The Obama administration recently turned down New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to ban the use of food stamps for soda purchases. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the proposal was too complicated.
But as a nutrition researcher, I believe the mayor was on the right track -- and I hope he fights for his proposal. Cities across the country should consider this approach, too. The need is clear: Nearly 60 percent of New York City adults and 40 percent of its children are overweight, and similar statistics plague other cities.
Preventing soda purchases with food stamps would be a good step in the battle against obesity. And I suggest expanding the ban to add other unhealthful foods contributing to the obesity epidemic.
As it stands, the food stamp program wastes billions of dollars subsidizing purchases of unhealthy foods that raise the risk of life-threatening medical problems. Taxpayers foot the bill at the point of purchase -- and often get dinged again when it's time to treat heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other diet-related public health problems.
We need a fresh approach. I propose a new plan that creates a simple, short list of eligible, obesity-fighting staples, including fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains, that would be covered 100 percent by food stamps, the program now formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The list would not include unhealthy foods like sugary sodas, high-fat dairy foods, and processed meats.
Our proposal would prioritize simple, but nutritious, staples that are low in fat, sugar, and sodium, and would help reverse America's worsening epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and other health problems. It would cut out the foods that are clearly contributing to the obesity crisis.
In a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last year, I looked at food trends over the last century, based on data maintained by the USDA from 1909 to 2007. In 2007, the average American ate 75 pounds more meat and 30 pounds more cheese than we did a century earlier. That's every person every year -- and that's why about two-thirds of American adults are now overweight or obese.
Some have argued that it is wrong to limit what economically disadvantaged people can purchase with food stamps. I take a different view. It is demeaning to assume that economically disadvantaged people feel a need for junk food. They, like everyone else, recognize that unhealthful foods are creating a serious problem and we do not need free candy and sodas dangled in front of us.
The food stamp program is intended as a supplement -- to be used in addition to a person's own resources. So food stamp users are free to buy Mountain Dew or whatever they wish to with their own funds; there is no need for food stamps to be used for luxuries or junk food.
The government doesn't need to be footing the bill for the very foods that are driving the obesity epidemic. The food stamps program has become a perk for food manufacturers who find that it supports a growing market for candy, soda, fatty cheese, and processed meats.
Spending government funds to pay for junk food may be popular with the junk-food industry, but it is bad for citizens, taxpayers, and everyone else. The obesity epidemic will never end until people matter more than food-industry profits.
David Katz, M.D.: Public Health and the Peril of the Poles
Sugary drinks only cost the food stamp program between $75 million and $135 million dollars each year. Drinking one sugary drink a day only increases the risk of diabetes by 83%. It’s really unfair – only 50% of New Yorkers are considered obese. Heck, only 40% of kids in public schools are obese. What’s the big deal? Low-income people (food stamp recipients) only have twice as many cases of Type II diabetes than the general population. Why panic? A 20-ounce soda only has 26 packets of sugar in it. Is that really so bad?
Why not keep this government subsidy going? The American Heart Association estimates the increased consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks between 1990 and 2000 contributed to 130,000 new cases of diabetes, 14,000 new cases of coronary heart disease (CHD), and 50,000 additional life-years burdened by coronary heart disease in the US over the past decade. Is that bad?
The food stamp program is a good one and actually very underutilized in some places (for example around where I live in Southern California), there is abuse and fraud (by some retail outlets), and I'm sure most people use them for a short term period (except maybe not so much lately with the economy).
Perhaps they could limit the covered foods to staples only, nothing processed? Even without refrigeration there are things people could eat or prepare. Unemployed people have lots of time and no excuse not to cook or learn to cook -- for that matter a required course in nutrition (a short course) for all recipients?
It is shocking how little many people know about basic nutrition and preparing food and that the human body actually NEEDS certain things to grow and run properly.
PS I was a food stamp recipient once upon a time, and lived in public housing (briefly). It was excruciatingly embarrassing at the time to pull the papers out of the food stamp book and give the clerk, even though I purchased wholesome foods for my son and myself.
I've seen obese mothers with their obese children buying sodas, high-sugar cereals, ring-a-dings, bags of potato chips, macaroni and cheese, sodas, and of course steaks, which aren't the healthiest choice in meats.
