Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
02.07.12 - 1:07 PM
Let Them Eat Cake, But Only On Their Birthday If They Make It From Scratch
Assuming anyone who's poor enough to need help is too dumb to know what to eat or not eat, Florida Republicans want to bar food stamp recipients from using their debit cards to buy anything even remotely unhealthy - from chips to chocolate milk to a store-bought birthday cake for their kid. The pending bills would also require an education campaign to teach those aforementioned clueless poor people about "the benefits of a nutritious diet" and how they shouldn't spend their money "in the wrong places," like casinos and out of state. Intrusive and patronizing much? Alas, Florida's Food Stamp police are not alone.
Comments are closed
89 Comments so far
Show AllHow exactly does this fit the right's talking points of getting the gooberment out of our lives, and the nanny state?
Great question!
The nanny state is exemplfied by the existence of the food stamp program. Once the state starts to feed you, it will then eventually tell you what to eat, just as your parents told you what to eat when they were feeding you. If you want to eat as you see fit, better earn your own food. It fits the right's "talking points" exactly.
Well, if that's the reasoning then why are the Republicans shorts all twisted up over regulating the banks after they took bailout money from the nanny state?
Those same banks control the food stamp funds and record purchases. Then there is government surplus food that is supplied to Indian reservations. (note the diabetes rate is 7 times the national average) What is even weirder is they send in people to show the people living in these agricultural wastelands sustainable living.
I don't know, but the banks require regulation. It would be remarkable if finance were the one area of human activity that did not need to be subject to some law.
Is this really such a bad idea? Obesity is a serious health issue in the US and IMO why should tax payers be footing the bill for Doritos, moonpies and mtn dews? Also could have a positive impact of future health costs as well.
Besides, baking a cake from scratch isn't that difficult and will probable turn out better then some $10 special from your local supermarket that's more frosting then cake and always tastes like shit to begin with....
On the surface, I agree with you. After all, a bag of fresh potatoes costs the same as a bag of potato chips.
One big issue, however, is how to implement an educational program for recipients without turning it into a forced lecture by someone from THE STATE. Middle- and upper-class women (and a few men) pay big bucks to take cooking classes that teach them how to use fresh produce and make great food. Why not ditch the obnoxious, self-righteous taxpayer crap and OFFER free cooking classes to food stamp recipients and teens in lower income areas -- including trailer parks in the South and Midwest, where fresh produce can be quite cheap. Let people taste good fresh foods. Bring in chefs to talk about preparation. Take participants on a field trip to the farmers' market. Encourage the markets/farmers to be certified to accept EBT, if they aren't already.
Back in the day when the USDA Extension Services had a home economics program, cooking and nutrition classes were common, and they were welcomed by those who participated. Now, unfortunately, there are thousands of empty Extension demonstration kitchens being used as storerooms.
Not that I usually like anything Republicans push for, but don't worry: Frito-Lay, Coca-cola, Pepsico, etc. will see to it that such bills never make it into law. Afterall, they lobbied extensively to have their products eligible for purchase with food stamps and would definitely hate to lose revenue from any consumer base.
They certainly won't be happy with this.
France approves soda tax
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4bfda62c86eb3d04eb04662280f29975.41&show_article=1
France's top constitutional body on Wednesday approved a new tax on sugary drinks that aims to fight obesity while giving a boost to state coffers.
The Constitutional Council approved the new soda tax, announced in August as part of the government's fight against obesity and within the framework of a broader austerity programme, after it was passed in parliament last week.
We need something like this - something that reflects the real cost of these "cheap" foods on the environment and for the actual ingredients that go in them. Of course, that would decrease revenue for the big junk food corporations, as they lose consumers.
The premise of the food stamp program is that poor people are stupid and immoral - otherwise they would be granted cash.
Also, some of the debate fails to recognize that there are sometimes good reasons for soda, chocolate milk and other foods that come under attack. Ginger ale, for example, is often used during chemo and before colonoscopies. Chocolate milk is sometimes used by those who cannot tolerate white milk.
If fresh, organic foods were less expensive more people would have access to them. And, it can be difficult to make meals from scratch if you are working 3 jobs. This nation has an obsession with weight and body image. Health is important - not everyone has access to a gym, or bicycle, or safe walking paths. All of those activities take leisure time, which not everyone has.
