SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1- Thanks RFK!

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Starting Thursday, Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new restrictions on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are the first of at least 18 states to enact waivers prohibiting the purchase of certain foods through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.


It’s part of a push by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to urge states to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program -- long known as food stamps -- that serves 42 million Americans.

SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1

Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new limits starting Thursday on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits

abcnews.go.com

This is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on. This is great work by Robert F Kennedy Junior. We have an obesity problem in America one of if not the most obese country in the developed world. And obesity affects poor people more than other groups.

SNAP is a pro American and yes, a pro Christian program. Helping poor people this is just the way forward. Especially children of drug addicted parents. But SNAP recipients should be eating healthy food with lots of protein and nutrients. Fresh food, fresh fruit, milk. Beef and chicken.

There’s still a lot of work to do wrt making America healthy again. Like addressing the fast food industry. But This is a step in the right direction.

 

[scruffy]

SNAP users can buy fast food at KFC or McD's or just about anywhere. No one asks if the meal contains a Pepsi

 

[forkup]

Starting Thursday, Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new restrictions on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are the first of at least 18 states to enact waivers prohibiting the purchase of certain foods through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.


It’s part of a push by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to urge states to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program -- long known as food stamps -- that serves 42 million Americans.

SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1

Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new limits starting Thursday on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits

abcnews.go.com

This is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on. This is great work by Robert F Kennedy Junior. We have an obesity problem in America one of if not the most obese country in the developed world. And obesity affects poor people more than other groups.

SNAP is a pro American and yes, a pro Christian program. Helping poor people this is just the way forward. Especially children of drug addicted parents. But SNAP recipients should be eating healthy food with lots of protein and nutrients. Fresh food, fresh fruit, milk. Beef and chicken.

There’s still a lot of work to do wrt making America healthy again. Like addressing the fast food industry. But This is a step in the right direction.

Just out of curiosity. Where do you live, what state I mean?

I'm asking because I'm Belgian and my wife's American. She lived in New York. And what struck me on my first visit to the US is how expensive "healthy foods" are and how cheap processed junk food. This is over 20 years ago and in my experience that's been the case in every state in the US I've been to since.

This brought me to the conclusion that America's obesity problem isn't one of bad choices, but one driven by economics. The poorer you are the less you can spend on healthy foods.

Snap benefits are for these people. So I wonder. What's preventing these bans from turning an already bad problem of poverty and obesity into escalating into outright malnutrition?

To put it in perspective. My wife just bought me some lychee's imported fruit here. A bit over 2 pounds worth for 6 euro. 1 kilogram of oranges. (About 2 and a half pounds) 6 euro. Those are not the prices I encounter when in the US.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Just out of curiosity. Where do you live, what state I mean?

I'm asking because I'm Belgian and my wife's American. She lived in New York. And what struck me on my first visit to the US is how expensive "healthy foods" are and how cheap processed junk food. This is over 20 years ago and in my experience that's been the case in every state in the US I've been to since.

This brought me to the conclusion that America's obesity problem isn't one of bad choices, but one driven by economics. The poorer you are the less you can spend on healthy foods.

Snap benefits are for these people. So I wonder. What's preventing these bans from turning an already bad problem of poverty and obesity into escalating into outright malnutrition?

Folks can find reasonably priced fresh food. Like ground beef or ground pork or ground turkey. Sometimes you can find burger patties for a dollar each at certain places. I live outside the USA now but for almost all of my life I have lived in New York State.

Fresh fruit can be expensive but not all year and some places like ALDIs has low cost fruit.

SNAP still exists. There will not be malnutrition, but because of RFK Junior we will simply have more healthy Americans.

I would agree that obesity isn’t just because of bad choices. That is largely driving it but also the fact that the fast food industry is so popular and it is propped up by corporations and powerful interest groups.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

SNAP users can buy fast food at KFC or McD's or just about anywhere. No one asks if the meal contains a Pepsi

Plenty of issues to be addressed,

 

[forkup]

Folks can find reasonably priced fresh food. Like ground beef or ground pork or ground turkey. Sometimes you can find burger patties for a dollar each at certain places. I live outside the USA now but for almost all of my life I have lived in New York State.

Fresh fruit can be expensive but not all year and some places like ALDIs has low cost fruit.

SNAP still exists. There will not be malnutrition, but because of RFK Junior we will simply have more healthy Americans.

I would agree that obesity isn’t just because of bad choices. That is largely driving it but also the fact that the fast food industry is so popular and it is propped up by corporations and powerful interest groups.

Honestly, calling $1 burger patties “healthy options” is kind of peak American logic, cheap, convenient, and definitely not what most nutritionists would call healthy. It’s funny because it leans into every stereotype people have of Americans, but it also makes the point: the foods that are cheapest and easiest to buy are often the most processed and calorie-dense.

So when SNAP tries to “fix” diets by banning candy and soda, it’s tackling a symptom, not the root cause. Until genuinely healthy foods are affordable and accessible, people are still stuck choosing between cheap calories and hunger..

