study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps

[Anonymous]

The outrage over poor people buying the same groceries as most other Americans is so far out of proportion. Stop punching down and follow the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are other National food programs like WIC where pregnant and lactating women and children up to 5 get healthy food. There are certain categories like juice, milk, bread, peanut butter/beans, fruits/vegetables that participants can buy so much of each category. You can’t use WIC to buy soda, candy, cookies or processed food.

Then there is free school lunch and in many communities free school breakfast and for kids who stay after school even free school dinner.

To get an accurate picture of the diet of people using snap you have to add all the nutritional programs together. And if you live in cities like Flint, Michigan you are going to be too afraid to have your family drink tap water. There are way too many places in the US where the tap water is not safe to drink.

Good points.

Here's more.
I have a longtime acquaintance who gets SNAP not because she has children, but because of chronic severe mental illness. Long ago she was brilliant and accomplished, but for more than two decades she has been in and out of psych hospitals (anywhere from a few weeks to several months), 2 years of ECT, lives on a small SSDI check supplemented by SSI in a dreary public housing apartment (closets consist of painted cinderblock partitions with low-grade untrimmed plywood shelves, pretty much like the prison camp in Orange is the New Black). Most of the time she lives on the fringe of psychosis. Because of her dual diagnosis alcohol use disorder, she is breathalyzed 2x a day when paid community mental health workers bring her meds. When she goes to the store she gets a ton of Mountain Dew and Coke, ice cream, and yogurt and some frozen meals and Tuna Helper. When she does cook the Tuna Helper, it's a big deal to her and she'll call and invite me to dinner. Soda is her substitute for booze.

So, think of the millions of people on disability and SSI. People with intellectual disabilities and chronic severe mental illness. The soda is bad for them. The other processed foods just as bad, maybe worse. Cooking skills or capacity may be beyond them. BTW smoking is very prevalent among people with certain mental illnesses (especially schizophrenia).

We could create an Eden of community supports to support healthy living for this population (the life expectancy of someone with schizophrenia is in the neighborhood of 50 years, not because of the schizophrenia but because of poor health habits; many are obese and chain smoke). Not likely to happen.

Now, as to the lobbies:
https://www.pogo.org/investigations/the-snack-food-and-corn-syrup-lobbyist-shaping-trumps-dietary-guidelines-for-americans

This article left out one lobbyist segment--sugar producers, both cane and beet.

Another take is it can all go according to plan until it doesn’t.

This is why I find the sanctimony so grating.

The meager social safety net exists for a reason because some people need help.

But there will always be the bootstraps brigade who think they are sitting on an unmovable and infallible pedestal that they clawed their way onto and will remain on all due to x-factor.

If the sugary foods/drinks and junk snacks were restricted tomorrow, by Friday they’d be on here preaching that the ability to buy red red meat, fish, and chicken should be disallowed as well.

They’d say I don’t want my money subsidizing quality protein for the poors, let them eat rice & beans and canned corn, with chants of my great grands survived on air, rainwater and insect larvae, and the poors can too.

It’s all so transparent and ugly and quite frankly those who preach the loudest are usually the ones that are 2-6 paychecks away from financial devastation themselves. Carrying their whole foods bags, munching on their $18 garbage green kale salads, and driving their leased suburban land yachts.

Overextended, and over leveraged to hell.

The truly wealthy people I know don’t really concern themselves with the spending habits of SNAP recipients.

I have no problem with them spending it on healthy food and I would be ok with providing an incentive to purchase healthy food even if it results in slightly more spending. I just think it's ridiculous that people can use the assistance money to buy literally candy and then taxpayers have to bail them out when they get diabetes.

Ok, but do you have a problem with this?
Wikipedia:

The U.S. Sugar program is the federal commodity support program that maintains a minimum price for sugar, authorized by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107–171, Sec. 1401–1403) to cover the 2002-2007 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane.

Originally designed to protect the incomes of the sugar industry-growers of sugarcane and sugar beets, and firms that process each crop into sugar - the program now prevents them from competing with producers of corn syrup sweetener. It supports domestic sugar prices by:

(1) making available nonrecourse loans to processors (not less than 18¢/lb. for raw cane sugar, or 22.9¢/lb. for refined beet sugar);
(2) restricting sugar imports using a tariff rate quota, and
(3) limiting the amount of sugar that processors can sell domestically (under marketing allotments) when imports are below 1.532 million short tons.
Import restrictions are intended to meet U.S. commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Processor and refiner marketing allotments are set by USDA according to statutory requirements. Marketing allotments and new payment-in-kind authority are designed to help the USDA meet the no-cost-requirements to the federal government by avoiding the forfeiture of sugar put under loan. Other parts of the new program can include a storage loan program for sugar processors, and reduced (by 1%) the USDA interest rate charged on sugar loans.

