I just had a thought. What if buying healthy foods on food stamps got you more of them? I mean I still get the soda thing and that should still be done (otherwise there's just more for soda left!), but lets discount just soda for a second.
If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?
Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.
What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?
Got any statistics on that obesity by income thing? I have a hard time believing someone who makes $20,000 a year is substantially fatter than $30,000 (I am aware the gap between 30 and 50 thousand is like 10% though)
Well, there's this. Granted, it's from a horribly right-wing site, but the data doesn't appear to be all that biased. It basically asserts that there is a direct relationship between nutritional welfare and obesity, though there isn't much there talking about the variables within the data. SNAP is the name for the federal nutritional program.
Average of the top five: 30.92% obese, 13.9% SNAP
Average of the bottom five: 21.0% obese, 6.9% SNAP
Basically, the most obese states have the highest incidences of people on welfare, and vice versa.
Yes, yes. The problem is that 30.9 is the same rate of obesity as people who make $30,000 a year, which is too much for SNAP.
I'm genuinely curious if obesity keeps going up as you go further down. For example, a household making $30,000 can afford a lot more potato chips than a $17,000 household on food stamps.
I just had a thought. What if buying healthy foods on food stamps got you more of them? I mean I still get the soda thing and that should still be done (otherwise there's just more for soda left!), but lets discount just soda for a second.
If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?
Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.
What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?
I just had a thought. What if buying healthy foods on food stamps got you more of them? I mean I still get the soda thing and that should still be done (otherwise there's just more for soda left!), but lets discount just soda for a second.
If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?
Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.
What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?
It'd be pretty great. I'm all for subsidizing healthier foods. God knows junk food is subsidized out the ass.
Quid on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They are quite intelligent enough to decide for themselves, and thank God they weren't overly dissuaded from using a service the government wants someone in her position to actually use.
So, you would support government subsidized cigarettes because a fraction of those in that system would be able to use them at safe levels?
Dude, the data's already there. Poor people are shit at being healthy. Citing exceptions to that do not a strong case make.
The argument is: do you believe this will make an impact?
I'm pretty sure it will create a 100% drop in the amount of food stamp money spent on soda.
And that right there saves $75-125 million dollars a year (or 5% of all foodstamp spending), that will now be spent on comparatively more nutricious foodstuffs.
That is pretty fucking huge.
I would also like any system that added another field to the purchases on foodstamps, as has been suggested multiple times in the thread already, and apparently implemented somewhere as well. Wherein any nutritional foods purchased on the foodstamps provides an automatic 50-100% "rebate" where it increases the food allotment.
The argument is: do you believe this will make an impact?
I'm pretty sure it will create a 100% drop in the amount of food stamp money spent on soda.
And that right there saves $75-125 million dollars a year (or 5% of all foodstamp spending), that will now be spent on comparatively more nutricious foodstuffs.
That is pretty fucking huge.
I would also like any system that added another field to the purchases on foodstamps, as has been suggested multiple times in the thread already, and apparently implemented somewhere as well. Wherein any nutritional foods purchased on the foodstamps provides an automatic 50-100% "rebate" where it increases the food allotment.
I hope so but to be honest, the soda is usually right next to the orange juice and other, even worse things.
The argument is: do you believe this will make an impact?
I'm pretty sure it will create a 100% drop in the amount of food stamp money spent on soda.
And that right there saves $75-125 million dollars a year (or 5% of all foodstamp spending), that will now be spent on comparatively more nutricious foodstuffs.
That is pretty fucking huge.
I would also like any system that added another field to the purchases on foodstamps, as has been suggested multiple times in the thread already, and apparently implemented somewhere as well. Wherein any nutritional foods purchased on the foodstamps provides an automatic 50-100% "rebate" where it increases the food allotment.
I hope so but to be honest, the soda is usually right next to the orange juice and other, even worse things.
I know sugary juice isn't great for you, but there's a pretty big chasm between orange juice and pepsi for nutritional value.