There is also another point to consider, 'Food deserts'. If you have no access to a car or bus then getting to a supermarket or farmer's market can be very hard indeed. The multitude of fast food joints , gas stations and kwik-marts compounds the problem.
Aberfan... You make an important point that is too often ignored. It is pretty hard to make a good salad with what you can get at the gas station.
It's almost as if food deserts are intentional....
Poor suffering from Food deserts is no more concern to the far right than women with breast cancer. Once a Human being has cleared the birth canal, its life is of secondary concern to the rights deology.
"Fresh organic foods" are far more costly for the producer. These costs are simply being passed on to the consumer. If organic farmers/producers had to compete pricewise with corp ag, they'd all be out of business within a year.
I won't presume to speak for the poster...but perhaps by "organic" he/she was simply speaking of things grown from the earth...not fabricated in a lab.
Regardless..."organic"...or just grown in the ground...it's far more expensive, not just in the actual cost of the product but also because of it's shelf life.
Expecting that people on a limited/fixed income would be able to just saunter down to their local groceteria to grab a cart full of healthy food is exactly the sort of disattached rich-man thinking you'd expect from a idiot politician.
I see it all the time. I live not too far from a reserve here in Canada...and on "shopping day" the carts are filled with cheap products heavy in preservatives. had they bought nothing but "healthy" food their cart would be far less full...and they'd have to come back in 4 days...instead of the 2 weeks or month they have to wait for another cheque.
If the gov was truly interested in the health of it's citizens a 24 pack of pepsi would cost 30 bucks...a dozen donuts would cost 20....and the extra money would be given to farmers to offset the lowered cost of "healthy" food. They have no problem subsidizing the GMO corn producers so they can sell their corn below cost...but of course that's for feed lots...and all the producers of crap that put GMO corn in damn near everything....gawd forbid we do it so regular folks can have some quality nutrtion.
Great comment, swansong.
Thanks W.W.
Love your outfit :)
Thanks! : ) I get that all the time! : )
Yep, but on the other hand, if industrial agriculture had to pay for half the actual resources they use and couldn't externalise most of it, they'd be bankrupt in five seconds.
Exxxxxactly.
I (and some other commenters) made similar points a while ago here at CD, regarding food deserts and the heavy work schedules for those who are in the lower income bracket. However, in our haste to take a swipe at Republicans, we shouldn't let reactionary sentiments allow us to overlook the fact that the junk food industry is so deregulated here (compared with, say, Europe) that they can put pretty much anything they want into their cheap crap, and this takes a disproportinate toll on the health of those who can only afford to buy their crap. Artificial flavors and colors, preservatives (including excessive usage of salt), excess trans- and saturated fats and sugars, all impact human health detrimentally. These foods are also nutrient poor and have little fiber. European government regulation of food is often based on calculations that include the costs saved in the realm of public health. Stateside, since private health insurance companies have taken a lot of the cost-savings purpose (is that the right phrase? not sure) for safeguarding public health away from the government, the junk food industry has little opposition to getting what it wants, as well.
Also, how many people on food stamps even have access to chemo or have health care, to begin with? Yet, they most often live in the most polluted areas of this country - courtesy, yet again, of deregulation of private industries.
In a world where human beings are considered nothing more than commodities by corporations, to be used up and spit out after the corporate machine has extracted money and cheap labor from the vast majority of the middle class and poor, does it surprise anyone that the most affordable food is full of toxins, that the most affordable neighborhoods are also often the most dangerous and toxic, that so many people are allowed to go without access to adequate health care, or that so many citizens are being wrongfully imprisoned and used as the cheapest possible labor? CEOs don't care about consumers OR citizens, as long as their company's quarterly returns keep increasing. If a corporation can convince people to buy a bunch of cheap toxic crap, they aren't going to invest in making products (food items) that cost more up front. And, in the crudest possible calculation that can be made, at some point, the sheer number of consumers with wallets to plunder and workers with no rights negates the effects of mass (and toxic) consumption and work-related stress on life expectancy of those consumers. In other words: corporations don't care if a bunch of consumers get sick when there's a stead supply of other consumers to buy their goods. Nor do they care if a bunch of their workers get sick, when those workers can be easily replaced with more from a constant stream of ready-and-willing, desperate souls.