I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to tie your premise to economic reality.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Honestly, calling $1 burger patties “healthy options” is kind of peak American logic, cheap, convenient, and definitely not what most nutritionists would call healthy. It’s almost funny, but it also makes the point: the foods that are cheapest and easiest to buy are often the most processed and calorie-dense.

So when SNAP tries to “fix” diets by banning candy and soda, it’s tackling a symptom, not the root cause. Until genuinely healthy foods are affordable and accessible, people are still stuck choosing between cheap calories and hunger..

I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to tie your premise to economic reality.

Yes, the poor will always be disadvantaged in their dietary health choices. It is important to educate citizens but also.government must try and do a good job.to decrease the ease in which such foods can hit the shelves. It is a challenge as food.lobbyists are powerful from what I have heard from via youtube videos.

 

[Mac1958]

Honestly, calling $1 burger patties “healthy options” is kind of peak American logic, cheap, convenient, and definitely not what most nutritionists would call healthy. It’s almost funny, but it also makes the point: the foods that are cheapest and easiest to buy are often the most processed and calorie-dense.

So when SNAP tries to “fix” diets by banning candy and soda, it’s tackling a symptom, not the root cause. Until genuinely healthy foods are affordable and accessible, people are still stuck choosing between cheap calories and hunger..

I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to tie your premise to reality.

Your question is excellent, and it's a complicated issue. Far too many Americans are FAT, and from what I've seen, we've begun to spread spread that globally. And there is a critical macroeconomic component to this, as our massive obesity problem spreads directly to our insane health care costs (regardless of who is paying them), particularly heart disease.

If Americans were not so tribal and were capable of working together -- which is obviously no longer the case -- we would concentrate on EXACTLY what you're talking about: Making cultural, educational and product changes that required decreased fatty food processing and emphasizing the basics and rewarding smart, affordable choices. Such changes would certainly require government mandates and increased regulation. In other words, some of the shit Americans eat would no longer be available and would have to be replaced.

That's just the simplistic, big picture. It wouldn't be easy. It would require changes of cost structure. The details would have to be worked out through leadership, cooperation and collaboration, all of which we no longer have.

 

[forkup]

Yes, the poor will always be disadvantaged in their dietary health choices. It is important to educate citizens but also.government must try and do a good job.to decrease the ease in which such foods can hit the shelves. It is a challenge as food.lobbyists are powerful from what I have heard from via youtube videos.

They are powerful. And I’d go a step further: the way the U.S. runs elections, in my view, creates a whole host of these problems in the first place.
If it takes millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars to get elected, and that money is made available largely by major corporations, policy will almost inevitably skew toward corporate interests rather than the general population. That’s true regardless of the promises politicians make on the campaign trail.

That’s why issues like food policy so often end up focused on individual behavior, what poor people should eat, instead of addressing the economic and political structures that shape what food is cheap, available, and heavily marketed in the first place.

 

[eagle1462010]

Such changes would certainly require government mandates and increased

Which is we are your DADDY and do as we are told logic of the left.

You are here BY ORDERED TO COMPLY OR ELSE.

That us why your Complaibts and LABELS ARE REJECTED. Because you have lost your way on the CONCEPT OF FREEDOM.

Govt should Advise and not order better eating habbits.

And those getting assistance should get survival food versus luxury food as paid by the tax payers.

One solution is STOP PAYING FARMERS NOT TO FARM. And prebuy that foid to SNAP instead.

 

[forkup]

Your question is excellent, and it's a complicated issue. Far too many Americans are FAT, and from what I've seen, we've begun to spread spread that globally. And there is a critical macroeconomic component to this, as our massive obesity problem spreads directly to our insane health care costs (regardless of who is paying them), particularly heart disease.

If Americans were not so tribal and were capable of working together -- which is obviously no longer the case -- we would concentrate on EXACTLY what you're talking about: Making cultural, educational and product changes that required decreased fatty food processing and emphasizing the basics and rewarding smart, affordable choices. Such changes would certainly require government mandates and increased regulation. In other words, some of the shit Americans eat would no longer be available and would have to be replaced.

That's just the simplistic, big picture. It wouldn't be easy. It would require changes of cost structure. The details would have to be worked out through cooperation and collaboration, two skills we no longer have.

I can only speak for Belgium. But at the moment it's still cheaper to have an actual meal. Starch, protein, vegetable that you make yourself then going to McDonald's.

The government also I think is better in supporting organized sports throughout our lives. Things like doing club sports is available and subsidized, directly and by tax breaks. And even then we do see a rise in obesity. Which I suspect is caused by a more sedentary lifestyle.

 

[Mac1958]

I can only speak for Belgium. But at the moment it's still cheaper to have an actual meal. Starch, protein, vegetable that you make yourself then going to McDonald's.

The government also I think is better in supporting organized sports throughout our lives. Things like doing club sports is available and subsidized, directly and by tax breaks. And even then we do see a rise in obesity. Which I suspect is caused by a more sedentary lifestyle.

Yeah, great points.

It's my guess that our processed food problem is FAR more a function of convenience than cost. That's where cultural changes would have to happen, and that would include just being more physically active.

 

[forkup]

Which is we are your DADDY and do as we are told logic of the left.

You are here BY ORDERED TO COMPLY OR ELSE.

