Coke, PepsiCo Lobby to Keep Sugary Sodas in Food-Stamp Program
wsj.com
wsj.com
I understand the idea of what they are going for here with trying to push people to buy healthier items which on paper sounds like a good thing.
At the same time I feel like people should be able to make their own decisions and if you are already having a hard time, why not be able to get a small treat with a soda or something? If they looked at the numbers and decided that they could get it with the money they had.
Not exactly siding with the companies here, since they are only doing this for profits and not any positive goal. But just the core idea of saying food stamps can't be used on something.
Edit:
I really don't care to reply to every comment so just going to add this here.
Regarding Alcohol: TBH I don't have strong feelings on this, I just feel like it is a fairly easy to show a difference between food/drinks and alcohol. Age restrictions licenses, etc. But, at the end of the day if alcohol was the line I don't think we need to die on that hill to justify saying someone having a hard time can't get a treat.
This goes back to judging (and making) other people's health decisions and punishing people that are just trying to get by.
I feel like it is an easy argument to make to say, if you can safely make the assumption that it is a consumable item and any random grocery store would sell it. It should be covered. Alcohol (especially depending on the state you live in if they severely restrict licenses) does not fit that category.
This varies state to state.
Fixed that for ya.
Is this satire? "The government should pay for your diabetes syrup cause you're having a hard time and want a small treat?" Sorry no, that is akin to tax payer funded booze, cigarettes, or drugs.
If you're on food stamps? Yes. Next question.
The program has always placed restrictions on what you are allowed to purchase with food stamps.
For instance, already prepared food from a supermarket deli is certainly food, but doesn't qualify for purchase.
But it's everyone who chips in for food stamps and healthcare.
The correct amount of "waste" for any system is not zero.
Roads and cars aren’t food. I am not sure what the merits of this analogy are beyond the fact that both are publicly provided goods funded by taxes which use is regulated by the government by virtue of that fact.
Not to dive too far down the “is a burrito a sandwich” rabbit hole, but it is interesting to think about this—a bottle of soda and a bottle of wine really aren’t that far apart: caloric, low-nutrient beverages whose primary purpose is pleasure and that cause some subset of the population to be unable to moderate their intake. Not advocating for government sponsored wine so much as exploring the idea of “what is food?” Soda barely qualifies, in my view. Really beer or wine may actually be a bit more food-like.
That said I agree that strict lifestyle prescriptions for people getting assistance are more often a kind of moral high horse than a useful policy.
> That said I agree that strict lifestyle prescriptions for people getting assistance are more often a kind of moral high horse than a useful policy.
Honestly, yeah. Just look at the comments.
So many of us take it for granted that if we want to "waste" money on a candy bar, or some other stupid little thing that gives us a few minutes of joy... we just can and barely give it a second thought.
You actually got me thinking looking at some of the nutrition labels on some of the alcohol I have in my fridge and honestly, I could see the argument. At the end of the day it should the their decision and trying to draw arbitrary lines due to health or whatever just isn't helping anyone, likely just leading to embarrassment or anger when they accidently add something to their cart that isnt covered.
Guilty. I don't feel strongly enough about this to really give anybody a hard time that uses their food stamps for it.. it's their choice, I'll roll my eyes and move on. It's just an opinion I have on the matter. I don't think what people buy with their food stamps is anywhere near a big enough problem to prioritize over most other things.
Of course even better would be public funding to medically supervise those alcoholics, but maybe that won't work for the ones that aren't ready to quit, so some form of basic public assistance to afford alcohol might still make sense. I'm not sure. But I am sure that nobody dies from abruptly quitting soda.
Summary from the link:
"It is well known that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese or suffer from diabetes; there is a strong negative correlation between household income and both obesity and diabetes. This negative correlation, however, has only developed in the past 30 years, according to researchers. Since 1990, the rise of obesity and diabetes was fastest among the poorest US regions."
So the decision to not allow total junk food appears to be a good one from possible data. Education about the low nutritional value and health harm of overconsumption of sugar-based drinks and foods could also help.
Personally I would not have a problem with diet and sugar-free drinks and foods being eligible for food stamps.
On the topic of “treats”, like soda or candy bars, the general takeaway I have after my experiences is that these should be allowed in moderation (say, a fixed price cap per period for non-nutritious treats like candy and soda), but that the actual implementation doesn’t allow for that sort of granularity in most states (and those that can, often aren’t allowed to due to the rules governing the food stamps programs). Everyone should be able to treat themselves, after all, regardless of income.
