Low-income Sacramento shoppers have been using funds from the state's food stamp program to buy grocery carts full of calorie-laded sweets and similar junk foods as well as impulse-counter candy, gum, and snacks such as chips. Now Senate Bill 471, legislation has been introduced again in order to cross junk food and soda pop off the shopping lists of clients using the publicly funded CalFresh program.
The bill, drafted in February, 2011 had a purpose: to ban the purchase of fast food, soda and a long list of products deemed unhealthy, including gelatin, pudding, frozen treats, muffins, pies, pretzels and popcorn. The list is based on nutritional standards approved for schools. What do you think, Sacramento shoppers? Do you feel that if that list is good enough for Sacramento schools, that it should be good enough for food and social assistance? What's your comment on SB 471?
Health advocates praise the bill. But others critize the bill's feasibility and fairness from others. In the mainstream media, shoppers have been told not to shop for food when hungry. But a lot of low-income Sacramento shoppers are hungry most of the day unless they're filling up on starchy foods such as fast-food fries or a back of chips. The sugar-crashes promote more ghrelin in the body, which makes shoppers even more hungry. And the round of sweets, chips, and soda bought on impulse from hunger, continues to cycle. The more insulin secreted when sweets and simple carbs are eaten, the more hungry many people become.
You've heard about the impact of the rising tide of type 2 diabetes and obesity among all age groups in Sacramento. But can a Nutrition Bill help stop junk nutrition in its tracks from being consumed by most Sacramentans and others in California? Check out today's Sacramento Bee article, by Torey Van Oot, May 10, 2011, "Rookie lawmaker takes legislative odyssey with food bill."
The question is what constitutes junk food versus which fast-food really is nutritious. For examples, are sandwiches made of avocado, cucumber, onion, Romaine lettuce, and olives from Sacramento chain fast-food eateries such asTogo's or Subway considered fast food? What about sandwiches made in food markets and groceries?
Do you categorize soda also as unsweetened carbonated water without coloring served in Sacramento's Jack in the Box eateries as soda? It's just carbonated water, not sweetened soda pop. And what about canned teas? The new bill that's just been introduced has been analyzed also by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations.
The money is suposed to emphasize eating nutritious food. But how do you ensure that's what's being purchased with taxpayer money? Should Sacramento shoppers be free to buy junk food with their own money or with the funds given to them by the state to by nutritious food as one more link in the chain to fight against obesity and type 2 diabetes in families?
Supporters, like the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, according to the Sacramento Bee article, praised the proposal as positive. After all people getting money from the government to buy nutritious food are restricted from buying alcohol, cigarettes, and dry goods. If you get food stamps, you have to buy food. But how nutritious must the food bee to qualify? That's the question.
Food-industry groups and the grocery industry don't like the bill. They believe, for the most part, you should be free to buy any kind of food you want in a food market. You have the anti-hunger and anti poverty groups on one side and the food industries on the other. And the food industry doesn't like the enforcement methods. There's a legal issue here. Why are CalFresh recipients being stigmatized and targeted? Why are low-income food shoppers being singled out for special attention, sometimes viewed as harassment? Should anyone be free to buy any type of food in a Sacramento supermarket as long as it's food--with the exception of alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and dry goods?
The Western Center on Law and Poverty has also raised concerns that if you're low-income you realistically don't have enough money to purchase food because of the rising price of nutritious food. So should you ban only sweet beverages?
In March, Rubio narrowed the bill to ban only the purchase of "sweetened beverages containing more than 10 calories per cup," excluding juice with no added sugar, and milk products. Changes to the CalFresh program, including restrictions on purchases, required permission from the federal government.
Now the issue goes back to what the US Dept. of Agriculture will do. Will they grant a waiver, and do they have the authority to do so? The legal question arises whether a change in federal law is needed. On top of that the measure is not accepted as is by various stakeholders.
Who do you turn to? Well, there's the County Welfare Directors Association of California if you're looking for an opinion. On the other hand, how to do ban certain types of foods that may or may not be nutritious? And how do you enforce a law on food items that some people think are nutritious and others say the opposite?
If you ban sodas, then do you also ban high-calorie chocolate milk or sweetened milk substitutes made from grains, nuts, or seeds? And do you ban low-sugar fruit juices, or fruit juice that has natural sugars that also can affect a baby's teeth if the juice is left in the baby's mouth where the sugar might cause decay, even though it's natural fruit sugars? You could check out the opinions of the California Grocers Association. But grocers don't want to lose income. Do the grocery associations think the plan is unworkable for supermarkets? Check out the Sacramento Bee article for the comments from the California Grocers Association.
Who wants to take the time (and money) to identify, evaluate and track the nutritional profile of (every) beverage, or beverage product, for purchase in the ever-changing marketplace? It's a debate for now. And the official debate won't make it to the Senate floor this year. Rubio pulled his legislation from an April committee agenda, making it one of scores of bills. You might check out the opinions of the California Restaurant Association. Do they want to lose money? How many food stamp recipients can afford to eat out in restaurants?
The CRA dropped its opposition when Rubio abandoned provisions targeting CalFresh purchases at fast-food restaurants, which can be made only by program recipients with disabilities or without access to food-preparation equipment. So you see how complicated it gets. How do you judge a program recipient with an invisible disability such as a heart ailment who purchases food at a fast-food restaurant? Will people buy what they like to eat anyway, regardless of a law that's difficult to enforce? Or is the answer to set new parameters for the bill?
The issue eventually will find a way to continue. Is it true that when it comes to nutrition, the more things change, the more they stay the same--when it comes to food that most people buy?
Comments