Spicy Roasted Chickpeas
Picnic Recipes Galore
Corner-Store Party Food on the Fly
9 Chili Recipes, Bison to Vegan
How to Choose the Best Strawberries
Sausage Recipes of the Month
The mayor of New York City and the governor of New York state have proposed making sugar-sweetened drinks ineligible for purchase with food stamps in New York City, citing the beverages' role in obesity and diabetes. In a press release, they say that obesity is "almost twice as prevalent among the City’s poorest households compared to the wealthiest (30 percent vs. 17 percent)," and Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Linda I. Gibbs stated that "Sugary drinks are the single largest contributor to the obesity epidemic, and these beverages are affecting our children and families now more than ever." Is NYC doing the best it can to care for the health of its less wealthy residents, or is it treating them as if they are incapable of making their own decisions?
Will they continue to allow the purchase of cookies, sugary breakfast cereals, potato chips, Cheetos, frozen fried chicken and pizza, ice cream, candy, etc.?
Lots of fruit juices have higher sugar content and more calories than soft drinks.
The nannies gotta stop this foolishness. They're making themselves look ridiculous.
Man, I wish you people would quit using the word "ban".
It isn't like we're "taking it away" rather, removing it from the list of things one can purchace with food stamps.
If you want your Coke, they'll just have to put a dollar in the machine. Save the food stamps for all sorts of other good food.
Good Try Mr. Bloomburg - but health experts agree that soft-drinks in general are not healthy, especially for children. New evidence is also piling-up that artificial sweeteners are just as bad - if not worse - than sugar sweetened products when looking at the causes of childhood obesity. The roles of both are also highly suspect with regards to earning performance - I support the ban of all...+READ
Good Try Mr. Bloomburg - but health experts agree that soft-drinks in general are not healthy, especially for children. New evidence is also piling-up that artificial sweeteners are just as bad - if not worse - than sugar sweetened products when looking at the causes of childhood obesity. The roles of both are also highly suspect with regards to earning performance - I support the ban of all crap-foods from school grounds - my tax $$ should support a healthy learning environment from all perspectives.
I also have to ask if the SEC is watching to see who is shorting sugar feedstock manufacturers stocks & buying artificial sweetener manufacturers stocks. Do the Lobbyists, and others, who know the outcome of such legislation in advance make $$ off the new law - reguardless of its social implications?-COLLAPSE
KevinPorter does have a good question, where does it stop? all you can buy is chicken breast, whole wheat flour, fruits and veggies?
If I were to give those same people money out of my own pocket (instead of my paycheck), I would want to make sure they are buying things that are actually food. Not chemicals masquerading as food. Push on Mayor Bloomburg!!
I think that banning foods outright is really a clumsy solution to a complex problem. A system that allows you to purchase a certain amount of unhealthy food every month would probably be more appropriate in the long term (but would be more complicated to implement).
WIC wont allow you to use the coupons for sugar juices why should food stamps? There are approved food items in the WIC program. In some states there are mandatory classes one has to sit threw in order to stay enrolled in the program. While it might sound like it would cost more to have such classes you would be surprised how many folks would drop out and not collect. Seen it first hand.
Booze, cigarettes, soda (regular, diet, even corn syrup based "juice"), snack-packaged candy - all that is patently unnecessary for a healthy diet. Public assistance should be managed to provide foods that sustain. It's not about taking people's choices away; they can choose to eat/drink junk, but those unhealthy choices should be paid for out of their own pockets, not drawing on the resources of...+READ
Booze, cigarettes, soda (regular, diet, even corn syrup based "juice"), snack-packaged candy - all that is patently unnecessary for a healthy diet. Public assistance should be managed to provide foods that sustain. It's not about taking people's choices away; they can choose to eat/drink junk, but those unhealthy choices should be paid for out of their own pockets, not drawing on the resources of our social safety net. Welfare is supposed to keep people from starving, not make them diabetic.-COLLAPSE
To answer a previous question, this does not ban diet sodas. Diet sodas which can be argued are not nutrious, but do not add to the obesity epidemic. I think its an important point that the federal governement is paying for this, should the government be a cause of the obsetity problem or should they set a good example.
Frosti, The ban is a two year study to determine if banning soda would have measurable effects. Thats the whole purpose is to determine if food stamp money would be spent on other unhealthy foods or would provide measurable effects.
If you can't buy beer and cigarettes with food stamps then soda pops should be eliminated as well. I don't care to pay for someone else's indulgences. Everyone applying for food stamps should be mandated to attend a class on foods to avoid inorder to prevent diabetes and obesity.
What about sugar itself? Honey? Agave syrup?
