MAHAs now trying to rip away our food supply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Aldi is a low budget grocery store, yes it’s in lower income areas.

To the first pp inviting folks to aldi, I agree with you a thousand percent. There was a thread on here awhile ago about the topic of cooking from scratch that quickly devolved into people crying about how it was impossible, poor people can’t do it blah blah. You and I know it is possible but you can’t be buying soda and other crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Another DP - These are the same people who claim weight loss cannot happen without injections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Impossible and challenging are two entirely different concepts. Why are you all refusing to acknowledge that putting together healthy meals might be a tad more complicated with limited time, money, and energy?

And no, Aldi’s aren’t as ubiquitous as you all seem to think they are. I don’t even know what those are. There isn’t even one in my state.

Lot of people living in a bubble here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Impossible and challenging are two entirely different concepts. Why are you all refusing to acknowledge that putting together healthy meals might be a tad more complicated with limited time, money, and energy?

And no, Aldi’s aren’t as ubiquitous as you all seem to think they are. I don’t even know what those are. There isn’t even one in my state.

Lot of people living in a bubble here.

If you don't have aldi you no doubt have some other budget grocery chain like shoppers etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Impossible and challenging are two entirely different concepts. Why are you all refusing to acknowledge that putting together healthy meals might be a tad more complicated with limited time, money, and energy?

And no, Aldi’s aren’t as ubiquitous as you all seem to think they are. I don’t even know what those are. There isn’t even one in my state.

Lot of people living in a bubble here.

If you don't have aldi you no doubt have some other budget grocery chain like shoppers etc.

We could use a few dozen Aldi’s. There’s Market Basket, although their prices have risen like crazy recently and their sales are underwhelming, Dollar Tree, Costco/BJs… but as mentioned earlier, buying in bulk only saves money if you have space to store it and, for perishables, a large enough family to eat it before it goes bad. Around here there’s more reliance on food pantries and backpack programs to fill in the gaps.

[Anonymous]

Also, our state has a “harvest bucks” program where every SNAP dollar spent on local foods earns a matching amount that can be spent on fresh fruits and vegetables. Now that’s a great way to stretch food dollars and encourage healthy eating!

[Anonymous]

If you can't fight them, starve them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not MAHA in the least, but we should ban these toxic chemicals. But, there will be a strong push back with the billionaire bros because it means they can’t pump out perfect crops. We desperately need regulations on beef, but Trump just banned farmers from identifying preservatives.

MAHA and MAGA really aren’t aligned. Let’s stop subsidizing corn and soy and start subsiding kale and broccoli.

I think it’s mostly bluster and nothing will change. Except for vaccinations, which is tragic.

You may not like the moniker MAHA, but you've hust articulated MAHA positions. People don't like RFK-- I don't, honestly-- but we need to make some serious changes around our food standards.

I’m not MAHA because in a million years I wouldn’t hitch my flag to the GOP who cares primarily about profits over people. They’re also anti-science. I actually had to unfollow many influencers over this and called them out.

But yes, I’m 80% vegan who brings food to sporting events and is anti-major farms and their horrific practices that harm Americans, especially many low-income folks who live by them. I think America would save money pushing broccoli and kale and quinoa. Win win.

How exactly are we going to produce the food people actually need to eat without big farms?

We did just fine before Big Farming created monocultures that are killing us.

A far more diverse, chemical-free food supply will benefit all of us. Big Farms and Big Processed Food go hand in hand with obesity, a major killer of Americans.

I doubt any of RFKJrs proposals will come to fruition, but I support them because they are good for Americans. Nothing else the Trump regime is doing benefits anyone but the rich.

Obesity is coming from excess consumption of sugars and fats. American culture of giant sized sodas, Starbucks coffees, and fast food. It is a cultural thing.

Obesity is directly tied to increased pesticide use, globally. Many people have success detoxing before losing weight.

RFK Jr is not over the EPA. Trump administration actual actions at EPA will lead to worse and increased pesticide use, not less. RFK Jr is a distraction and can say whatever he likes, but the Trump admin actions at EPA speak louder than words. Why is RFK Jr silent on PFAs??

Because the felon is pro-pfas. Yes, MAGA is silent about this.

Everyone has been silient about pfas until about the last month or so. People only started caring about it when they figured they could use it as a weapon against MAHA. I'm not going to really complain about the motivation so long as we get pfas banned sooner than later. But we're not going to take our eyes off fluoride or vaccines, sorry!

