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

[forkup]

The specific point I made was that in today’s modern age of Internet it’s actually quite easy to research cheap and healthy recipes. That includes tasty food.

Sorry I misrepresented your position then. It was accidental. Read post 100. It responds to this point.

 

[Nostra]

IMHO, they need to be required to go to a food bank and spend it there. Maybe having to make an effort, and eat real food, will get them off their lazy asses and get a job.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

healthy foods are not more expensive in the USA,,

I can eat for far longer on them than any processed food that burns out of my system quicker than the real food,,

 

[JoeB131]

lol....Are you serious? You're literally bitching because we are promoting ideas to make healthier choices....You just can't make up the stupidity that you type in here.

Wait now, if you were about healthier choices, you'd be about banning unhealthy food for everyone, not just poor people.

The bottom line is that being healthy is a choice, right? But, we don't need artificial dye's, sweeteners, and chemicals in our foods that are causing a health crisis, in the name of convenience, and profit, right? So, if RFK can get rid of say cancer causing dye's in foods, that's a good thing, no?

No, it's not. If dyes are really causing cancer, then that's a civil matter for the courts.

This has nothing to do with Bobby Brainworm letting red states punish poor people.

 

[j-mac]

It’s that first sentence I struggle with, the idea that being healthy is primarily a choice.
In the abstract, yes, people make choices. But in practice, especially in the U.S., those choices are tightly constrained by cost, time, stress, and availability.

For someone working multiple jobs, relying on SNAP, and living in an environment saturated with cheap, calorie-dense food, “just choose better” isn’t a neutral proposition, it’s a luxury position.

You can technically eat rice, beans, oats, and bananas. You can technically exercise after a long shift. But framing health this way ignores basic human behavior and economic reality. When healthy options require more time, money, energy, and planning than unhealthy ones, outcomes stop being about choice and start being about structure.

That’s why the “personal responsibility” framing is so appealing: it allows only marginal changes while leaving the underlying system untouched.

On the second point, I agree with you, removing genuinely harmful substances like carcinogenic dyes is a good thing. But it’s also limited. It improves the quality of bad food without changing why bad food dominates in the first place.

My concern isn’t that RFK’s proposals are harmful in isolation, although some of his proposals undoubtedly are; it’s that they risk being treated as a solution when they don’t alter the economic incentives that drive diet and health outcomes, especially for the poorest Americans.

I get the feeling that you think that the solution can be had in the stroke of a pen, instantly....That's just not true...Too many moving parts....

And, it is absolutely a choice to have healthy options. For instance, Oreo's were brought up....So, you're at the store, and you have the choice to buy a pack of Oreo's for $6, OR Fresh Strawberries, and short cake mix for $6....Which one is healthier?

 

[j-mac]

Wait now, if you were about healthier choices, you'd be about banning unhealthy food for everyone, not just poor people.

No one is 'banning' anything. We are just saying that if the taxpayer is going to buy your food for you, that you have to NOT buy the junk. We do that with WIC for decades now, why not the broader program of SNAP?

No, it's not. If dyes are really causing cancer, then that's a civil matter for the courts.

lol....Oh yeah, take it to the courts...What a joke....

This has nothing to do with Bobby Brainworm letting red states punish poor people.

No one is punishing anyone....Telling you that you can't load up on Potato chips, and Coke with tax payer money, as your 10 year old tips the scale at 250 lbs. is saving your dumb ass....

 

[Anathema]

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

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..

No it’s NOT a Pro-American program. Being Pro-Christian isn’t a positive in my mind either.

I’m not against helping those who deserve it (probably less than 50% of those who get it)… by providing them with bags of healthy food on a weekly basis. Nothing more.

 

[JoeB131]

No one is 'banning' anything. We are just saying that if the taxpayer is going to buy your food for you, that you have to NOT buy the junk. We do that with WIC for decades now, why not the broader program of SNAP?

So let's punish poor people for being poor.

Shit, why don't we put a speaker in stores screaming "SHAME, SHAME" when someone uses the EBT Card?

lol....Oh yeah, take it to the courts...What a joke....

Good point. When you don't have any evidence, you can't win in court.

No one is punishing anyone....Telling you that you can't load up on Potato chips, and Coke with tax payer money, as your 10 year old tips the scale at 250 lbs. is saving your dumb ass....

If a 10 year old weighs 250Lbs, it's a genetic problem, not a dietary one.

Let's be honest ,you just hate those poor people being in line ahead of you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That works fine and all, but here's the thing.

Most of the poorer areas are "Food Deserts". The big old food chains don't set up, and the only places that do are immigrant-run mom-and-pop stores.

Do you think they are going to take the time to reprogram all their cash registers?

There's a reason why only five states are going along with Bobby Brainworm's brilliant plan.

"Do you think they are going to take the time to reprogram all their cash registers? "

Absolutley.

Small business POS systems from Square, Clover, Shopify, Lightspeed, or Epos Now already provide POS sales and inventory:

• Bar Code scanning on the package for cost of an item,
• Integration in to various electronic Credit/Debit/Payment systems,
• Provides of "Credit Service" upcharging for business not willing to absorbe credit transactions fees (IOW, they expect the customer to pay additional for such convenience),
• Intgegration of sales and inventory tracking,
• The inventory system not only tracks quanity, it tracks what items are SNAP eligibile,
• Computation of State and Local tax requirements for the purchase,
• Integration with various small business accounting software packages automating payments and reporting requirements both at the federal, state, and local level.