It's like MTR, but for humans - extract what is wanted, and just discard the rest. There's an abundance of the human (or mountain) resource to be abused.
"Chocolate milk is sometimes used by those who cannot tolerate white milk."
C'mon RJ. If someone is lactose intolerant adding chocolate syrup to the milk won't make it less of a problem for them.
ctrl-z... Sorry, I repectfully disagree. I know too many who get nauseated after white milk, but have no problem with chocolate milk.
Also, about sweet drinks. There have been studies showing that men who had kidney stones who drank Pepsi, had fewer reoccurances. The possible explanation is in the formula which includes citric acid and other compounds. And 1 ounce of Pepsi taken with 2 Anacin (caffiene and asprin) cures debilitating cluster headaches for some. I am not advocating that everyone drink soda. I am just trying to say that things are not always black and white (or chocolate and white) . (It does make me sad to see litttle children drinking soda - but there are no free refills on milk.)
Our tax dollars subsidize PepsiCola, CocaCola, MacDonalds, et al. Do a little research. Thus, by inference, the "government" (read-"big business") has no interest in subsidizing small organic farmers. Quite the contrary. Through government legislation, millions of small farmers have been put out of business.
Somewhat on the same tack, in 1973, Kissinger headed a meeting attended by Donald Kendall of Pepsico, et al., & told the assembly that Nixon was authorizing $10,000,000 to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende of Chile. This, they did, on September 11, 1973.
A bit far afield, but the above shows just one aspect of how our tax dollars go to make rich corporations richer.
Although this appallingly intrusive scheme happens to originate with reactionary Republicans, my guess is that it appeals to authoritarian nanny-state True Believers across the political spectrum.
An authoritarian or authoritarian-following faith in the power of the State can be found among progressives and liberals as well as reactionary social and political conservatives. It doesn't neatly conform to a linear left-right spectrum.
The term "Iiberal interventionists" is commonly used in a foreign policy context to describe self-identified liberals or progressives who support aggressive military operations when they deem the cause to be "just", "humanitarian", etc.
But there's also a domestic version that advocates government regulation, restriction, and control of personal choices in so-called "quality of life" issues.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Puritans and food (consumption) nazis made common cause to give this approach bipartisan support. As noted, it only needs to be "re-branded" or framed as a kinder, compassionate approach rationalizing a dual approach of heavy-handed "education" and restrictions as necessary to save inferior people from themselves.
Are you joking, or are you really against government regulation of private industry?
The classic problem is that everyone wants the freedom to do what they want....until they get into trouble. Then the hand goes out and the expectations that a 'safety net' will catch them kicks in. "I can eat what I want and when I develope diabetes and need dialysis everyone else can pay for it cause I will be on medicaid". " The federal Govt needs to stay out of States rights and I don't want to pay income taxes, but when those tornados come riping through I expect FEMA to be their to help me". So we as a society must decide that we are a society - a group of people who share a common interest and vision for a future, or we are individuals and everyone is on their own. Laws and regulations exist for a reason, without them we would have anarchy and chaos. Chances are this law will not pass, the junk food makers and the pharma industry will see to that. So we will all get to pay to start and fix the problems caused by poor diet choices.
Great comment, timebiter. And, the people making the poor diet choices are largely middle class or poor.
Modern society,rich/poor, stupid/smart, we all need a leader to tell us what to do regardless if it's how to eat or or how to think; because we all are lost without one..
Hitting this reality real hard~
It's easy to make fun of this well meaning republican health plan, but clearly poor people don't have any common sense when it comes to food. If unemployed workers and poor people had any common sense they wouldn't waste their food stamps on junk food, they would be dining on lobster thermador at Ruth's Chris or Morton's like the rest of us.
Can't use food stamps to buy food that is pre-made. You can buy deli meat for a sandwich but you can't buy the sandwich already made. Junk food is in the eye of the beholder. If your kids are hungry and you have less than $2 to feed them, you are grateful that a box of generic mac and cheese is available and filling.
One of the biggest challenges in our society is that we have abdicated, either voluntarily or under pressure or swindled out of, our responsibility to take care of ourselves and each other.
Why there aren't community gardens all over the place or food growing in every backyard is a sad reflection of our view of what is important.
Look up Edible Todmorden for an idea of what can be done.