You can buy unfluoridated water if you want or get a filter. But in the meantime, read this.

https://www.statnews.com/2024/09/05/fluoride-water-child-iq-study-national-toxicology-program/

Your supposed debunking omits that we just lowered the rate from 1.3 to .7 in 2015. Anyone posting on this thread got fluoride doses pretty close to the study level, and it shows.

Keep in mind, fluoridators argued that 1.3 was safe for decades until the accumulated weight of evidence force them down to .7. And its only a matter of time until even lower levels are found harmful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Aldi is a low budget grocery store, yes it’s in lower income areas.

To the first pp inviting folks to aldi, I agree with you a thousand percent. There was a thread on here awhile ago about the topic of cooking from scratch that quickly devolved into people crying about how it was impossible, poor people can’t do it blah blah. You and I know it is possible but you can’t be buying soda and other crap.

In addition to Aldis, you can also get Amazon Fresh Direct delivered very affordably. I’d be impressed if BrainWorm advocated for a SNAP supplement to pay the $10 for delivery.

I do think cooking from scratch is harder than you say though … one thing I think people who genuinely care about nutrition could advocate is creating incentives and relaxing regulatory burden for small food businesses. Those Salvadoran ladies can make a delicious plate of healthy food for pretty cheap. And I’ve wondered why public housing doesn’t have cafeterias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Impossible and challenging are two entirely different concepts. Why are you all refusing to acknowledge that putting together healthy meals might be a tad more complicated with limited time, money, and energy?

And no, Aldi’s aren’t as ubiquitous as you all seem to think they are. I don’t even know what those are. There isn’t even one in my state.

Lot of people living in a bubble here.

There are two Aldis in the mixed/low income area of DC that I live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not MAHA in the least, but we should ban these toxic chemicals. But, there will be a strong push back with the billionaire bros because it means they can’t pump out perfect crops. We desperately need regulations on beef, but Trump just banned farmers from identifying preservatives.

MAHA and MAGA really aren’t aligned. Let’s stop subsidizing corn and soy and start subsiding kale and broccoli.

I think it’s mostly bluster and nothing will change. Except for vaccinations, which is tragic.

You may not like the moniker MAHA, but you've hust articulated MAHA positions. People don't like RFK-- I don't, honestly-- but we need to make some serious changes around our food standards.

I’m not MAHA because in a million years I wouldn’t hitch my flag to the GOP who cares primarily about profits over people. They’re also anti-science. I actually had to unfollow many influencers over this and called them out.

But yes, I’m 80% vegan who brings food to sporting events and is anti-major farms and their horrific practices that harm Americans, especially many low-income folks who live by them. I think America would save money pushing broccoli and kale and quinoa. Win win.

How exactly are we going to produce the food people actually need to eat without big farms?

We did just fine before Big Farming created monocultures that are killing us.

A far more diverse, chemical-free food supply will benefit all of us. Big Farms and Big Processed Food go hand in hand with obesity, a major killer of Americans.

I doubt any of RFKJrs proposals will come to fruition, but I support them because they are good for Americans. Nothing else the Trump regime is doing benefits anyone but the rich.

Obesity is coming from excess consumption of sugars and fats. American culture of giant sized sodas, Starbucks coffees, and fast food. It is a cultural thing.

Obesity is directly tied to increased pesticide use, globally. Many people have success detoxing before losing weight.

RFK Jr is not over the EPA. Trump administration actual actions at EPA will lead to worse and increased pesticide use, not less. RFK Jr is a distraction and can say whatever he likes, but the Trump admin actions at EPA speak louder than words. Why is RFK Jr silent on PFAs??

Because the felon is pro-pfas. Yes, MAGA is silent about this.

Everyone has been silient about pfas until about the last month or so. People only started caring about it when they figured they could use it as a weapon against MAHA. I'm not going to really complain about the motivation so long as we get pfas banned sooner than later. But we're not going to take our eyes off fluoride or vaccines, sorry!

You can buy unfluoridated water if you want or get a filter. But in the meantime, read this.

https://www.statnews.com/2024/09/05/fluoride-water-child-iq-study-national-toxicology-program/

Your supposed debunking omits that we just lowered the rate from 1.3 to .7 in 2015. Anyone posting on this thread got fluoride doses pretty close to the study level, and it shows.