This is not pie-in-the-sky future tech, this is what small stores are already using.

The cost/benefit equation in this realm is huge, failure to use it actually costs the business way more money in terms of costs associated with labor, tracking, reporting, state compliance, etc.

This is because:

• Most businesses are honest and will comply with the law,
• Most businesses are not going to risk their buisiness license by knowing committing fraud,
• Most businesses are not going to risk prison by knowing committing fraud,

WW

 

[scruffy]

A pound of rice costs between $0.50 and $2.00.
A pound of Oreos costs $4.04

One of those is healthier than the other.

And lasts longer.

 

[j-mac]

So let's punish poor people for being poor.

It’s not a punishment to restrict junk food.

Shit, why don't we put a speaker in stores screaming "SHAME, SHAME" when someone uses the EBT Card?

I’d be good with that if it stopped generational welfare…But, a more productive method would be limiting welfare to career training, and job placement. Then once job placement is achieved, cut the benefits.

Good point. When you don't have any evidence, you can't win in court.

No, you think the courts are supreme arbiters…I thought you didn’t want King’s?

If a 10 year old weighs 250Lbs, it's a genetic problem, not a dietary one.

Oh, you’re a doctor now?

Let's be honest ,you just hate those poor people being in line ahead of you.

Not at all. If people need a helping hand, I’m all for it. But, I’m against leeches.

 

[JoeB131]

This is because:

• Most businesses are honest and will comply with the law,
• Most businesses are not going to risk their buisiness license by knowing committing fraud,
• Most businesses are not going to risk prison by knowing committing fraud,

Okay, let's get real.

First, only five of the most regressive states are even doing this at all.

Now, my local grocery has a "EBT Fraud is a crime" sign up front. But I watch people use their EBT cards, and no one is double checking IDs or anything like that.

Back when I was in the NG< we had this one Sergeant who would trade Food Stamps for Cash at 50 cents on the dollar. (He eventually got discharged because he was enjoying nose candy with his associates.)

 

[martybegan]

So let's punish poor people for being poor.

Shit, why don't we put a speaker in stores screaming "SHAME, SHAME" when someone uses the EBT Card?




Good point. When you don't have any evidence, you can't win in court.



If a 10 year old weighs 250Lbs, it's a genetic problem, not a dietary one.

Let's be honest ,you just hate those poor people being in line ahead of you.

Considering how long people remain on the dole, we should bring back shame with regards to nominally healthy people not wanting to take care of their own shit.

 

[Meathead]

Wait now, if you were about healthier choices, you'd be about banning unhealthy food for everyone, not just poor people.



No, it's not. If dyes are really causing cancer, then that's a civil matter for the courts.

This has nothing to do with Bobby Brainworm letting red states punish poor people.

By extension, perhaps we should include alcohol to SNAP benefits. Why should we deny drunkenness to people just cuz they're poor?

You get that you're an idiot, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, let's get real.

I have been real, the claim was (to paraphrase) that small shops wouldn't comply.

I disagree with that opinion. Will there be outliers? Sure. Will they risk prison and their business license? Sure.

Will they be the norm? Hell no, the vast majority will comply with the law.

First, only five of the most regressive states are even doing this at all.

Operative word is "first", more will likely adopt similar measures. Will it be 1/3 of the states? Half othe states? 75% of the states? All the states? To early to tell.

Now, my local grocery has a "EBT Fraud is a crime" sign up front. But I watch people use their EBT cards, and no one is double checking IDs or anything like that.

This isn't about "your local grocery". It's about the technology question of POS sales and inventory systems being able to differentiate between SNAP eligible and non-SNAP items.

The systems are already in place in current POS/Inventory systems.

WW

 

[Nostra]

Feed them rice and beans until they get a job.

 

[eagle1462010]

No I'm not. My wife and daughter are.

Thanks by the way for confirming my cruel xenophobe assertion.

Since you find the post worthy of laughing your ass off.

I personally don't think people denied entry for their opinions, or because a perverse fixation on transgenders as some kind of boogyman is all that funny. But then again I have decency.

I dont believe you as your wife could easily sponsor you.

I call BS

 

[XponentialChaos]

I have no problem with this. The government shouldn’t be handing out free Skittles and Mountain Dew to anyone.

I have no problem with assisting the needy with food staples: milk, water, juice, fruits, vegetables, meats, etc, but not soda and candy, sorry. We already have restrictions to SNAP that prevent them from purchasing alcohol and cigarettes. Soda and candy should also be restricted - either only allow a small amount of it each month or just take it out entirely.

This simultaneously forces people to make better health choices and gives them an incentive to get off SNAP. If you want your Skittles and Mountain Dew, then you can spend your own money on it.

 

[Dekster]

Where there is a will there is a way. They'll figure out away around it because businesses who exploit them will figure out a way around it.

I do like the new rule that meat products must be american from cradle to grave to be labeled as a US product.

 

[Dorian Mode]

By extension, perhaps we should include alcohol to SNAP benefits. Why should we deny drunkenness to people just cuz they're poor?

You get that you're an idiot, right?

Bad idea, then the democraps will want cigarettes and fentanyl added to the benefits. I have a better idea. Start making increasing restrictions to SNAP until everybody is weened off of it and taking care of themselves. It's time to bring the family back and let families take care of families. Society should take care of society. The moronic democraps are so worried about authoritarianism yet have done everything possible to control every aspect of a person's life. The government is not capable of being everything to everyone. It's time to ween people off of government and get government off our backs.