That us why your Complaibts and LABELS ARE REJECTED. Because you have lost your way on the CONCEPT OF FREEDOM.

Govt should Advise and not order better eating habbits.

And those getting assistance should get survival food versus luxury food as paid by the tax payers.

One solution is STOP PAYING FARMERS NOT TO FARM. And prebuy that foid to SNAP instead.

Dude the whole premise is about the Trump Administration, MANDATING what people should eat or drink.

 

[toobfreak]

Starting Thursday, Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new restrictions on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are the first of at least 18 states to enact waivers prohibiting the purchase of certain foods through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.


It’s part of a push by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to urge states to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program -- long known as food stamps -- that serves 42 million Americans.

SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1

Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new limits starting Thursday on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits

abcnews.go.com

This is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on. This is great work by Robert F Kennedy Junior. We have an obesity problem in America one of if not the most obese country in the developed world. And obesity affects poor people more than other groups.

SNAP is a pro American and yes, a pro Christian program. Helping poor people this is just the way forward. Especially children of drug addicted parents. But SNAP recipients should be eating healthy food with lots of protein and nutrients. Fresh food, fresh fruit, milk. Beef and chicken.

There’s still a lot of work to do wrt making America healthy again. Like addressing the fast food industry. But This is a step in the right direction.

Well, all I can say is that I hope RFK comes up with better ideas than this, because not only won't this accomplish anything for anyone nor save us a dime, but the idea of a government trying to control what other people eat which is purely arbitrary not resulting in any kind of health benefit for the people nor any savings of money and will hurt some industries totally innocent, yet doing it anyway just because they could to many of these people who have no choice but to depend on these programs is a place I'd rather not see a government go to, too late we will realize this was the last bastion of freedom we had and just threw it away.

One by one, dot gov has federalized every aspect of our lives now.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, great points.

It's my guess that our processed food problem is FAR more a function of convenience than cost. That's where cultural changes would have to happen, and that would include just being more physically active.

I think it's about cost. To be honest. I illustrated it by pointing out what Jackson touted as healthy options. It's simply more efficient to process the food. Since it increases profit margins.

 

[shockedcanadian]

They are powerful. And I’d go a step further: the way the U.S. runs elections, in my view, creates a whole host of these problems in the first place.
If it takes millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars to get elected, and that money is made available largely by major corporations, policy will almost inevitably skew toward corporate interests rather than the general population. That’s true regardless of the promises politicians make on the campaign trail.

That’s why issues like food policy so often end up focused on individual behavior, what poor people should eat, instead of addressing the economic and political structures that shape what food is cheap, available, and heavily marketed in the first place.

Yes,.but surely parents know apples and bananas are a better option than chips but they will buy chips often. It is a complicated wubject involving uneducated parents, costs, convenience even addiction as junk food is known to appease someones anxiety etc.

 

[eagle1462010]

Dude the whole premise is about the Trump Administration, MANDATING what people should eat or drink.

No it isnt. People on SNAP are receiving tax payer assustance so they dont STARVE. If they want CANDY, SODA, BOOZE, then they need to find a way to EARN money to buy it.

Its just not on the taxpayers dime.

 

[Mac1958]

I think it's about cost. To be honest. I illustrated it by pointing out what Jackson touted as healthy options. It's simply more efficient to process the food. Since it increases profit margins.

It may just depend on what's being purchased. Junk food is a one-time, unwrap-it-and-eat-it cost, whereas buying individual ingredients can create multiple meals or snacks. I've never taken out a calculator on this, but it's always been my impression that the per-meal, per-person cost is lower that way.

That's the way I was raised. And as often as possible, we make the preparation of the food a social time rather than a pain.

 

[forkup]

Yes,.but surely parents know apples and bananas are a better option than chips but they will buy chips often. It is a complicated wubject involving uneducated parents, costs, convenience even addiction as junk food is known to appease someones anxiety etc.

I never claimed it wasn't complicated. And all the things you mention play a part. But if having a banana as a snack costs 1 dollar ( just giving a number) and a bag of chips can serve as a snack for all your children for the same price,I'm sorry to say but a lot of people will go for the second option.

I'm a parent. We don't have soda in the house unless we're having company. But I won't claim my daughter never eats junk food. And she doesn't really eat fruit. No matter how much I tried to get her to. Getting her to eat vegetables was a struggle that took years. I succeeded in some, failed in others and don't consider myself a failure because of it.

 

[forkup]

It may just depend on what's being purchased. Junk food is a one-time, unwrap-it-and-eat-it cost, whereas buying individual ingredients can create multiple meals or snacks. I've never taken out a calculator on this, but it's always been my impression that the per-meal cost is lower that way.

That's the way I was raised. And as often as possible, we make the preparation of the food a social time.

Maybe you should take out a calculator. I'm actually curious myself since we've decided to not come to the States anymore as long as Trump is in office. Since we suspect that my activity on this forum risks me not being allowed to enter or even being detained.(Not sure the fear is warranted)

Calculate what the cheapest healthy meal is that you can make and compare it to junk food alternatives and let me know.

I know what the calculation was for me last time I was in Florida visiting the in-laws