Anonymous wrote:I thought pesticides were bad. But now they are good because Trump admin is focusing on them?


This is why nobody is listening to democrats.

You are the laughingstock of the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what the definition is for MAHA but glyphosate (roundup) and similar chemicals should be completely banned. If Trump is the one saying that then I guess I’m for Trump.

lol. He’s not trying to do any such thing. He and the GOP have been trying to block public warning labels about glyphosate, AT THE STATE LEVEL so the public won’t know about these toxic, cancerous chemicals. So much for states rights! So much for cancer! Three cheers for profits.

https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-epa-moves-to-block-state-pesticide-labels-that-warn-of-cancer-risks/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20warnings%20that,companies%20to%20adopt%20similar%20measures.

BAM! They got rid of glyphosate! Do you see "glyphosate" on any labels? Nope? well then, America is healthy again! /s

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.

Anonymous wrote:I love that Michelle Obama did this and the Right went nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what the definition is for MAHA but glyphosate (roundup) and similar chemicals should be completely banned. If Trump is the one saying that then I guess I’m for Trump.

lol. He’s not trying to do any such thing. He and the GOP have been trying to block public warning labels about glyphosate, AT THE STATE LEVEL so the public won’t know about these toxic, cancerous chemicals. So much for states rights! So much for cancer! Three cheers for profits.

https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-epa-moves-to-block-state-pesticide-labels-that-warn-of-cancer-risks/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20warnings%20that,companies%20to%20adopt%20similar%20measures.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what the definition is for MAHA but glyphosate (roundup) and similar chemicals should be completely banned. If Trump is the one saying that then I guess I’m for Trump.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what the definition is for MAHA but glyphosate (roundup) and similar chemicals should be completely banned. If Trump is the one saying that then I guess I’m for Trump.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I thought pesticides were bad. But now they are good because Trump admin is focusing on them?


This is why nobody is listening to democrats.

You are the laughingstock of the country.