It appears that recipients of “food stamps” (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) “often have lower diet quality and higher rates of diet-related health issues compared to non-participants,” according to an article in healthjournalism.org.
“While it’s unclear whether SNAP directly causes these outcomes or if other factors are at play, some argue that the program, at minimum, sustains unhealthy eating habits by not restricting purchases of nutritionally poor foods.”
Among the “some” who argue for restrictions is Robert Kennedy, Jr., head of Health and Human Services. He promises to purge unhealthy foods from the subsidy list.
Currently, the taxpayer-funded “benefit” may “be used for ‘any food or food product intended for human consumption,’ except alcohol, tobacco and hot foods, including those prepared for immediate consumption. Critics argue that SNAP’s allowance for purchasing sugary snacks, soda and junk food promotes unhealthy eating habits, which can lead to obesity and other related health issues.”
The critics are undoubtedly correct; indeed, the proposed limitations will almost certainly be too tame.
If the program must exist, it should do good without enabling demonstrable harm. So instead of a cumbersome and extensive list of prohibited food items, there should be a concise list of allowed categories:
- uncooked meats and dairy products without added sugars
- fresh, frozen, dried, and canned beans, fruits and vegetables
- staple ingredients of traditional meals, such as flour, spices, and oils
Some rail against any idea of restricted benefits, but government handouts are not there to expand the “freedoms” of the poor; they are provided to help folks weather hard times.
The freedoms of taxpayers have already been sacrificed for their sake. Forcing taxpayers to watch SNAP’s EBT card users in the grocery line buying candy and sodas adds insult to the benefactors while injuring the beneficiaries.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Fireflly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Oh, SNAP!”
The food-stamp programme has been sold to the general public as a relief programme for the poor, but incidence of the benefits is shared between impecunious consumers and producers. The latter were the group of original concern, which is largely why the programme is managed by the US Department of Agriculture.
I do not expect firms such as Ferrero International SpA to risk the blowback that might result from lobbying to maintain subsidies for products such as Vienna Fingers, but food-product manfacturers delivering a broader range of products can engage in motte-and-bailey lobbying.
With Congress legislating by passing large bills that almost no one reads in entirety, getting these subsidies ended may prove quite difficult. Note that the hapless Republicans haven’t even managed to end Daylight-savings Time, and may indeed worsen the taking by making DST permanent.
The purpose of SNAP is not to ensure that poor people eat healthy — or for that matter eat at all. That’s not the purpose, it’s the excuse.
The purpose of SNAP is to deliver taxpayer subsidies to Big Ag, which is just as involved in making candy bars and soda as it is in making carrots and ribeye.
Of course, Big Ag is opposed to the use of SNAP at restaurants where a bigger cut of the take goes to to non-Big-Ag players like chefs and servers than is the case at grocery stores, but that’s just the way government subsidies go — other potential beneficiaries want “their piece of the action.”
I believe Oliver Anthony said it best in his song “Rich Men North of Richmond”
“Well, God, if you’re five-foot-three and you’re three-hundred pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of Fudge Rounds”