed he went to plan 'B'. I really do not think this is a case 'how DARE poor people buy XXX with MY MONEY'

Now as far as it being easier to pass into law, well you are probably right that he will pick up that support. But he is trying at least and this is just one part of his overall plan to make NYC the front runner for changing America. He's trying things in that wonderful and gigantic city and if it fails it really doesn't actually hurt anyone and if it starts to work, well then it is ready to roll out to the entire nation. Bloomberg is pretty awesome actually. I was hoping he was going to be the surprise VP Candidate for Obama.

First off, there haven’t been actual food stamps in close to 15 years, assistance is distributed in the form of something that looks like a debit card these days. Here in Illinois they’re called LINK cards, and anyone who gets state benefits, be it cash, food assistance, or WIC gets them this way. It’s more dignified than those weird looking stock certificates they used to pass out when I was a kid, since you can just swipe your card like everyone else.

Second, while I applaud the concept of fighting obesity in the world, this isn’t the way to do it. I don’t know what poor areas look like where you’re all at, but here we have a distinct lack of grocery stores in them. I mean you can go 15 blocks in any direction without one. Lots of people on assistance only get to hit the bodegas and end up with stuff like soda and chips because that’s what they have. It’s also kind of a bitch to buy lots of bulky groceries when you don’t have a car to bring them around with. Once again the idea may be a noble one, but it’s still not addressing the real issues of both education about how to feed your body well and the fact that there’s more issues with low income areas than just being poor.

Now if they want to put vice taxes on soda and ice cream and lock candy up behind the counter like booze and smokes so that only adults can buy it, hey, go for it. Bloomberg’s idea about taxing soda fell flat (a little pop humor there) and an end run around failed legislation does nobody any good. But as long as the dude at the corner store knows he’ll make more money on Doritos and Sprite than he will on beets and celery that’s what he’s going to be selling and that’s what people in the neighborhood will be eating no matter what.

Soda is just the next item to suffer from sin-tax mania. The problem is that after smokes and hootch, it gets pretty hard to garner public
support for easy tax hikes.

I suppose porno would be good, but there's not enough money there.

After soda what's next? Gravy? Funyuns? Easy Cheese?

I expect a fast-food tax to start rearing its ugly head, and maybe even a coffee tax aimed at places like Starbucks.

Like Orual said, no one really cares...but it's a good excuse for a tax.

Imagine the impact of a mayonnaise tax.

Whopper $2.39
Whopper w/ cheese $2.59
Whopper w/cheese and mayo $2.69

They will tax my mayo when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. :mad:

I think the whole food stamp thing is kind of messed up to begin with. Like Cluricaun said, they use cards now instead of little vouchers, which is at least a bit more dignified. I can see the point in not letting people buy alcohol, as that's a controlled substance. Fast food and stuff like that? Makes sense. It's steering people toward making better food decisions.

But if you are poor, the need for having pleasurable food is going to become much more accute. You don't get to go out for steak. You don't get to enjoy a gourmet seven course meal. You get whatever crap you can buy with what little money the government gives you, at whatever shitty store you can get to. Soda is a cheap and easy pleasure and one that even the poorest can have access to. Rather than banning its purchase with food stamps, we should look into making good, affordable food more available and more attractive to those who are on state assistance.

This is kind of related: http://aghhhhhhhhh.livejournal.com/695.html

She makes some good points, except I have to comment on this part:

Quote:

---

As a matter of fact, even if I spend them “perfectly” (whatever that means?) I will probably still run out. Why? Because the maximum averages around $2 per person, per meal, at three meals per day. Yes, the absolute MAXIMUM for a family of three is, on average, EIGHTEEN DOLLARS A DAY. And don’t forget, there are federal cuts just around the corner.

...

But what adds even more ridiculousness to this argument, besides the disgusting levels of classism, is that the “luxury” food is often the cheapest, most satisfying, easiest to make, most filling, and has the longest shelf life. In order to eat “appropriate” food, I would run out of food stamps more quickly.

