What do you think about the idea that the government in Sacramento might prevent by law food stamp recipients from buying junk eats with food stamps? The goal would be to prevent people who receive health care benefits from tax payer dollars and from the government's medical programs from getting themselves sick.
Under the current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, recipients in a family of four can spend up to $668 a month. They aren't allowed to buy nonfood items like alcohol, tobacco, soap, toothpaste and pet food. If the government limits the program only to nutritious foods, California would encourage healthier choices and reduce health care costs shouldered by taxpayers. Do you think the government should define which foods are healthy? Or is that a matter for each individual tailoring specific foods to his or her body's response to a particular group of foods?
Junk food could be defined by the government as anything eaten at fast-food eateries such as burgers, fries, and chicken nuggets, sweets, or snack food bought in food markets. The government is saying that if poor people eat too much junk food bought with food stamps, the results mean taxpayers would also have to pay for high health care costs from treating people on food stamps. This also represents money from the government funded by taxpayers.
Although people on food stamps don't really get stamps, the little plastic debit card allows them to buy food on a tight budget. And the food 'stamps' or 'card' is paid for by taxpayers, although the card is issued by the government.
The definition of junk food so far has not been written as law. But you get a handle on what junk food might represent. It's what a lot of people buy in convenience stores and supermarkets in Sacramento and other California cities, usually chips, soda pop, cheese kernels popped by high heat, beef jerky, popcorn, cookies, candy, and anything else that looks like packaged and processed snack food and sweets.
Check out the Feb. 8, 2011 Californian article, "No Junk Food for Food Stamps, Rubio Says." Last month state Senator, Michael Rubio-D introduced legislation that would prohibit food stamps from being used to purchase "junk food" or prepared meals at fast-food restaurants.
Senator Rubio explained to mainstream media reporters, "The question is what should we be using taxpayer funds to purchase. In my opinion, we should be focusing on what people need, not what they want."
So, do you in Sacramento think that the government should focus on what people need? Or would you rather see people buy what they want? You have in this picture Sacramento children in public schools. Many of the children whose parents are on foodstamps also get free lunches and school. And some also get free breakfasts.
If school lunches have a way to go in order to become healthier because of budget cuts to food programs, from where are the kids getting their nourishment? Who's looking out for the children's nutrition? And if their parents don't eat well, how can they look out for their kids?
Are Sacramento's school breakfasts and lunches getting better foods to nourish the poorest kids? Some schools do have funds for added salad bars with more fixings. The government wants people who get food stamps to eat according to the foods found in the traditional food pyramid.
The government's food pyramic includes what most people on food stamps can't afford such as whole grain or gluten-free (if needed) breads and cereals, meats, fish, beans, nuts, dairy products and other protein sources, and lots of fruits and vegetables. But who can afford that on a food-stamp budget? And what about all those pesticides in the produce?
Most people on food stamps can't afford organic food. Are the people told where they can grow food in urban gardens open to the community? And that's seasonal. You're not going to grow tomatoes outdoors in the winter in Sacramento. How many people living in cramped apartments are growing foods indoors? Not many.
Rubio's idea is not yet an official Senate bill. But it came to light back in February 2011 when he appeared before the Fresno County Board of Supervisors to argue against a proposal that would have allowed disabled and homeless recipients in that county to use food stamps -- now accessed through a debit card -- to purchase restaurant foods.
In most grocery stores today, low-income Sacramentans receiving food stamps can buy any kind of food they want; soda, potato chips, candy-- all what many would consider junk food. How many buy chips, soda pop, and candy with their food stamp debit card and let their children eat two meals a day in Sacramento public school's free lunch and free breakfast programs? In the past how many people on food stamps also used their budgets to buy cigarettes and alcoholic beverages before being told to buy food with the money, food for their family.
Do most people on food stamps take their children to fast-food eateries to eat a super fries and burgers or do they buy organic Russet potatoes and prepare fresh potato salad at home? Most people on food stamps don't buy organic food unless the produce is priced at what they can afford to buy with the food stamp debit card. You have an obesity problem in Sacramento among young people and sometimes also with the parents of teenagers.
The notion is that low-income people eat more starchy filler foods such as white flour and sugar products, pasta, and foods that encourage weight gain because they can't afford the cost of vegetables and fruits. There's another problem in some low-income neighborhoods with the lack of supermarkets and numerous liquor stores and convenience food stores selling snacks. But that's where some of the urban community gardens are located where people can grow their own food in summer. What do people eat in winter and spring if they can't afford fruits and vegetables commonly seen in supermarkets?
They're on a tight food budget. How many people on food stamps take cooking lessons in healthy eating or in making healthier food substitutions for familiar but unhealthy ingredients that they can afford on their food budget? Bread, chips, pasta, pizza, fast-food chicken wings, and soda pop--lots of products make with white flour and sugar?
You'd have to visit homes of people on food stamps and see what they serve the family members on a tight budget. College students with little money to spend on food have long been known to eat 'Ramen' noodles several times daily. What about familes on food stamps? What you eat also affects the rate of your tooth decay. That's another expense for low-income families.
Now, if the government puts its 'foot' down to stop runaway health costs due to low-income families eating a junk food diet, what will the nutritional outcome be? Will health improve? Would you, in Sacramento urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allow California to develop its own list of acceptable foods?
Who is going to define junk foods? And what if for generations low-income people have been raised on what the government defines as junk food and would not be able to recognize or afford what the government defines as healthier food if they've never seen it prepared in their home early in their childhood?
The issue is the public is expending public money on food items that are contributing to the rising cost of health care funded through California state tax dollars. Do you think money rules or more specifically California has a particular interest in better managing the program?
Has anyone researched how California's various food banks distribute thousands of tons of food it receives across the state to local food shelves and other programs. How healthy is the government 'cheese' that so many people make jokes about. First you have to consider the percentage of people in Sacramento who use food stamps. And then you have to ask them whether or not the state should mandate what people eat. Is it a mistake? Or should man-made laws tell people what to eat to be healthier? Should California government limit food choices? That's not the way to teach people how to make better choices. You need free classes for people on food stamps to show them how to make healthier food choices on their food-stamp budget.
How do you feel about limiting food choices for only people who are low income? It assumes people are low income because they're not smart enough to make good food choices. That's a mistake. People are low income in most cases because they've lost their job or can't find employment. And it also creates a stigma on those families and their children who have to survive on food stamps until there's a change in the economy or they learn more skills and get work experience. Ask any shopper what that individual thinks.
Most people in Sacramento would ask low-income people to be more responsible about what they feed their families. But do you think responsibility should be a law, that the state should assume responsibility if the state thinks the family on food stamps is not able to take responsibility? Obesity is a problem with some people on food stamps who think they only can afford the starchy fillers that turn to sugar in their blood.
Who's teaching people on food stamps healthier food choices that they can afford? So far in a few other states, such as New York, measures to limit foods have failed. What do you think will happen for Californians when the issue goes to Washington DC in the near future? You have lots of food classes and cooking schools, but how many are free to those on food stamps or otherwise low-income or who have food-related health issues?
Comments