Can we rethink food stamps? Instead of nickel-and-diming the program with endless arguments about what should or shouldn't be paid for, and what is or isn't junk food, let's scrap it altogether and build it fresh.
The program (technically, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP) has become a subsidy for the calorie-dense, nutrition-challenged diet of processed food that has gotten us away from home cooking and played a big part in making us, as a nation, fat and sick. The problem is particularly acute for food stamp recipients, who eat fewer vegetables, fruits, and whole grains than the population as a whole, and drink a whole lot more soda.
It's hard to countenance using tax dollars to worsen an urgent public health problem, particularly when we might use those same dollars to mitigate it. Instead of underwriting our diet-as-usual, let's make food stamps both a safety net and an opportunity. We'll make sure nobody goes hungry and, at the same time, try to motivate and educate recipients to make some better choices.
Let's limit food stamps to staples, the building blocks of healthful, home-cooked meals. Here are my candidates:
We can argue about the specifics (and I hope we will), but you get the idea. It's food you cook with.
And, to help people cook with it, let's start a network of classes taught by volunteers from the food community -- an adjunct, perhaps, to Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign. I bet I'm one tweet away from a hundred other food pros who'd volunteer with me in a heartbeat. Given that it's un- or underemployment that's driven many families to food stamps, maybe we can put some of the freed-up time to good use.
It will still be emphatically possible to eat a calorie-dense, nutrition-challenged diet on a revamped SNAP, and nobody expects that our collective diet will be overhauled overnight. But we owe it both to taxpayers and to food stamp recipients to make the attempt. It means that SNAP enrollees won't have the same food choices as those who pay their own way, but, far from being an affront to dignity, I think this approach is an appeal to it. In good times and bad, our government will make sure those of us who are struggling have the means and the tools to put healthful, home-cooked meals on the table for our families. What parent -- what person -- would be insulted by that?
It is our obligation as a nation, and as a community, to feed the hungry among us. Let's try and feed them well.
Follow Tamar Haspel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TamarHaspel
Food Stamp Use Increasing at Greenmarkets in NYC
Frugal Living: Take the 'Food Stamp Challenge'
Guest commentary: Finding and ending food stamp fraud
Florida House panel rejects food stamp sweets ban
Orange woman charged with stealing from food stamps card
Food-Stamp Spending Seen Dropping in 2013 on Outlook for US Labor Market
SPLC raises food stamp issues with immigration law
Is it possible this is true because people receiving benefits are extremely poor and the benefits are not enough for them to be able to purchase many fruits and veggies or whole grains? A family of three cannot qualify for SNAP if they make more than $23,000 a year and the average benefit is $4.50 per day.
As the cost of processed foods has gone down and the price of other foods has gone up, it's not surprising that the idea that it's cheaper to eat processed foods has taken root. And, in a lot of cases, it's true. But not always. The real problem is that the whole foods that are cheap -- beans, rice, carrots, cabbage, potatoes, onions -- are not as appealing to most people as, say, mac and cheese or ramen noodles. Which brings us to the second problem, of telling people to eat one kind of food when they'd prefer another.
Changing food stamps doesn't tell people what to eat. It only tells people what they can buy with taxpayer money, with the hope that those restrictions can make a dent in a health problem that also has to be payed for with taxpayer money. The idea that it is disrespectful to food stamp recipients to limit spending to foods less likely to contribute to health problems seems out of place in a society where government spending almost always comes with restrictions. Housing vouchers restrict choices. Medicare and Medicaid restrict choices. VIrtually all federal dollars (with the notable exception of Social Security) come with standards that must be met and rules that must be followed. Why should SNAP be exempted?
You keep talking about "taxpayer money", well many on Food Stamps work and pay taxes too, so who are you to tell them what they can and cannot buy?
http://www.ebtcardbalance.com/
It you want people to live like you they have to have the same stuff as you.
Furthermore, I don't believe the author considered the increased costs to the taxpayer with the implementation of restrictions. "With tens of of thousands of items in stores, it's extremely hard for a grocer to separate out what's covered by the program and not covered under these rules," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit anti-hunger organization Food Research and Action Center.
If the president of one of the nation's leading anti-hunger organizations is not advocating for restrictions, it is not because this idea hasn't crossed his mind before.
This article is proof of how oblivious many are when it comes to what food insecurity looks and feels like. One doesn't change the eating habits of America by forcing the poor to buy more expensive food.
Have you priced meat, poultry, and fish recently? (fresh or frozen, unprocessed)?
Surely you jest.
I live on a bowl of oatmeal, with a spoon of sugar and dash of cinnamon, & 1/4 cup milk for breakfast.
A carrot salad and 15 or 16 doritos dipped in Pace Picante sauce for lunch.
A Hamburger w/mustard and pickles, & about 1/3 can of Pepsi for dinner.
2 slices of toast with a whiff of oleo, and a cup of hot chocolate for a snack.
A glass of 2% milk at bedtime.
OOOps. There went my monthly food stamps.
It's damn hard to make a food stamp allowance stretch to feed a family, but Doritos and Pepsi make it even harder. Chickpeas, pinto beans, and big pots of stews make it easier.
I occasionally make chili, but do not like beans and it is not as filling for as long as a hamburger. I'm actually a very good cook and once had a Restaurant in GR Michigan where Construction workers from Indiana came once a week for Steak. I spend $20 on a box of 30 frozen hamburgers. Made into chili, I would be lucky if they lasted a week.
Apparently you don't live on food stamps.