I don't know if I like that idea simply because I don't think the cost of healthy foods is the major issue. Staple foods are dead cheap already. Rice, beans, flour, and potatoes aren't budget killers. People, even people on food stamps, choose similarly priced but far less healthy options for a huge variety of reasons but I find it hard to believe 'rice is too pricy at $4 for a 10 lb bag' is the driving fator. Rice is rice - you still have to cook it, and you have to do something with it to make it appetizing. That's a skill base and a time investment, and I suspect those are the major factors not just among people on food stamps but in the general population.
JihadJesus on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm genuinely curious if obesity keeps going up as you go further down. For example, a household making $30,000 can afford a lot more potato chips than a $17,000 household on food stamps.
If you'll scroll down to the tables, you'll see that it does seem to insinuate that obesity is related to both education and income, however there are some significant variations along the data. Such as, it does seem that there is a definite point where having a *small* amount of discretionary income is actually bad for your health.
But basically, the better your income and education, the less likely your incidence of being obese.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The argument is: do you believe this will make an impact?
I'm pretty sure it will create a 100% drop in the amount of food stamp money spent on soda.
And that right there saves $75-125 million dollars a year (or 5% of all foodstamp spending), that will now be spent on comparatively more nutricious foodstuffs.
That is pretty fucking huge.
I would also like any system that added another field to the purchases on foodstamps, as has been suggested multiple times in the thread already, and apparently implemented somewhere as well. Wherein any nutritional foods purchased on the foodstamps provides an automatic 50-100% "rebate" where it increases the food allotment.
I hope so but to be honest, the soda is usually right next to the orange juice and other, even worse things.
I know sugary juice isn't great for you, but there's a pretty big chasm between orange juice and pepsi for nutritional value.
By big chasm you mean has the same amount of sugar (or more) but also contains some vitamin c
Pepsi is worse, sure, but don't kid yourself they're pretty damn close
I just had a thought. What if buying healthy foods on food stamps got you more of them? I mean I still get the soda thing and that should still be done (otherwise there's just more for soda left!), but lets discount just soda for a second.
If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?
Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.
What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?
Well that is a damn good idea. I like it.
That's interesting. So basically like a food-stamp-only subsidy of healthier foods.
What a novel idea! (I mean that positively.)
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I just had a thought. What if buying healthy foods on food stamps got you more of them? I mean I still get the soda thing and that should still be done (otherwise there's just more for soda left!), but lets discount just soda for a second.
If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?
Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.
What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?
Well that is a damn good idea. I like it.
That's interesting. So basically like a food-stamp-only subsidy of healthier foods.
The argument is: do you believe this will make an impact?
I'm pretty sure it will create a 100% drop in the amount of food stamp money spent on soda.
And that right there saves $75-125 million dollars a year (or 5% of all foodstamp spending), that will now be spent on comparatively more nutricious foodstuffs.
That is pretty fucking huge.
I would also like any system that added another field to the purchases on foodstamps, as has been suggested multiple times in the thread already, and apparently implemented somewhere as well. Wherein any nutritional foods purchased on the foodstamps provides an automatic 50-100% "rebate" where it increases the food allotment.
I hope so but to be honest, the soda is usually right next to the orange juice and other, even worse things.
I know sugary juice isn't great for you, but there's a pretty big chasm between orange juice and pepsi for nutritional value.
By big chasm you mean has the same amount of sugar (or more) but also contains some vitamin c
Pepsi is worse, sure, but don't kid yourself they're pretty damn close
Well, when you give Pepsi a value of ZERO for nutritional value, and give Vitamin C a value of 1, that means you are dividing by zero, and essentially get a factor of infinity, thus Sunny D can still be mathematically called infinitely more nutricious than pepsi.
Got any statistics on that obesity by income thing? I have a hard time believing someone who makes $20,000 a year is substantially fatter than $30,000 (I am aware the gap between 30 and 50 thousand is like 10% though)
Well, there's this. Granted, it's from a horribly right-wing site, but the data doesn't appear to be all that biased. It basically asserts that there is a direct relationship between nutritional welfare and obesity, though there isn't much there talking about the variables within the data. SNAP is the name for the federal nutritional program.
Average of the top five: 30.92% obese, 13.9% SNAP
Average of the bottom five: 21.0% obese, 6.9% SNAP
Basically, the most obese states have the highest incidences of people on welfare, and vice versa.
That's an interesting correlation, but it doesn't even come close to proving anything.
