MAHAs now trying to rip away our food supply

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAHA here. We are not even close to starving to death as a nation. And, the issue with starvation is malnutrition. The majority of Americans are malnourished in several significant vitamins and minerals despite being literally obese. Be open to change.

I will never trust anyone who thinks RFK Jr. is fit to be their representative for health policies.

Pp you're responding to. Look, RFK is the only one who has broken through on this topic. I guarantee that I dislike RFK Jr more than you, for actual personal reasons based on family connections. But I'm not so petty that I can't recognize good advocacy when I see it. I care that our food supply improves and if RFK gets more visibility incidental to that, that's not a major concern to me. I like health more than I dislike him.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yep, alone with the free healthcare that middle class people can’t afford either! And they wonder why it’s unpopular?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAHA here. We are not even close to starving to death as a nation. And, the issue with starvation is malnutrition. The majority of Americans are malnourished in several significant vitamins and minerals despite being literally obese. Be open to change.

I will never trust anyone who thinks RFK Jr. is fit to be their representative for health policies.

Pp you're responding to. Look, RFK is the only one who has broken through on this topic. I guarantee that I dislike RFK Jr more than you, for actual personal reasons based on family connections. But I'm not so petty that I can't recognize good advocacy when I see it. I care that our food supply improves and if RFK gets more visibility incidental to that, that's not a major concern to me. I like health more than I dislike him.

Hes the only one who’s broken through WITH REPUBLICANS because of the political expediency he got by tying his campaign to the highest bidder, he has zero expertise in health, medicine or agriculture, and most of his so-called advocacy is not based in anything true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
...Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

Is this true? If I had limited money, from my experience a bowl of mac&cheese or rice makes me feel more full than a bowl of green beans.

A baked potato fills me up more than a serving of broccoli.

Now as an older adult, I personally prefer green beans and broccoli, but if I was a mom wanting my kids to go to bed not hungry, I would lean to starchy sides.

Yes, I consider starchy sides "junk" and don't eat them personally, but I can afford extra meat or 3 servings of broccoli.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
...Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

Is this true? If I had limited money, from my experience a bowl of mac&cheese or rice makes me feel more full than a bowl of green beans.

A baked potato fills me up more than a serving of broccoli.

Now as an older adult, I personally prefer green beans and broccoli, but if I was a mom wanting my kids to go to bed not hungry, I would lean to starchy sides.

Yes, I consider starchy sides "junk" and don't eat them personally, but I can afford extra meat or 3 servings of broccoli.

This. Potatoes and/or rice are great ways to make meals more filling in an inexpensive way. And even if they aren’t nutrient dense, they aren’t “bad” for you. Better than McD!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAHA here. We are not even close to starving to death as a nation. And, the issue with starvation is malnutrition. The majority of Americans are malnourished in several significant vitamins and minerals despite being literally obese. Be open to change.

I will never trust anyone who thinks RFK Jr. is fit to be their representative for health policies.

Pp you're responding to. Look, RFK is the only one who has broken through on this topic. I guarantee that I dislike RFK Jr more than you, for actual personal reasons based on family connections. But I'm not so petty that I can't recognize good advocacy when I see it. I care that our food supply improves and if RFK gets more visibility incidental to that, that's not a major concern to me. I like health more than I dislike him.

RFK is not in favor of health, his advocacy is terrible, and Michelle Obama tried and was basically run out of town and called a communist. MAHA is a laughing stock and won’t get anything done other than banning a couple of food dyes based on very thin evidence and the replacements for which will end up causing some other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
...Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

Is this true? If I had limited money, from my experience a bowl of mac&cheese or rice makes me feel more full than a bowl of green beans.

A baked potato fills me up more than a serving of broccoli.

Now as an older adult, I personally prefer green beans and broccoli, but if I was a mom wanting my kids to go to bed not hungry, I would lean to starchy sides.

Yes, I consider starchy sides "junk" and don't eat them personally, but I can afford extra meat or 3 servings of broccoli.

This. Potatoes and/or rice are great ways to make meals more filling in an inexpensive way. And even if they aren’t nutrient dense, they aren’t “bad” for you. Better than McD!

+1 beans and 99 cent/lb chicken legs. Soda and chips are expensive and not necessary.

[Anonymous]

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.

Of course we do, but it was deeply disheartening to see Republicans attack and mock healthier food when the Obamas promoted it, and now to tie it to a sketchy kook like RFK Jr.

[Anonymous]

Nah, RFK won't be able to mess with the farmers. GOP senators won't allow it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
...Starchy sides are just junk. They don't satisfy hunger.

Is this true? If I had limited money, from my experience a bowl of mac&cheese or rice makes me feel more full than a bowl of green beans.

A baked potato fills me up more than a serving of broccoli.

Now as an older adult, I personally prefer green beans and broccoli, but if I was a mom wanting my kids to go to bed not hungry, I would lean to starchy sides.

Yes, I consider starchy sides "junk" and don't eat them personally, but I can afford extra meat or 3 servings of broccoli.

This. Potatoes and/or rice are great ways to make meals more filling in an inexpensive way. And even if they aren’t nutrient dense, they aren’t “bad” for you. Better than McD!

+1 beans and 99 cent/lb chicken legs. Soda and chips are expensive and not necessary.

-Where do you find 99 cent chicken legs?