More Positive "Rules" About Food Stamps
Today,October 15, there was a discussion on the D R Show on the contribution to obesity, esp of children, by over-consumption of sugary drinks. A large part of the discussion focused on taxing these drinks.
Considering that several people have highlighted TWOPROBLEMS: There are NOT ENOUGH STORES SELLING HEALTHY FOODS IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS MONEY LIVE and BOTTLED/CANNED SOFT DRINKS ARE NOT CHEAP (Fact: there are some very inexpensive store brands, however, of these bottled/canned soft drinks.): I know that well because I live in one of those neighborhoods! My belief is that IF STORES MAKE THE HEALTHIER FOODS AVAILABLE AT MUCH LOWER PRICES THAN THE UNHEALTHY FOODS, THESE GOODS WILL BE SOLD! i. Some attractive advertising, ESPECIALLY "COOL" ADVERTISING, of these foods would not hurt either. WE NEED TO BE MORE CREATIVE and less complaining re the status quo I think! A large amount of the sugary drinks bought are of the packaged kind that are mixed with water, such as Kool Aid. Why not ADVOCATE FOR A MANUFACTURER to make an inexpensive kool-aid type product that is healthier, tastier, "cooler," and, therefore, more attractive?
Another approach that could be widely effective is to be more positive in the guidelines for food purchase by those who receive food stamps. Those who receive food stamps are often considered "lazy" and "ignorant" about food purchasing, as I often hear from people who are commenting on the so-called freeloaders. However, the reality is that frequently cheap foods mean the difference between feeding and not feeding the family. Leading the list of filler-ups and cheap food are sugary fruit drinks in packages and bottles and some colas--in bottles, cans, kid-friendly packages, etc. Chips, mostly deep fried, packaged cakes and cookies, packaged meats and soups, esp those "instant" prep dry noodle ones, are super-high in sodium and quite inexpensive--other examples of cheap foods that are considered less than healthy by nutritionists.
Another example of negative incentive for f s users is that in many stores, food that is from the deli part of store or heated (such as a roast chicken) is not allowed to be purchased, the opinion being that those on food stamps should have to do the "cooking" or preparation. This is inconsistently applied.
If food stamp users in the larger chains were allowed to purchase fresh, canned or frozen fruits and vegetables, roasted chickens or other foods that are nutritious and already prepared, fresh, frozen or canned fish and chicken products at half their marked price, if sugary drinks were made ineligible to buy with the stamps, there would be an immediate reduction in the purchase of the products considered by nutritionists to be less healthy and an increase in the healthy ones. The half price principle could be extended to baby food, nutritious breads and dairy products, for example, and the prohibition to products such as sugar-coated cereals (another frequent purchase of f s users).
If we really want to deal with obesity constructively, yes we can. We would have to get out from under the tyranny of that part of the food industry that is concerned about making money at the expense of the health of a whole nation, esp the children. We would have to lobby with large chain stores that sell foods to provide smaller stores in poorer neighborhoods as their contribution to the common good of our country or provide transportation on a weekly basis for residents of poorer neighborhoods to come to them to shop.
Considering that several people have highlighted TWOPROBLEMS: There are NOT ENOUGH STORES SELLING HEALTHY FOODS IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS MONEY LIVE and BOTTLED/CANNED SOFT DRINKS ARE NOT CHEAP (Fact: there are some very inexpensive store brands, however, of these bottled/canned soft drinks.): I know that well because I live in one of those neighborhoods! My belief is that IF STORES MAKE THE HEALTHIER FOODS AVAILABLE AT MUCH LOWER PRICES THAN THE UNHEALTHY FOODS, THESE GOODS WILL BE SOLD! i. Some attractive advertising, ESPECIALLY "COOL" ADVERTISING, of these foods would not hurt either. WE NEED TO BE MORE CREATIVE and less complaining re the status quo I think! A large amount of the sugary drinks bought are of the packaged kind that are mixed with water, such as Kool Aid. Why not ADVOCATE FOR A MANUFACTURER to make an inexpensive kool-aid type product that is healthier, tastier, "cooler," and, therefore, more attractive?