GAO:
The U.S. sugar program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), provides substantial benefits to sugar producers. Because the program guarantees relatively high prices for domestic sugar, sugar farmers benefit significantly, and sugar farms are substantially more profitable per acre than other U.S. farms. Research GAO reviewed suggests the U.S. sugar program results in an increase in domestic sugar production and higher profits for farmers, totaling an estimated $1.4 billion to $2.7 billion in additional benefits annually.

The U.S. sugar program creates net costs to the economy, because higher sugar prices created by the program cost consumers more than producers benefit, according to research GAO reviewed. According to some studies, the program costs consumers an estimated $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion per year, yielding net costs to the economy of approximately $1 billion per year. Other studies estimate that the program leads to declines in U.S. employment in industries that rely heavily on sugar, such as confectionery manufacturing. In 2022 U.S. consumers, including food manufacturers, paid twice the world price for sugar.

As someone else posted, quit punching down.

[Anonymous]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/pros-and-cons-of-restricting-snap-purchases/

A good analysis of the pros AND cons, which also says that categories of grocery spending by SNAP recipients is very similar to non-SNAP consumers.
One pilot study gave recipients rebates for purchasing fruits and vegetables from a narrow range of choices, and did result in increased consumption of those items.
Administrative burden of restrictions would be costly and disproportionately affect smaller businesses. (Which could mean those businesses losing the ability to participate in SNAP at all, resulting in greater food deserts).

"The complexities arise in part because of the sheer number of products that would need to be classified. Consumers have vast differences in their tastes and preferences, and the market responds by providing variety. There are more than 650,000 food and beverage products on the market today, and 20,000 more are introduced annually.6 The complexity is multiplied because there is no clear standard for defining foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy,” or as luxury goods. Creating such standards would be difficult at best, and would entail substantial administrative costs to categorize and track the nutritional profile of each good to produce a SNAP-eligible foods list. The list would have to be maintained continuously and communicated to retailers and consumers in real time. My prediction is that the additional bureaucracy needed to support such an undertaking is not likely to save taxpayer money."

Narrow restrictions--the article specifically mentions soda--would mean that, since the majority of households spend cash as well as SNAP on groceries including those items, they would simply shift to paying cash for those items. If you think about it, someone receiving benefits going to the store is getting not just food (and soda), they are also getting dish detergent, tylenol, toilet paper, paper towels, and such. They have to fork over cash for those items. So the soda would simply end up being part of the cash portion of the entire transaction. So you would add another layer of regulatory enforcement and cost, with zero change in terms of people's consumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. Work from there.

Chips and soda are not cheap! Frozen pizzas are not cheap! What junk food do you think is cheap?

There are frozen pizzas that are healthier than the corner pizza restaurant and they’re cheaper than take out pizza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The outrage over poor people buying the same groceries as most other Americans is so far out of proportion. Stop punching down and follow the money.

Nothing new about the outrage in America. The food stamp program has incentives to use farmers markets although they are still very expensive. They also provide people with access to museums and other educational places that are expensive. If “junk food” was only purchased with food stamps the makers wouldn’t survive. And who doesn’t sell cookies? Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, all the healthy food stores sell them along with chips. No soda though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had two egg whites, two pieces of toast with olive oil and some berries for lunch. I am full. It took 10 minutes to make and it was less than $5. I am not on snap. This meal doesn’t cause obesity. America is massively obese. We should not subsidize heart attacks. Anyone claiming different is poorly educated and wrong.

FYI your meal was loaded with carbs and you are setting yourself up for insulin resistance. That does cause obesity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. Work from there.

The reality is that preparing healthy food is time-consuming, especially if someone is juggling two jobs or one job and childcare (e.g., getting kids to and from daycare, school, etc). It is exhausting to stand on your feet all day, then stand to cook as well as be present for your kids.