Keep in mind, fluoridators argued that 1.3 was safe for decades until the accumulated weight of evidence force them down to .7. And its only a matter of time until even lower levels are found harmful.

flouride is the only think RFK is right about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Impossible and challenging are two entirely different concepts. Why are you all refusing to acknowledge that putting together healthy meals might be a tad more complicated with limited time, money, and energy?

And no, Aldi’s aren’t as ubiquitous as you all seem to think they are. I don’t even know what those are. There isn’t even one in my state.

Lot of people living in a bubble here.

Limited time, energy, and even money to put a healthy lunch together? Please.

I guess you're too busy building the pyramids. Pffft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not MAHA in the least, but we should ban these toxic chemicals. But, there will be a strong push back with the billionaire bros because it means they can’t pump out perfect crops. We desperately need regulations on beef, but Trump just banned farmers from identifying preservatives.

MAHA and MAGA really aren’t aligned. Let’s stop subsidizing corn and soy and start subsiding kale and broccoli.

I think it’s mostly bluster and nothing will change. Except for vaccinations, which is tragic.

You may not like the moniker MAHA, but you've hust articulated MAHA positions. People don't like RFK-- I don't, honestly-- but we need to make some serious changes around our food standards.

I’m not MAHA because in a million years I wouldn’t hitch my flag to the GOP who cares primarily about profits over people. They’re also anti-science. I actually had to unfollow many influencers over this and called them out.

But yes, I’m 80% vegan who brings food to sporting events and is anti-major farms and their horrific practices that harm Americans, especially many low-income folks who live by them. I think America would save money pushing broccoli and kale and quinoa. Win win.

How exactly are we going to produce the food people actually need to eat without big farms?

We did just fine before Big Farming created monocultures that are killing us.

A far more diverse, chemical-free food supply will benefit all of us. Big Farms and Big Processed Food go hand in hand with obesity, a major killer of Americans.

I doubt any of RFKJrs proposals will come to fruition, but I support them because they are good for Americans. Nothing else the Trump regime is doing benefits anyone but the rich.

Obesity is coming from excess consumption of sugars and fats. American culture of giant sized sodas, Starbucks coffees, and fast food. It is a cultural thing.

Obesity is directly tied to increased pesticide use, globally. Many people have success detoxing before losing weight.

RFK Jr is not over the EPA. Trump administration actual actions at EPA will lead to worse and increased pesticide use, not less. RFK Jr is a distraction and can say whatever he likes, but the Trump admin actions at EPA speak louder than words. Why is RFK Jr silent on PFAs??

Because the felon is pro-pfas. Yes, MAGA is silent about this.

Everyone has been silient about pfas until about the last month or so. People only started caring about it when they figured they could use it as a weapon against MAHA. I'm not going to really complain about the motivation so long as we get pfas banned sooner than later. But we're not going to take our eyes off fluoride or vaccines, sorry!

You can buy unfluoridated water if you want or get a filter. But in the meantime, read this.

https://www.statnews.com/2024/09/05/fluoride-water-child-iq-study-national-toxicology-program/

Your supposed debunking omits that we just lowered the rate from 1.3 to .7 in 2015. Anyone posting on this thread got fluoride doses pretty close to the study level, and it shows.

Keep in mind, fluoridators argued that 1.3 was safe for decades until the accumulated weight of evidence force them down to .7. And its only a matter of time until even lower levels are found harmful.

flouride is the only think RFK is right about.

When we have research showing the risks of 0.7 outweigh benefits, get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to define legally what’s junk food and what’s healthy. There’s a large grey zone between candy and granola/protein/breakfast bars. One pending bill tries to define candy as “flourless”, but under that definition, Twix and Kit Kat would be exempt. Cereal also gets blurry. Many cereals contain added sugar but also contain healthy ingredients. Do we ban Honey Nut Cheerios?

There isn’t much evidence to suggest SNAP recipients eat any less healthily than other low-income earners. It’s also hard to restrict foods without further stigmatizing that group. I’ve gone through periods where money was extremely tight, and being able to have an occasional treat or give my kids a birthday cake was so important psychologically. There’s a strain of Ayn Rand heartlessness in these policies - the attitude seems to be if you’re poor, you must live only on rice and beans until you’ve bootstrapped yourself into a strata of society that deserves ice cream.