So, I think that for a lot of people, it will change habits - which goes a long way. Yes people may go for a fruit juice that's not all that much better - but it breaks the habit of thinking that things like coke et al is just part of a normal weekly shop.
A lot of pretty attrocious food is normalised. Look at some of the cerials and drinks that people include in a weekly household shop. I think that this changes the focus in a positive way.
Well, when you give Pepsi a value of ZERO for nutritional value, and give Vitamin C a value of 1, that means you are dividing by zero, and essentially get a factor of infinity, thus Sunny D can still be mathematically called infinitely more nutricious than pepsi.
Wow, you've learned to speak just like a nutritionist working for Big Ag.
"Hey, our food is totally healthy! When eaten in moderation! Which is a very, very small amount! And throw in a bunch of other legitimately healthy foods with it! And exercise! For like, 2 hours a day!"
Which basically really means that if you are being a paragon of health, eating their product in extremely small amounts won't harm you that badly.
Part of this complete breakfast.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Got any statistics on that obesity by income thing? I have a hard time believing someone who makes $20,000 a year is substantially fatter than $30,000 (I am aware the gap between 30 and 50 thousand is like 10% though)
Well, there's this. Granted, it's from a horribly right-wing site, but the data doesn't appear to be all that biased. It basically asserts that there is a direct relationship between nutritional welfare and obesity, though there isn't much there talking about the variables within the data. SNAP is the name for the federal nutritional program.
Average of the top five: 30.92% obese, 13.9% SNAP
Average of the bottom five: 21.0% obese, 6.9% SNAP
Basically, the most obese states have the highest incidences of people on welfare, and vice versa.
That's an interesting correlation, but it doesn't even come close to proving anything.
Which I think is why NYC is performing a two-year study, not a total revamp out of the gate.
Correlation isn't the same as causation, but there's enough correlation across enough variables to at least consider the two phenomena linked. Now, all we need to do is deduce the strength of the variables.
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
You still haven't given a solid response to the fact that all of these "treats" are still quite purchasable with regular ol' cash.
The logic on this is really simple:
- Poor people are statistically far less likely to made good nutritional choices
- Poor people have staggeringly higher rates of obesity and diabetes
- Foodstamps are not "their money," they are charity provided by taxdollars.
- Ergo, concordantly, vis a vis, poor people (as a statistical group) are not capable of choosing healthy dietary options and it behooves the government, if capable, to both keep them from choosing poorly and incurring more wasted taxdollars later on in medical bills.
Aren't all low-income subsidies "taxpayer-funded charity"? Why are people on SSI allowed to use that money to buy whatever type of drink they want?
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
It has the same amount of sugar as soda and none of the fiber. I mean sure it has calories, but it's less good than eating both a regular orange and a handful of sugar
I would argue with you that almost everything titled fruit juice is worse for you than diet soda.
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yeah, and I know all these queens on welfare driving Escalades and whining about how much gas costs. Like Jesus, buy a Prius bitch!
I know you're joking, but the cost difference between a cheap car with terrible MPG and something like a Prius is laughably skewed toward the cheap cars favor.
My wife and I were going to buy a Prius, but ended up with a Silverado instead. The money saved on gas would take about 7 years of driving to break even, not to mention the extra utility of a larger vehicle with storage capacity.
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
It has the same amount of sugar as soda and none of the fiber. I mean sure it has calories, but it's less good than eating both a regular orange and a handful of sugar
I would argue with you that almost everything titled fruit juice is worse for you than diet soda.
Don't the "fruit juices" also promote more of a feeling of satiety than soda, which will have people drinking less as well?
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
You can get vitamin C and calories from Vitamin Water, except it's not allowed because its sugar isn't "natural" like OJ's.
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
It has the same amount of sugar as soda and none of the fiber. I mean sure it has calories, but it's less good than eating both a regular orange and a handful of sugar
I would argue with you that almost everything titled fruit juice is worse for you than diet soda.
Don't the "fruit juices" also promote more of a feeling of satiety than soda, which will have people drinking less as well?
Eh, they're both fructose, I don't see the difference.
