Jump to content

Food Stamps should NOT be for junk food!


Guest Julius Quasar

Recommended Posts

Guest Julius Quasar

As much as I hate that disgusting, stupid, evil, gun-grabbing, jack-booted, fascist pig billionaire tyrant curmudgeon Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, I'll agree with him on this subject (Ugh, I feel so dirty saying I agree with him). *scrubs myself clean*

Now...in my opinion, people who receive food stamps disgust me (unless they are old or disabled and can't work, or unless they're military veterans).  Those who receive them, however, should NOT be allowed to purchase junk food with them.  If they want soda pop and chips and candy, they should earn the money to get it.  Heck, find some discarded cans and recycle them.  That can get you some junk food, or a six pack of soda.  But when you are eating on the taxpayers' dime, you should be restricted to only healthy food, and by "Healthy Food, I don't mean that pretentious overpriced crap at "Whole Paycheck" markets.  Just your basic nutritious food, covering the 4 major food groups.

People on food stamps, who eat junk food, become obese, and when they get obese, they run up health care costs and clog up our hospitals.  Taxpayer money shouldn't lead to that.  It's already illegal in some places to use food stamps for beer and cigarettes, which I think is VERY reasonable.  Kids shouldn't grow up on soda, chips, and candy.  It really can stunt their [upwards] growth, and make them fat, and ruin their health.  It can happen to adults too.  There are MANY tasty, yet healthy and not overpriced alternatives for families/households to eat.

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with this is that the higher-quality grocery stores are located in more suburban areas that are far too out of the way for poor people to get to. The smaller stores they can access don't have the buying power of the big ones, and are often left with lower-quality produce that is more expensive than the junk food.

Also, the beer and cigarettes is a faulty analogy as they are not food items.

While I agree that we have a serious junk food problem in this country, targeting those who get food stamps with the policy changes does nothing to fix the problem, while making life more difficult for the poor, who are always the first to get screwed in bad economic times or when there are "reforms" of public services.

The trend of obesity also happens to match the trend of adoption of High Fructose Corn Syrup. Cane sugar is healthier, and I think the government should use tax policy to make HFCS less attractive as a sweetener (the reason it became so popular is that it is cheaper than Cane Sugar). Sadly that isn't likely as Monsanto owns too many congressmen...

Long story short, people buying unhealthy food with food stamps is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

Hm, but don't regular grocery stores stock things like carrots, or apples, some deli meat?  Stores like Safeway, Kroeger's, A & P, etc. have healthy, nutritious food that's affordable, even for the food stamp crowd...least the ones I've seen in the city do.  I got a buddy I visit in Los Angeles, CA. and he's got a grocery store around the corner that sells food that's affordable, yet healthy. 

Also, the beer and cigarettes is a faulty analogy as they are not food items.

I'm well aware of that.  It's not an analogy, it's a fact, people on food stamps were, for a while, purchasing non-food items like beer and cigarettes for a while, abusing the food stamps, until they outlawed the purchase of beer, cigs, and other non food consumables like that using food stamps.

The trend of obesity also happens to match the trend of adoption of High Fructose Corn Syrup. Cane sugar is healthier, and I think the government should use tax policy to make HFCS less attractive as a sweetener (the reason it became so popular is that it is cheaper than Cane Sugar). Sadly that isn't likely as Monsanto owns too many congressmen...

Ugh, tell me about it.  Damn HFCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, but don't regular grocery stores stock things like carrots, or apples, some deli meat?  Stores like Safeway, Kroeger's, A & P, etc. have healthy, nutritious food that's affordable, even for the food stamp crowd...least the ones I've seen in the city do.  I got a buddy I visit in Los Angeles, CA. and he's got a grocery store around the corner that sells food that's affordable, yet healthy.

If you know someone who lives in a poor neighborhood close to a major chain grocer, that is an exception, not the rule. Those stores do not like to put locations in poor neighborhoods. Thusly, those people are forced to buy from stores who do not sell those things as cheaply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

Well, I've also seen many independently run family owned "bodegas" and places like that in the city that sell affordable healthy food too.  But I know what you're getting at, these damn "Jr. Market/Liquor Stores" tend to outnumber the typical food stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really comment not being american and all, but I have a question. What makes junk food junk food?

In Britain, the anti fat movement is a hyporcritical one, as they difine what junk food is. Rather then objective, it's subjective. Eliteism basicly. To prove it, they go after chip shops, curry and pizza places, sweet shops, and other places the working classes get fat, but upper class eating places are left untouched despite being as, if not more, fattening and unhealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

I can't really comment not being american and all, but I have a question. What makes junk food junk food?

In Britain, the anti fat movement is a hyporcritical one, as they difine what junk food is. Rather then objective, it's subjective. Eliteism basicly. To prove it, they go after chip shops, curry and pizza places, sweet shops, and other places the working classes get fat, but upper class eating places are left untouched despite being as, if not more, fattening and unhealthy.

True, that can be subject to abuse in the definition, both in the U.S. and in the U.K., and elsewhere, but I think it's basically the universal "empty calories/no nutritional value" foods that are considered junk food under the American "Food and Drug Administration".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...