That said, I do agree with reducing harmful food dyes amd additives, looking at alternative pest reduction methods, and encouraging Americans to eat more healthily. I’m old enough to remember when Michelle Obama wanted everyone to eat more fruits and veggies, and the right wing lost their mind. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

Sweetened beverages and soda are the top two items purchased through SNAP. By definition, that is junk nutrition and evidence of SNAP recipients eating less healthy.

SNAP; it is in the name, is meant to provide sustenance, not treats on the taxpayer's dime.

Actually, milk and ground beef are #2 and #3. And the point was that the buying habits of SNAP recipients aren’t substantially different from the buying habits of lower income Americans in general, therefore they aren’t demonstrably less healthy than that population.

If we’re concerned about their health, we should be providing them more assistance so they can buy organic, local, grass fed, and whole grain. Eating healthy isn’t cheap.

LOL absolutely not. Your average middle-class family can't afford what you just proposed, and you want SNAP recipients getting their grass-fed Kobe beef at Whole Foods? GTFOH.

Soooo, it’s not about health after all.

The average daily SNAP benefit is $6. It’s challenging to construct 3 palatable meals from that, let alone healthy meals that don’t involve high sodium canned foods, starchy sides, the cheapest cuts of meat, and low quality produce.

I’m not arguing for junk food either, just agreeing with the impracticality of demanding that people on a limited income eat healthier, while secretly thinking they don’t deserve to.

Cheap cuts of meat and "low quality produce" are healthy. As are vegetarian proteins.

There is no need consume high sodium canned foods, when non sodium versions are available.
Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

At $6 a day, you’re buying the marked down meat that expires today, and bland convenience store fruit bred for durability rather than nutrition (you don’t have a car, so much of your shopping is done at whatever’s nearby). The convenience store does not carry “non sodium” canned goods, but they do have a limited selection of low sodium canned goods that, despite the label, still pack 30-45% of your sodium intake for the day.

My friend I invite you to visit an Aldi’s. I’m sure SNAP benefits could be improved, but I can make delicious and nutritious meals for $6. Nobody likes Red Delicious apples and there are much better varieties now that are bred to hold up better in the cold chain. Or you can grab a pineapple and banana (cheap).

the issue with nutrition is not low-quality produce and meat. That is a laughably ahistorical and ignorant point of view. With advances in refrigeration and agricultural technology we have access to an absolute abundance of healthy foods at cost that is historically low (recent inflation notwithstanding).

There IS and issue with nutrition though and it is that working families do not have the time, energy and often skill/cultural knowledge to cook appealing meals. It becomes much easier to grab McDonalds or make a box of Mac & cheese when you have young kids and a FT job.

It’s cute that you think there’s an Aldi’s on every street corner, especially in lower income areas.

Sure, with access to a car and unlimited free time you can put together healthy meals on a $6 budget for one day, one week, maybe even a month, but over an entire lifetime of restricted eating, subtle nutritional deficits build up, as well as unhealthy attitudes around food. It’s absurd to say “make better choices” when so many factors limit the choices available - including, as you noted, working full time and having kids (I’m 100% in agreement there). There’s a lack of time to research sales and clip coupons and go all over town to find the best bargains, a lack of living space to buy in bulk and store (and again that assumes having a car to get purchases home), limited kitchen space and equipment, lack of energy after working exhausting jobs and different shifts. It would certainly be worthwhile to equip families with better knowledge and resources to eat healthier, which I’m sure has been tried at some level, but all the other factors need to be addressed too if we’re serious about getting people to eat healthier.

Stop making excuses. We work full time and my family will eat leftovers because no one has time to cook everyday. I don't have time to clip coupons. We generally eat what's on sale that week.

You are so ugly.

Now make your meals without a car or bus service, no access to a stove, and an IQ if 55.

That's a lot of the SNAP population.

Different poster here. Why are you all so quick to offer up reasons eating a healthy diet is impossible? It’s hardly ugly to point out that it is possible. You should look at that good and cheap cookbook, it’s written for a $4 a day budget.

Impossible and challenging are two entirely different concepts. Why are you all refusing to acknowledge that putting together healthy meals might be a tad more complicated with limited time, money, and energy?

And no, Aldi’s aren’t as ubiquitous as you all seem to think they are. I don’t even know what those are. There isn’t even one in my state.

Lot of people living in a bubble here.

Limited time, energy, and even money to put a healthy lunch together? Please.

I guess you're too busy building the pyramids. Pffft.

What are you babbling about?