Research shows that increasing SNAP’s modest benefits leads to healthier eating. This comes as little surprise, given that healthy food is generally more expensive. But since SNAP’s modest benefits already run out before the end of the month for most households, it is a luxury that many families cannot afford.
ACTUALLY!!! By expanding the program it can help families get healthier food and have more options to provide for everyone needs.
Beyond the article’s inaccuracies, there is a broader problem with this kind of reporting. It reinforces an “us versus them” narrative—as though “the poor” are a stagnant class of Americans permanently dependent on aid programs.
Creating "us vs. them" can cause a lot harm. Personally knowing a lot of people on food stamps there is a lot of shame from having to need help and then creating a false narrative will make some people not want to get help or for people to get shamed.
The actual conclusion of USDA’s study—“both food stamp recipients and other households generally made similar purchases”—is buried 15 paragraphs down from the sensationalized headline. The article did not initially link to or even name the study.
By giving false information/or incomplete information the article may have ignited a large public debate and caused the people on SNAP to be affected for angry taxpayers.
In 2014, a group of Stanford researchers studied 19,000 SNAP participants and compared whether banning sugary drinks or incentivizing fruits and vegetables would affect obesity rates. The researchers found that the incentive program would not. But banning sugary drinks from SNAP, they said, “would be expected to significantly reduce obesity prevalence and Type 2 diabetes incidence, particularly among ages 18 to 65 and some racial and ethnic minorities.”
Good for the health but there needs more comprehensive test to why people eat the way they do and teaching them how to eat better. Yes, banning soda would help but then some people may replace soda with something else.
PepsiCo lobbied the federal government to prevent restrictions on food stamp purchases in 2011, 2012 and 2013, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics. Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods and the sugar industry lobbied against a Florida bill in 2012
Should not let big companies have a say on what families eat or drink either.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, and the national school lunch program have strict nutrition standards. Medicare pays for necessary medical procedures but does not reimburse for ones it considers harmful, ineffective or unnecessary. SNAP, Dr. Ludwig said, should be structured similarly.
The situations of one family should not be applied to another. The WIC program is different because it deals with more single and young mothers. While SNAP may deal with large families who all different needs
One limitation of the report was that it could not always distinguish when SNAP households used their benefits, other money or a combination of the two to pay for transactions.
This is an important variable/flaw of the study because having the perception that tax payers money is going to soft drinks may make people anger but the study does not distinguish if the food stamps is actually paying for it
the U.S.D.A. said it was unfair to single out food stamp recipients for their soft drink consumption.
USDA states that non-SNAP families have similar soft drink percentages and that families should not be judged for their purchase.
The findings show that the No. 1 purchases by SNAP households are soft drinks, which accounted for 5 percent of the dollars they spent on food. The category of ‘sweetened beverages,’ which includes soft drinks, fruit juices, energy drinks and sweetened teas, accounted for almost 10 percent of the dollars they spent on food. “In this sense, SNAP
soft drinks accounted for 5% of dollars spent on food. By knowing this tax payers may be skeptical of SNAP.