Another approach that could be widely effective is to be more positive in the guidelines for food purchase by those who receive food stamps. Those who receive food stamps are often considered "lazy" and "ignorant" about food purchasing, as I often hear from people who are commenting on the so-called freeloaders. However, the reality is that frequently cheap foods mean the difference between feeding and not feeding the family. Leading the list of filler-ups and cheap food are sugary fruit drinks in packages and bottles and some colas--in bottles, cans, kid-friendly packages, etc. Chips, mostly deep fried, packaged cakes and cookies, packaged meats and soups, esp those "instant" prep dry noodle ones, are super-high in sodium and quite inexpensive--other examples of cheap foods that are considered less than healthy by nutritionists.
Another example of negative incentive for f s users is that in many stores, food that is from the deli part of store or heated (such as a roast chicken) is not allowed to be purchased, the opinion being that those on food stamps should have to do the "cooking" or preparation. This is inconsistently applied.
If food stamp users in the larger chains were allowed to purchase fresh, canned or frozen fruits and vegetables, roasted chickens or other foods that are nutritious and already prepared, fresh, frozen or canned fish and chicken products at half their marked price, if sugary drinks were made ineligible to buy with the stamps, there would be an immediate reduction in the purchase of the products considered by nutritionists to be less healthy and an increase in the healthy ones. The half price principle could be extended to baby food, nutritious breads and dairy products, for example, and the prohibition to products such as sugar-coated cereals (another frequent purchase of f s users).
If we really want to deal with obesity constructively, yes we can. We would have to get out from under the tyranny of that part of the food industry that is concerned about making money at the expense of the health of a whole nation, esp the children. We would have to lobby with large chain stores that sell foods to provide smaller stores in poorer neighborhoods as their contribution to the common good of our country or provide transportation on a weekly basis for residents of poorer neighborhoods to come to them to shop.
Tags: foods, unhealthy/healthy
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on -
Better option is to forbid food stamps to be used for crap food.
-
Permalink Reply by Hewitt Rose on -
We agree that soda and junk food is bad for the poor (and everyone else), but people on food stamps do not purchase junk food merely because it is a cheap source of calories. It isn't cheap. They primarily purchase junk food because that is what is available in their neighborhoods. Go on the web and check out the location of grocery stores, which is the place where you can get healthy food. They are hardly there in poor neighborhoods. Go to poor neighborhoods, and what you will see are fast food joints and 7/11s or the local equivalents. If you are poor and have to walk to your food supply, then you can get coca-cola and ho-hoes but not orange juice and tomatoes.
If government further limits food stamps to healthy food while doing nothing for the supply of healthy food available to the poor, then they deny the poor access to food.
-
Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on
-
Ah but Hewitt, there are Supermarkets all over DC to include the poorest neighborhoods. Even if not, why can't you get the bottled water v. the fried chicken at the 7-11 or the salad v. the Big Bite. Answer, you can!
Hewitt Rose said:We agree that soda and junk food is bad for the poor (and everyone else), but people on food stamps do not purchase junk food merely because it is a cheap source of calories. It isn't cheap. They primarily purchase junk food because that is what is available in their neighborhoods. Go on the web and check out the location of grocery stores, which is the place where you can get healthy food. They are hardly there in poor neighborhoods. Go to poor neighborhoods, and what you will see are fast food joints and 7/11s or the local equivalents. If you are poor and have to walk to your food supply, then you can get coca-cola and ho-hoes but not orange juice and tomatoes.
If government further limits food stamps to healthy food while doing nothing for the supply of healthy food available to the poor, then they deny the poor access to food.
-
Permalink Reply by Hewitt Rose on
-
You can quickly check the facts on available grocery stores in poor neighborhoods for yourself on the internet. Don't just rely on me. Further, how often do you go into a 7-11? Healthy food choices are not available.
John Antonelli said:Ah but Hewitt, there are Supermarkets all over DC to include the poorest neighborhoods. Even if not, why can't you get the bottled water v. the fried chicken at the 7-11 or the salad v. the Big Bite. Answer, you can!
Hewitt Rose said:We agree that soda and junk food is bad for the poor (and everyone else), but people on food stamps do not purchase junk food merely because it is a cheap source of calories. It isn't cheap. They primarily purchase junk food because that is what is available in their neighborhoods. Go on the web and check out the location of grocery stores, which is the place where you can get healthy food. They are hardly there in poor neighborhoods. Go to poor neighborhoods, and what you will see are fast food joints and 7/11s or the local equivalents. If you are poor and have to walk to your food supply, then you can get coca-cola and ho-hoes but not orange juice and tomatoes.
If government further limits food stamps to healthy food while doing nothing for the supply of healthy food available to the poor, then they deny the poor access to food.
