Anonymous wrote:

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

I have been saying this repeatedly. The Trump EPA policies fly in direct opposition to MAHA goals. Furthermore, RFK Jr is not over the EPA so while he can talk about pesticides, he holds no power to do anything about them. It is a smoke and mirror show. Stop just believing what is said and look at the actions. Has RFK Jr said a thing about filtering PFAs in our drinking water? You would think he would be talking about them quite a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just never ends with these MAHAs:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/rfk-jr-maha-pesticides-report-farmers/

Now they want Americans to starve to death by the millions! But not just any Americans; hardest hit will be lower SES folks.

LOL - from your own link


- Activists suggest a ban on harmful pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine
- Farmers, GOP senators worry new rules could disrupt food production
- 70+ lawmakers urge Kennedy, EPA to keep report science-based, not political

"Critics fear the report may lead to sweeping regulations on widely used chemicals like glyphosate and atrazine, which are pesticides often targeted by environmental advocates for their health risks."


glyphosate = Roundup



So now you are championing having that in our food.


Once again, the lefties, like the OP must support the exact opposite of what RFK and Trump want and shoot themselves in the foot.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safeway this week along with 3.99 london broil

How do you do London broil? In really thin strips? I pounded it once to make chicken fried steak, which was a lot of work.

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.

This is an example of how much misinformation floats around about what’s good or bad regarding food. Starchy sides are not just junk.

Beans and chickpeas are highly recommended by cardiologists and other doctors because they are heart healthy. Potatoes are an excellent source of potassium and other vitamins. Sweet potatoes are best. Peas and corn are fine. These are all starchy sides that are healthy.
Potatoes can have starch removed by soaking in water. Eat one baked potato plain and it’s very healthy.

Unprocessed starches are good for you. Others can be eaten in moderation.

+1. I am obsessed with baked potatoes. so cheap and you just stick them in the oven for 45-60 min and they come out perfectly if you check the internal temp (around 206-210). My kid LOVES them. Then any leftovers become twice-baked potatoes, potato salad, or really delicious home fries.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I have been saying this repeatedly. The Trump EPA policies fly in direct opposition to MAHA goals. Furthermore, RFK Jr is not over the EPA so while he can talk about pesticides, he holds no power to do anything about them. It is a smoke and mirror show. Stop just believing what is said and look at the actions. Has RFK Jr said a thing about filtering PFAs in our drinking water? You would think he would be talking about them quite a lot.

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.

This is an example of how much misinformation floats around about what’s good or bad regarding food. Starchy sides are not just junk.

Beans and chickpeas are highly recommended by cardiologists and other doctors because they are heart healthy. Potatoes are an excellent source of potassium and other vitamins. Sweet potatoes are best. Peas and corn are fine. These are all starchy sides that are healthy.
Potatoes can have starch removed by soaking in water. Eat one baked potato plain and it’s very healthy.

Unprocessed starches are good for you. Others can be eaten in moderation.

Anonymous wrote:Safeway this week along with 3.99 london broil

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.

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.

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:

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

I have been saying this repeatedly. The Trump EPA policies fly in direct opposition to MAHA goals. Furthermore, RFK Jr is not over the EPA so while he can talk about pesticides, he holds no power to do anything about them. It is a smoke and mirror show. Stop just believing what is said and look at the actions. Has RFK Jr said a thing about filtering PFAs in our drinking water? You would think he would be talking about them quite a lot.