It effing sucks to not have money. My parents stressed over every meal as there were more mouths than portions. I grew up hating cooking because it = stress. Now I generally love to cook, but it took some years to get to that place.

Prepping meals can be very easy. Its not hard to cook up meat to create spaghetti, tacos or stir fry. You can marinate chicken and throw it in the grill. Then pair it with steamed broccoli. We've become a society that wants meals delivered to our doorstep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. Work from there.

The reality is that preparing healthy food is time-consuming, especially if someone is juggling two jobs or one job and childcare (e.g., getting kids to and from daycare, school, etc). It is exhausting to stand on your feet all day, then stand to cook as well as be present for your kids.

It effing sucks to not have money. My parents stressed over every meal as there were more mouths than portions. I grew up hating cooking because it = stress. Now I generally love to cook, but it took some years to get to that place.

Prepping meals can be very easy. It’s not hard to cook up meat to create spaghetti, tacos or stir fry. You can marinate chicken and throw it in the grill. Then pair it with steamed broccoli. We've become a society that wants meals delivered to our doorstep.

Exactly. If kids aren’t learning cooking basics at home, perhaps they need to learn it in school, or in the after school programs. Poor people all over the world learn to prepare food, and so do most rich people. It’s human nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The outrage over poor people buying the same groceries as most other Americans is so far out of proportion. Stop punching down and follow the money.

Yes, indeed! OP...but for the Grace of God go you.

[Anonymous]

Canned beans are typically high in sodium, Not good for high blood pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. Work from there.

The reality is that preparing healthy food is time-consuming, especially if someone is juggling two jobs or one job and childcare (e.g., getting kids to and from daycare, school, etc). It is exhausting to stand on your feet all day, then stand to cook as well as be present for your kids.

It effing sucks to not have money. My parents stressed over every meal as there were more mouths than portions. I grew up hating cooking because it = stress. Now I generally love to cook, but it took some years to get to that place.

Prepping meals can be very easy. Its not hard to cook up meat to create spaghetti, tacos or stir fry. You can marinate chicken and throw it in the grill. Then pair it with steamed broccoli. We've become a society that wants meals delivered to our doorstep.

We cook (mostly) healthy at home (I love grilled chicken), but you are, once again, living in a privileged bubble to think low income people working two jobs can just throw some chicken on the bbq.

Also, some people just hate cooking. I don't like cooking, but I forced myself to learn when I became a sahm (for two years). I still hate cooking but I cook because my kids actually like my home cooking (which I never thought would ever happen). I only learned to cook at 40.

I told DH once the kids leave the house, I going to not cook meals as much. I'm fine eating chips and guacamole (home made - I actually make really good guac) for dinner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Canned beans are typically high in sodium, Not good for high blood pressure.

+1 same for canned soup.

Most prepared meals are high in sodium and fat. But, unprivileged people don't always have the time to cook from scratch.

I myself ate a lot of processed food growing up because I was a latchkey kid.

[Anonymous]

Goes to show no one cares or respects their own privacy. So they willy nilly do surveys and studies giving out their personal info. If ya ef around with your privacy you'll find out. Ef around and find out. That means ya ef around with your privacy you will loose any freedom u have and will be subjected to others controlling what you eat and do. Word of advice don't ef around with anything that leads to your life being controlled. STOP Effing AROUND!!!.

[Anonymous]

Society will collapse because everyone is effing around. Gen x always says this you screw around you will find out. Even if it cost me my life don't care. So if you keep screwing around with people lives and privacy you WILL find out. Don't say this gen x did not warn ya

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. Work from there.

The reality is that preparing healthy food is time-consuming, especially if someone is juggling two jobs or one job and childcare (e.g., getting kids to and from daycare, school, etc). It is exhausting to stand on your feet all day, then stand to cook as well as be present for your kids.

It effing sucks to not have money. My parents stressed over every meal as there were more mouths than portions. I grew up hating cooking because it = stress. Now I generally love to cook, but it took some years to get to that place.

Prepping meals can be very easy. Its not hard to cook up meat to create spaghetti, tacos or stir fry. You can marinate chicken and throw it in the grill. Then pair it with steamed broccoli. We've become a society that wants meals delivered to our doorstep.

Or..don’t prepare any meals and live off peanut butter, wheat bread, apples and milk. If you can’t cook, there are still plenty of ways to keep off starvation without resorting to Cheetos, pop tarts, and soda.