-
Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on
-
Hewitt, I certainly do not frequent such establishments but I have been in them enough to know tye sell water and salad and turkey sandwiches and even juice. Some even have fruit
Hewitt Rose said:You can quickly check the facts on available grocery stores in poor neighborhoods for yourself on the internet. Don't just rely on me. Further, how often do you go into a 7-11? Healthy food choices are not available.
John Antonelli said:Ah but Hewitt, there are Supermarkets all over DC to include the poorest neighborhoods. Even if not, why can't you get the bottled water v. the fried chicken at the 7-11 or the salad v. the Big Bite. Answer, you can!
Hewitt Rose said:We agree that soda and junk food is bad for the poor (and everyone else), but people on food stamps do not purchase junk food merely because it is a cheap source of calories. It isn't cheap. They primarily purchase junk food because that is what is available in their neighborhoods. Go on the web and check out the location of grocery stores, which is the place where you can get healthy food. They are hardly there in poor neighborhoods. Go to poor neighborhoods, and what you will see are fast food joints and 7/11s or the local equivalents. If you are poor and have to walk to your food supply, then you can get coca-cola and ho-hoes but not orange juice and tomatoes.
If government further limits food stamps to healthy food while doing nothing for the supply of healthy food available to the poor, then they deny the poor access to food.
-
Permalink Reply by Winifred Beam Kessler on -
MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH FOOD IS "CRAP" IS TOO CONTROVERSIAL, DON'T YOU THINK, JOHN? How about requiring that foods that are purchased with food stamps have certain characteristics: low sodium and sugar, high vitamin and nutrition content, not fried in saturated/unhealthy oils, etc.? What do you think of making the healthy foods themselves more appealing, including in their packaging, and much less expensive? If we are giving subsidies to banks and car manufacturers, why not as incentives to food producers of healthy products? And what about getting government (local and national) to subsidize and give incentives to stores in less affluent neighborhoods that stock ONLY foods on the HEALTHY LISTs that the FDA, National Nutrition Council or similar organizations could make and distribute to schools, community centers, churches, etc.?
John Antonelli said:Better option is to forbid food stamps to be used for crap food.
-
Permalink Reply by Winifred Beam Kessler on
-
Hewitt, THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS OF "WE THE PEOPLE" IN MAKING NOISE AND SUGGESTIONS ABOUT GETTING STOREKEEPERS, BUSINESSES AND MANUFACTURERS TO PRODUCE AND MAKE MORE AVAILABLE HEALTHY FOOD PRODUCTS TO PEOPLE WITH LESS MONEY!! GOVERNMENT-STORES-BUSINESS PEOPLE-NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZERS-AGENCIES-SCHOOLS: MUST BE A TEAM IF WE ARE TO GET HEALTHIER. Palates as well as people have to be educated about healthy choices, too, because we human animals are as much creatures of habit as are all other animals.
Hewitt Rose said:We agree that soda and junk food is bad for the poor (and everyone else), but people on food stamps do not purchase junk food merely because it is a cheap source of calories. It isn't cheap. They primarily purchase junk food because that is what is available in their neighborhoods. Go on the web and check out the location of grocery stores, which is the place where you can get healthy food. They are hardly there in poor neighborhoods. Go to poor neighborhoods, and what you will see are fast food joints and 7/11s or the local equivalents. If you are poor and have to walk to your food supply, then you can get coca-cola and ho-hoes but not orange juice and tomatoes.
If government further limits food stamps to healthy food while doing nothing for the supply of healthy food available to the poor, then they deny the poor access to food.
-
Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on
-
I think you defined crap food perfectly. As for government aid no way, we can get what we want without giving them money.
Winifred Beam Kessler said:MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH FOOD IS "CRAP" IS TOO CONTROVERSIAL, DON'T YOU THINK, JOHN? How about requiring that foods that are purchased with food stamps have certain characteristics: low sodium and sugar, high vitamin and nutrition content, not fried in saturated/unhealthy oils, etc.? What do you think of making the healthy foods themselves more appealing, including in their packaging, and much less expensive? If we are giving subsidies to banks and car manufacturers, why not as incentives to food producers of healthy products? And what about getting government (local and national) to subsidize and give incentives to stores in less affluent neighborhoods that stock ONLY foods on the HEALTHY LISTs that the FDA, National Nutrition Council or similar organizations could make and distribute to schools, community centers, churches, etc.?