Isn't the real question whether or not the government's intervention with regard to this will produce measurable benefits? I'm sure that whoever is proposing this has commissioned some sort of (hopefully well constructed) report on the projected effectiveness of this action. If it could produce a sound improvement in quality of life for some people (by reducing obesity by some fraction), wouldn't...+READ
Isn't the real question whether or not the government's intervention with regard to this will produce measurable benefits? I'm sure that whoever is proposing this has commissioned some sort of (hopefully well constructed) report on the projected effectiveness of this action. If it could produce a sound improvement in quality of life for some people (by reducing obesity by some fraction), wouldn't we all have to all get on board? The matter of where to draw the line would be largely arbitrary, but hopefully it would be done in such a way that would minimize inconvenience and maximize beneficial outcomes.-COLLAPSE
Nobody is saying that welfare recipients shouldn't drink soda, just that the government shouldn't pay for it. Why do people have a problem with that?
However, I agree, where's the line? All beverages with sugar added? Would diet soda be eligible to purchase with assistance then? Would non-dairy milk (soy/almond/rice) with sugar added be not eligible?
The USDA WIC program has very specific limits on what can be purchased. Why shouldn't they put restrictions on the SNAP program (aka food stamps)? Actually they already have restrictions - no alcohol, for example.
Still this seems like an arbitrary distinction. Would people be allowed to buy diet soda? How about non-carbonated "juice" drinks that are 10% juice, 90% sugar water? Kool-aid mix?
That visual from NYC HEALTH makes me upset - It insults my intelligence.
45% of folks in 3 districts drink 1+ soda a day. So, what? The US consumes more soda than any other nation. If you average it out, it comes to way more than 1 per day for every American. So, when you say 45%, that's actually LOW. But, all that's actually moot, since it doesn't point out whether or not DIET SODA is part of...+READ
That visual from NYC HEALTH makes me upset - It insults my intelligence.
45% of folks in 3 districts drink 1+ soda a day. So, what? The US consumes more soda than any other nation. If you average it out, it comes to way more than 1 per day for every American. So, when you say 45%, that's actually LOW. But, all that's actually moot, since it doesn't point out whether or not DIET SODA is part of that 45%.
Drinking soda can lead to 15 lbs gained. 12 oz come to about 150 calories. That does come to 15 lbs over a year - If you replace the soda with 0 calorie water. So, people drinking soda will just switch to water? I highly doubt that will happen. Also, we can all think of many other food items that are consumed daily and has way more than a mere 150 calories. (I eat an easy 400+ calories a day on dessert items - And I'm underweight)
To me this is nothing more than government propaganda in order to show the voters that they're actually doing something big here when they're not.
THE single biggest thing the government can do to combat childhood obesity is to act in schools. Make sure to educate the students and provide them with healthy/tasty meal options. Oh, and make sure that they actually have gym class. Healthy activities carry over.
As many of us know, the poor/wealthy weight figures are just the opposite of what they used to be way back, when the rich were fat. It is the way it is now because of the AVAILABILITY of fresh produce and their relative cost. Eating healthy costs more. Again, if the government wants to change that, start subsidizing healthy products. As for availability, how many healthy grocery stores do you think there are in Harlem and the South Bronx? Government can help here with giving businesses incentives to place a market in those areas.
If something is SO bad for us that the government wants to get rid of it, ban it for EVERYONE, not just a select group they can easily control. There are so many more effective things the government can do to combat obesity, but they're targeting soda?-COLLAPSE
Yayme, Do you feel that there's a risk of somebody putting my suggestions in to action?
I meant only to offend the status quo
@Chisma it should, but I love to cook and I don't want anyone telling me I can't buy butter and sugar to make what I want. I think education is the way to go. People need to know what is good for them and what bad processed does to their bodies.
I agree with the thought that if the government is paying for your sustenance, it should be something which will keep you healthy and not create or add to existing health issues. Obesity is an endemic childhood issue, and anything we can do to curtail this would more thank likely have my vote. I just feel bad that it has to be so heavy-handed. I hope they can combine this effort with education as...+READ
I agree with the thought that if the government is paying for your sustenance, it should be something which will keep you healthy and not create or add to existing health issues. Obesity is an endemic childhood issue, and anything we can do to curtail this would more thank likely have my vote. I just feel bad that it has to be so heavy-handed. I hope they can combine this effort with education as well.-COLLAPSE
@Frosti You are very insulting you know that?
I'm on food stamps and I think while people shouldn't be drinking sugary sodas, the goverment has no right to take it away from them.
Freedom is an illusion anyway. Ban away! I say that we restrict food stamps to use on lentils and cabbage.
Although, With proper nutrition, maybe the poor would be better able to compete with me in the job market... FRIED CHICKEN AND FAYGO FOR EVERYBODY!
People are stupid, yes. Especially if you're someone who links food to emotions. Fully support this.
And isn't American soda all full of HFCS anyway, which is substantially worse?