Btw when i said none of the fiber I meant of the base fruit, not that soda has fiber
override367 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
It has the same amount of sugar as soda and none of the fiber. I mean sure it has calories, but it's less good than eating both a regular orange and a handful of sugar
I would argue with you that almost everything titled fruit juice is worse for you than diet soda.
Don't the "fruit juices" also promote more of a feeling of satiety than soda, which will have people drinking less as well?
some juices have some pulp or fruit fiber
i don't really know that vitamins cause more satiety
Irond Will on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited October 2010
It's the fiber.
Apple juice from concentrate has absolutely no redeeming qualities, and that is the most common juice.
Hell, most juice drinks you buy, even ones labeled white grape or pear, are largely made from apple juice. It's ridiculous.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I suspect the carbonation and addictive qualities of soft drinks make them worse than a simple calorie / vitamin comparison with orange juice would indicate.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
It has the same amount of sugar as soda and none of the fiber. I mean sure it has calories, but it's less good than eating both a regular orange and a handful of sugar
I would argue with you that almost everything titled fruit juice is worse for you than diet soda.
The effects of caffeine and carbonation are still kind of up in the air, but its sort of a moot point--sugary drinks are bad for you so avoid them.
If OJ was constituting as significant a portion of the foodstamp budget as soft drinks are, it would probably deserve more consideration. Overall I doubt you could get the legislature behind a move to ban orange juice, so I think this is a small victory for nutrition and we should take it.
a pound of bananas is 49 cents I think. some fruits and vegetables are expensive(oh god blackberries), but most are not. the last time I bought green beans I had 2 handfuls of them and it came out to 27 cents.
The debit card EBT system works perfectly fine. When I had to use it, if I tried to purchase alcohol or tupperware or somesuch, it would minus out all the food that is covered by the EBT card then leave me with the alcohol and tupperware to pay with cash. Ultimately this thread seems more about nutrition vs. big ag bullshit, which is all well and good, but in the context of food stamps: Great, generally speaking water is more nutritious than sodas. As is juice. As are basic whole food items. I mean hell, if they removed frozen dinners as an option it might have a greater impact than sodas, but they gotta start somewhere.
I'm glad they're trying to take some steps in the nutritious direction in the only area they're specifically allowed to govern as wholly as they see fit, seeing as this government program in particular exists mainly to keep people alive and healthy.
Dyrwen66 on
Just an ancient PA person who doesn't leave the house much.
Posts
If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?
Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.
What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?
Yes, yes. The problem is that 30.9 is the same rate of obesity as people who make $30,000 a year, which is too much for SNAP.
I'm genuinely curious if obesity keeps going up as you go further down. For example, a household making $30,000 can afford a lot more potato chips than a $17,000 household on food stamps.
Anyway. Super early Thanksgiving dinner. It's been a pleasure debating with you all.
Well that is a damn good idea. I like it.
It'd be pretty great. I'm all for subsidizing healthier foods. God knows junk food is subsidized out the ass.
So, you would support government subsidized cigarettes because a fraction of those in that system would be able to use them at safe levels?
Dude, the data's already there. Poor people are shit at being healthy. Citing exceptions to that do not a strong case make.
And that right there saves $75-125 million dollars a year (or 5% of all foodstamp spending), that will now be spent on comparatively more nutricious foodstuffs.
That is pretty fucking huge.
I would also like any system that added another field to the purchases on foodstamps, as has been suggested multiple times in the thread already, and apparently implemented somewhere as well. Wherein any nutritional foods purchased on the foodstamps provides an automatic 50-100% "rebate" where it increases the food allotment.
MWO: Adamski
I hope so but to be honest, the soda is usually right next to the orange juice and other, even worse things.
I know sugary juice isn't great for you, but there's a pretty big chasm between orange juice and pepsi for nutritional value.
Google directed me to this Finnish study: link
If you'll scroll down to the tables, you'll see that it does seem to insinuate that obesity is related to both education and income, however there are some significant variations along the data. Such as, it does seem that there is a definite point where having a *small* amount of discretionary income is actually bad for your health.
But basically, the better your income and education, the less likely your incidence of being obese.
But not between Pepsi and Sunny Delight.
IIRC the carbonation and caffeine in pepsi make it worse for your teeth and more addictive.