John Antonelli said:Better option is to forbid food stamps to be used for crap food.
-
Permalink Reply by Winifred Beam Kessler on
-
HOW?? can we "get what we want without giving them [government] money"? What occurs to me immediately is that we give the government money already in our taxes. I know from rather extensive experience that ordinary (even extraordinary) citizens do not often enough contact local, state or national legislators, administrators or directors of agencies to put forth explicit requests and plans about how we want to see our taxes and contributions spent. By contrast, lobbyists for all sorts of organizations, paid and volunteer, swarm all over these decision-makers constantly and persistently. Private business, industry and community organization leaders are extremely hard to reach except through other "power people." Therefore, how do you suggest that "we" [assuming you mean ordinary citizens] get what we want? The dilemma reminds me of the old fable about the cats who met to decide what measures to take to keep a cat from finding and eating them. They congratulated themselves on coming up with the idea to put a bell around the cat's neck so that they could know where it was at all times until one of them said "Who? Which one of us is going to do the task of putting the bell on the cat?"
John Antonelli said:I think you defined crap food perfectly. As for government aid no way, we can get what we want without giving them money.
Winifred Beam Kessler said:MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH FOOD IS "CRAP" IS TOO CONTROVERSIAL, DON'T YOU THINK, JOHN? How about requiring that foods that are purchased with food stamps have certain characteristics: low sodium and sugar, high vitamin and nutrition content, not fried in saturated/unhealthy oils, etc.? What do you think of making the healthy foods themselves more appealing, including in their packaging, and much less expensive? If we are giving subsidies to banks and car manufacturers, why not as incentives to food producers of healthy products? And what about getting government (local and national) to subsidize and give incentives to stores in less affluent neighborhoods that stock ONLY foods on the HEALTHY LISTs that the FDA, National Nutrition Council or similar organizations could make and distribute to schools, community centers, churches, etc.?
John Antonelli said:Better option is to forbid food stamps to be used for crap food.
-
Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on
-
Winfred, just because the government wants industry to do something doesn't mean we have to buy them off. We regualte them.
Winifred Beam Kessler said:HOW?? can we "get what we want without giving them [government] money"? What occurs to me immediately is that we give the government money already in our taxes. I know from rather extensive experience that ordinary (even extraordinary) citizens do not often enough contact local, state or national legislators, administrators or directors of agencies to put forth explicit requests and plans about how we want to see our taxes and contributions spent. By contrast, lobbyists for all sorts of organizations, paid and volunteer, swarm all over these decision-makers constantly and persistently. Private business, industry and community organization leaders are extremely hard to reach except through other "power people." Therefore, how do you suggest that "we" [assuming you mean ordinary citizens] get what we want? The dilemma reminds me of the old fable about the cats who met to decide what measures to take to keep a cat from finding and eating them. They congratulated themselves on coming up with the idea to put a bell around the cat's neck so that they could know where it was at all times until one of them said "Who? Which one of us is going to do the task of putting the bell on the cat?"
John Antonelli said:I think you defined crap food perfectly. As for government aid no way, we can get what we want without giving them money.
Winifred Beam Kessler said:MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH FOOD IS "CRAP" IS TOO CONTROVERSIAL, DON'T YOU THINK, JOHN? How about requiring that foods that are purchased with food stamps have certain characteristics: low sodium and sugar, high vitamin and nutrition content, not fried in saturated/unhealthy oils, etc.? What do you think of making the healthy foods themselves more appealing, including in their packaging, and much less expensive? If we are giving subsidies to banks and car manufacturers, why not as incentives to food producers of healthy products? And what about getting government (local and national) to subsidize and give incentives to stores in less affluent neighborhoods that stock ONLY foods on the HEALTHY LISTs that the FDA, National Nutrition Council or similar organizations could make and distribute to schools, community centers, churches, etc.?
John Antonelli said:Better option is to forbid food stamps to be used for crap food.
Mark McDonald's Blog
Notes
Code of Conduct and Terms of Use
Created by WAMU 88.5 May 13, 2008 at 9:58am. Last updated by Jason Novak (WAMU 88.5) Sep. 22, 2008.
Welcome to the Conversation!
Created by Jason Novak (WAMU 88.5) May 13, 2008 at 9:55am. Last updated by Jason Novak (WAMU 88.5) Aug. 28, 2008.
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by WAMU 88.5