The problem that arises with a lack of granularity is dependence and abuse: sugar is highly addictive, which sodas are almost entirely comprised of (after water), and alcohol/tobacco are also addictive and habit-forming. So forced within the constraints of the program and its funding, the decision was made to just flatly ban the use of food stamp money for those goods. It’s the same rationale that prohibits the use of food stamps for prepared foods, like a deli sandwich (don’t want folks eating out at restaurants, even though for disabled folks on food stamps, they may be unable to prepare healthy food themselves).
Which is all a roundabout way of saying: welcome to what happens when your country doesn’t meaningfully continue regulating and modernizing its assistance programs to fit with changing market conditions. The soda companies see the potential cash on the table with food stamps for themselves, and obviously want to take taxpayer money to inflate their revenues somewhat. A reasonable government would push back given the glut of studies about sugary drinks and foods and their health consequences, maybe capitulating or compromising in the form of a “spending cap” on those goods from a food stamps budget (say, 5%). Combined with an incoming administration that’s both nakedly hostile to the poor and wholly pro-business, and this will almost certainly go through.
As always, the answer is moderation. If you’re dependent upon the government for necessities to survive, then the government should have a say in what that money can be spent on. Food Stamps absolutely has room for modernization and improvement, but it’s far more granular when you get into the issues at hand.
edit: hah, someone's done the legwork: https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/
No drinks though. Looks like soda from a $2 2L bottle comes in at about 500cal/$, much lower than the leader in that list. Not sure how cheap one can get soda elsewhere though (from fountains etc).
Most of human history was lived by people with some amount of malnutrition. It's almost a default state of being alive. It's only since the broad cultivation of the Potato and after that, green revolution that allows us to grow enough food to technically feed everyone (and then throw half of it away because god forbid we help people survive rather than build a system that incentivizes dragon hording)
Obviously it's easy to speak from my perspective where I'm fortunate that I don't have to worry about accessing food.. but even when confronted with that my position remains unchanged. Maybe if you were arguing about healthy/neutral drinks I would feel different, but I've had enough people in my life develop obesity and diabetes from addiction to soda to regard it as marginally better for you than alcohol and tobacco.
I hope I live long enough to see society in this country start revolting against HFCS/sugar and excess sodium in our diets, it's death by diabetes and heart attacks/strokes.
In comparison, fast food like a 2-liter bottle of Coke or Pepsi provides about 450 calories per dollar, while a fast-food hamburger provides about 100. While the corn syrup lobby and fast food industrial systems are strong, they're not even close to being a cost-effective way to feed yourself.
Actually I'm starting to like this idea of banning sugar and maybe some other ingredients, would get rid of a lot of garbage in our diets.
Also, peanut butter is highly nutritious, even with some amount of added sugar.
I qualified form them after I was out of poverty, but a lot.
Unfortunately, it's not improving.
Perhaps it's time to means test government assistance for private companies as well?
If you are a billion dollar company, should you still qualify for ongoing government subsidies?
At some point, we should draw the line, just as we currently do with individuals seeking assistance.
I doubt it will ever happen but it would probably help with our obesity rates among children.
Like many people here, I hate to tell others what they should and shouldn't do in their lives. But the evidence is pretty clear (and not just from my personal experience) that sodas should not be a staple of anyone's diet, and should be actively avoided. If you're going to drink one - regard it as a treat. Like a candy bar.
That the soft drink companies are engaging in rent-seeking behavior (like the tobacco industry did) is also a sign that they shouldn't be on the list of allowed purchases.
Because... it makes you hungry and so you eat more calories from other sources? When I'm cutting, diet soda is a godsend. The carbonation acts like a pseudo fiber and keeps me full.
Have we? The "education approach" seems to have worked for cigarettes[0]
But we haven't used that approach for sugary drinks. And the results show that[1].
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cig...
Pay for it yourself if you don't like it.
It's embarrassing for this country that a lawyer that has spent decades ripping off deranged activists is nonchalantly described as a serious health advocate.
Sugary slope.
It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.
It is absolutely true that food deserts exist in the US and they tend to occur most often in the poorest areas. But eliminating soda, candy, and such from the food stamp program is one good way to give them a lift nutritionally. Which in some cases can translate into a lift out of poverty.
When your welfare programs perpetuate and reward patterns that keep people in poverty it's fine to blame the program. Asking tax payers to pay for other people's bad habits is bad. The purpose of these programs should be to help them make forward progress. It should not be to subsidize a continued fall into deeper poverty.
- This is asking what the government should buy on behalf of poor people, not saying "go" or "no go" on a product or a proposal to ban anything.
> It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.
Ha, my rather unique cousin was over my shoulder reading this and she just had to chime in on your comment. Here's what she said:
"I can silly slippery slope too, watch me. Government already is deeply involved in intimate and potentially life-threatening medical decisions, so honestly we are closer to any requirement to eat Soylent Green than you think."
I can't wait until I get my own house and some peace and quiet finally.