There is not food growing in every back yard because it doesn't make economic sense, when food at the supermarket is so cheap. I know some people enjoy gardening, but a lot of us hate it. As long as a few hours' work at a job will buy a week's worth of food, most people aren't going to grow their own. Cheap food has eliminated hunger, whatever its drawback (and there are some).
It has also created hunger - just on the other side of the world.
Hunger on "the other side of the world" is almost always a result of bad government (e.g., Soviet crop failures, back in the bad old days) , sometimes compounded by bad habits on the part of the people. Producing or gathering food is relatively easy - human beings have been doing it for thousands of years. It ain't rocket science.
Actually, producing food always has had difficulties and throughout history those who produced food led hard lives. Not until a few hundred years ago did agriculture advance far enough to allow more people to leave the farm and create new ways of life.
Wow, this is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum :-D Seriously, wtf are you talking about? That is the absolute opposite of history. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about more modern things like banana republics, the Indian famines during the Raj, export oriented agriculture, large scale land acquisitions for biofuel production, commodity markets etc etc. Basically, Western imperialism's effects on food production and security of "third world" countries. TBH, I just can't bring myself to take someone seriously who claims that food production is "relatively easy". Sheer stupidity and ignorance.
A few hours of minimum wage work here in Canada would garner you about 40 bucks...before taxes.
Please tell me where you shop so I can buy a weeks worth of healthy food for 33 bucks, too.
And only about 25 bucks here in the US.... We can only wish we had a 10.25/hr (Ontario) minimum wage.
I didn't say minimum wage - I was talking about a proper job. I don't know about Canada, but in the USA, the minimum wage is meant to be an entry-level wage, almost like a training wage - it's not a family-bringing-up wage. A guy needs to make sure that he is doing much better than that before he marries and starts a family. You might start at seventeen working at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage, but you don't start the family until you are, I don't know, the assistant district manager for the restaurant corporation, and on your way up. At least that's how I was brought up to think, and how I see it.
Ahh...thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize people making minimum wage didn't have to eat.
You still don't get it. This means that getting a job that pays above minimum wage, otherwise known as a "proper job", is purely a matter of choice, something that anyone can do easily. People who work for minimum wage do that by choice. They wouldn't need to work for so little if they didn't want to.
But of course he's the poster that said that "producing food is relatively easy" and "hunger on "the other side of the world" is almost always a result of bad government", and so seems to think that issues like dumping subsidised food on third world markets, destroying their subsistence farming and driving peasants to cities, buying up land for producing luxury foods or biofuels for export, or allowing speculation on the commodities markets has nothing to do with hunger in the third world.
"A guy needs to make sure that he is doing much better than that before he marries and starts a family."
I guess all the old people working at gas stations, and 7-11s, and Walmart, and other minimum wage jobs should abandon their families.
Please cite where the government says minimum wage is for entry level jobs.
It's actually the minimum wages employers are allowed to pay workers, across all jobs and age groups and has nothing to do with how long someone has held a job or whether a job is entry level or not.
I doubt the poor eat any worse than the middle class. I'm all for taking away their right to junk food as soon as we take everyone else's right to it, away too. After all, I'm paying for it by higher insurance costs to take care of the middle class with heart and health issues from the way they eat.
This is simply an attack on the poor and unemployed. The people insisting others make food from scratch - (Gee I'm not poor at all and I purposely didn't learn to cook), need to take a look at their Nazi faces in the mirror and question why they are narrow minded totalitarian bigots who feel the need to force everyone to be just like them. PS, I know plenty of FAT people who cook from scratch.
I don't know about that.
Where I live the poor don't have houses/property. They live in apartments...if they're lucky.
While that is also true of the middle class miore of them have actual houses with property that allow them the opportunity to have gardens. I grow as much as I can during the warm months and freeze/can what can't be promptly used.
While a lot of work it definitely helps to offset the cost of food purchases...and provides a much needed sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.
I just read a story the other day about...ahh hell...here's the link. Imagine the innovation if we turned food production over to folks like this.
Nearly 600 Marijuana Plants Found In Police Raid Of Bronx Building
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/nearly-800-marijuana-plants-found-in-police-raid-of-bronx-building/
I own a house, I have a garden, but I also work full time and don't feel like being a gardener to feed myself. It's just a nice thing to grab a few tomatos from now and then. Come on. There are people on this thread that are for forcing others to live and eat, how they see fit.