Sunny Delight also has "Vitamin C and stuff!"
Which really isn't much better than Pepsi + Flintstones vitamins, but it is better.
By big chasm you mean has the same amount of sugar (or more) but also contains some vitamin c
Pepsi is worse, sure, but don't kid yourself they're pretty damn close
That's interesting. So basically like a food-stamp-only subsidy of healthier foods.
What a novel idea! (I mean that positively.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i like it a lot
Well, when you give Pepsi a value of ZERO for nutritional value, and give Vitamin C a value of 1, that means you are dividing by zero, and essentially get a factor of infinity, thus Sunny D can still be mathematically called infinitely more nutricious than pepsi.
MWO: Adamski
That's an interesting correlation, but it doesn't even come close to proving anything.
A lot of pretty attrocious food is normalised. Look at some of the cerials and drinks that people include in a weekly household shop. I think that this changes the focus in a positive way.
And I'm sure its a number of things like poor access to exercise equipment, poor access to a good diet, less time to exercise.
It might be going both ways too, where people are more likely to be poor if they're fat due to weight discrimination.
Health habits are a lot like wealth in that they get passed down generation to generation as well.
Wow, you've learned to speak just like a nutritionist working for Big Ag.
"Hey, our food is totally healthy! When eaten in moderation! Which is a very, very small amount! And throw in a bunch of other legitimately healthy foods with it! And exercise! For like, 2 hours a day!"
Which basically really means that if you are being a paragon of health, eating their product in extremely small amounts won't harm you that badly.
Part of this complete breakfast.
Which I think is why NYC is performing a two-year study, not a total revamp out of the gate.
Correlation isn't the same as causation, but there's enough correlation across enough variables to at least consider the two phenomena linked. Now, all we need to do is deduce the strength of the variables.
This is bs, most food stamps are exchanges straight up for either meth or black tar heroin
Survey says:
"Handjobs and crack."
Sorry. But thanks for playing the Feud.
Additionally, fruit juices aren't necessarily bad for you, they're just calorie-dense. If you want vitamin C and calories, orange juice is what you need.
Aren't all low-income subsidies "taxpayer-funded charity"? Why are people on SSI allowed to use that money to buy whatever type of drink they want?
It has the same amount of sugar as soda and none of the fiber. I mean sure it has calories, but it's less good than eating both a regular orange and a handful of sugar
I would argue with you that almost everything titled fruit juice is worse for you than diet soda.
I know you're joking, but the cost difference between a cheap car with terrible MPG and something like a Prius is laughably skewed toward the cheap cars favor.
My wife and I were going to buy a Prius, but ended up with a Silverado instead. The money saved on gas would take about 7 years of driving to break even, not to mention the extra utility of a larger vehicle with storage capacity.
Car companies need to get their shit in gear.
Don't the "fruit juices" also promote more of a feeling of satiety than soda, which will have people drinking less as well?
MWO: Adamski
You can get vitamin C and calories from Vitamin Water, except it's not allowed because its sugar isn't "natural" like OJ's.
Eh, they're both fructose, I don't see the difference.
Btw when i said none of the fiber I meant of the base fruit, not that soda has fiber
some juices have some pulp or fruit fiber
i don't really know that vitamins cause more satiety
Apple juice from concentrate has absolutely no redeeming qualities, and that is the most common juice.
Hell, most juice drinks you buy, even ones labeled white grape or pear, are largely made from apple juice. It's ridiculous.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The effects of caffeine and carbonation are still kind of up in the air, but its sort of a moot point--sugary drinks are bad for you so avoid them.
If OJ was constituting as significant a portion of the foodstamp budget as soft drinks are, it would probably deserve more consideration. Overall I doubt you could get the legislature behind a move to ban orange juice, so I think this is a small victory for nutrition and we should take it.
Unless it's DJO Apple Juice!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No. If they're doing it that way they buy 400$ worth of beer/chips and then trade it for drugs.
OH. And they don't use stamps anymore, it's a debit card now.
I'm glad they're trying to take some steps in the nutritious direction in the only area they're specifically allowed to govern as wholly as they see fit, seeing as this government program in particular exists mainly to keep people alive and healthy.