---

Yes, eighteen dollars a day for three people sounds like a tiny, tiny amount. But that's actually around $540 a month. Her belief that buying premade and prepackaged foods is somehow saving her money and buying less processed food would eat up her money faster is, frankly, stupid. I understand her concerns about gas. That is a huge problem. But highly processed foods aren't the best way to spend your money. I'm not saying this as some sort of "classist" commentary on her or her lifestyle, but because I am poor and yet still manage to feed myself. It's possible and it's possible to do it healthily.

Food prices vary depending on where you are, but I'm going off of the costs on Albertsons.com. I think WalMart is actually more expensive on produce than most chain grocery stores. These foods are mostly things that I've found keep just fine in your cupboards, survive in the fridge for long periods or else can be frozen. If you can get to a store every two weeks, you can do this.

For an entire month:

20lbs of russet potatoes: $6.98
4 heads of iceberg lettuce: $5.16
5lbs roma tomatoes: $9.95
5lbs yellow onions: $4.95
6 green bell peppers: $5.94
10lbs carrots: $5.38
5lbs golden delicious apples: $7.95
2lbs green seedless grapes: $5.98
4 64oz bags of frozen vegetables: $19.96
5lbs of wheat flour: $4.09
8.1oz baking powder: $2.09
26oz iodized salt: $0.69
5 loaves whole wheat bread: $13.45
4 packages of hamburger buns (32 count): $5.96
2 packages of flour tortillas (40 count): $7.38
5lbs pasta: $6.45
48oz canola cooking oil: $4.09
3 40oz jars of peanut butter: $14.37
3 32oz jars of jelly: $8.37
20lbs white rice: $13.99
10lbs pinto beans: $11.98
5lbs green split peas: $7.45
5 packages lean turkey bacon (110 slices): $16.45
15lbs ground beef: $34.90
10lbs frozen chicken: $12.90
4 12oz packages of salmon fillets: $23.96
5lbs chicken and turkey lunch meat: $17.95
60 count medium eggs: $9.18
5 gallons 2% milk: $11.95
4lbs cheddar cheese: $11.94
6lbs margarine: $5.38
5 bottles of salsa (6lbs total): $19.95
5 26.5oz cans pasta sauce: $4.35
6.5oz bouillon cubes: $2.98
2 23oz bottles of salad dressing: $7.38
2 30oz jars mayonaisse: $8.58
3 24oz bottles pancake syrup: $7.17

That comes to $365.04, leaving plenty of money for "fun" food, conveniences, condiments, or buying things for special meals.

For three people this would amount to

• Pancakes, eggs, bacon and fruit are all available for breakfast.
• Peanut butter and jelly or meat sandwiches for lunch. The meat sandwiches would have vegetables available for adding to them. Fruit and carrot sticks could be available on the side.
• One dinner with salmon as the main course each week.
• One dinner with hamburgers/cheeseburgers as the main course each week.
• One dinner with tacos or burritos as the main course each week.
• Two dinners with chicken as the main course each week.
• One dinner with spaghetti and meatballs as the main course each week.
• One dinner with homemade soup and leftovers as the main course each week.
• Dinner side-dishes could include salad, potatoes, rice, beans, or 8.5oz of frozen vegetables.

Every meal has protein. Every meal has fruits or vegetables. Everything is as unprocessed as possible. Nothing is difficult to cook.

For saving time, the pancake mix can be prepared ahead of time. Just put all of the dry ingredients together in a jar and then measure it out and add milk until it's the appropriate consistency. Since you're making it with baking powder, it won't require eggs. To save time with potatoes, have a kid peel them, chop them up into usable pieces and then keep them in a closed plastic container filled with water in the fridge. Those giant tubs from the 5 quart containers of ice cream work great. For soup, you can put everything together in a pot as soon as you get home and just let it cook until dinner time.

If you have a car and $180 per person to spend on groceries, it's possible to do it healthily. I don't begrudge anyone their soda pop or junk food, but if you have limited funds or even the vaguest concern about health there are better ways to shop for food.