These people consciously passed up healthy (and relatively inexpensive) foods like rice, beans, and vegetables.
I hate the thought of legislating what people can eat, but if they can't make these healthy decisions for themselves, then maybe it IS time to limit the harmful foods they can purchase with taxpayer-paid food stamps...especially since taxpayers are picking up the medical costs for such irresponsibility on the other end.
And I don't look over anyone's shoulder, I'm just standing there, waiting to unload my cart. The obese woman and her obese children I wrote about came to my attention (I had noted how many high-fat things she unloaded, I admit, without knowing she was on WIC) because she was livid that WIC didn't cover a certain size of a box of cereal. She brought attention to herself. Another time, a woman argued with the cashier about dog food. One cannot help overhearing sometimes.
Also, if you're standing there and witness someone paying for their cigarettes with cash (and I notice because the cashier has to go to the front of the store to get the cigarettes) and their groceries with a WIC card, it's pretty easy to discern what's going on.
And yes, junk food calories are cheaper and easier to access than salads that have to be washed, or beans that must be soaked and boiled forever. Down the line, though, they'll be lots more expensive (for the sufferers and the taxpayers) when the chronic illnesses set in. But since this argument doesn't work for cigarettes; why should we expect it to work for food?
So, for actual taxpayer support for junk food consumption - no, no, NO!
Our local Farmer's Market takes food stamps which is an excellent idea.
With that being said...soda is not.
Chips are not.
Ding Dongs are not.
Now am am all for people having a right to choose for something they pay for...
But taxpayer $$$'s mean you don't always have a choice. Just like subsidized housing doesn't allow mansions with maids...Food stamps are basics.
Healthy food is more expensive BUT excessive healthcare costs are also expensive (diabetes).
So food stamps for better foods.....some exceptions...And one's own money can be used for junk food that we pay double for (food stamps and excessive healthcare)...
I don't want to cover your smoking and drinking habits either...Because that--along with poor diets do lead to excessive healthcare costs..And I am getting to the point where I can not pay for my families insurance and yours (if you can not afford it and still treat your body bad).. I don't think employers really want the tacked on fees either that in the end they will be now forced to pay. They have families too and need to keep of their wealth. Want free food stamps? Are you home? Then you can try to cook better and save everyone money..And keep your health.. I agree...no junk food when on the taxpayer dime...
With a difference of 82 cents a day to eat "healthy" according to whatever study you're talking about, we are talking about a minimal amount. How much does a 2L of soda cost in your area? At least a dollar, right? So with the omission of ONE 2L of soda, a single individual can now afford to eat "healthy" (by your standard!).
Healthy eating is not expensive, but who benefits from a healthy America? The subsidized corn growers? The food processing and manufacturing companies? The medical industry? The antibiotic and hormone industry? None of these groups want Americans to eat healthy, and it's obvious through their lobbying efforts. It's obvious because people continue to defend their right to eat whatever they want, regardless of impact. It's the American way- I'm going to do what I want, when I want, and I don't care if this system undermines food policies around the whole world AND destroys my health and the health of my children.
Who buys junk and uses it wisely? What is the very definition of the word junk?
"The food we put into our stomachs is enough to have killed most of us sitting here years ago. Red meat is awful. Soft drinks corrode your stomach lining. Chinese food is loaded with MSG. High fat diets can be disastrous, and none of us realize the long-term harm caused by the germs in our drinking water." The doctor paused for effect before continuing.
"But there is one thing that is the most dangerous of all, and we all have eaten it, or will eat it. Would anyone care to guess what food causes the most grief and suffering for years after eating it?"
After several seconds of quiet, an old man in the front row raised his hand and said,
"Wedding Cake?"
There is no right to avail yourself of the labors of others, which is what food stamps represent. Someone had to work and make enough to pay taxes that is then used to pay for food stamps. Even now they cannot legally buy beer or wine. So some restrictions apply.
A good analogy would be a family where one or both parents earn a living and provide the food clothing and shelter for their children. Those parents, the bread winners, can and do decide what their children can eat and what they cannot eat. The dependent children do not get to say where the earnings are spent (unless the parents are weak and needy).
When taxpayers are paying the bills, then we, through our representatives, get to tell food stamp recipients what they can and cannot purchase with food stamps that we paid for.