N.Y. to Ban Food Stamps Used on Sugary Drinks

[PeshakJang]

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...stamps-used-on-sugary-drinks/?test=latestnews

Are sodas and other sugary drinks making Americans fat? Nutritionists say yes… and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who isn’t shy about mandating healthier lifestyles, is trying to do something about it.

​

Drinking one soda or sugary drink a day can pack on 15 pounds a year. A 20 ounce drink can contain up to 16 packs of sugar. And while food stamps can’t be used to purchase cigarettes, beer, liquor, pet food, vitamins, household goods or prepared foods like deli sandwiches, you can use them to buy as many sugar-packed beverages you want.


That could soon change in the Big Apple.


The mayor, who’s already banned smoking in restaurants, bars and many public places, banned trans-fats in restaurants and requires the posting of calorie counts on menus, is now asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets the rules for the Food Stamp program, to forbid New Yorkers from using those stamps on any beverage containing more than ten calories per 8 ounces (except for milk products and fruit juice without added sugar).


Bloomberg says “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on food and drinks that provide real nourishment.” He requested a two-year ban to study its effect and weigh whether a permanent ban is in order.


City statistics show nearly 40 percent of public school children in Kindergarten through 8th grade are overweight or obese and obesity rates are higher in poor neighborhoods. So is the consumption of sugary beverages. With 1.7 million city residents on food stamps, the impact could be dramatic.


The beverage industry is, as you might expect, opposed to the Mayor’s proposal. The U.S.D.A. says it “appreciates the State’s interest” and “will review and consider the State’s proposal.”
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...-sugary-drinks/?test=latestnews#ixzz11hMx9PAa
​

​

As much as I hate government intrusion, food bans, smoking bans, etc., I've always said that once you start taking taxpayer money to support yourself, you lose the right to do whatever you want with it.

If you can't afford to feed yourself or your family, then you sure as shit shouldn't be buying soda. If you are getting unemployment checks, you sure as shit shouldn't be in a casino. If you are getting section 8, you sure as shit shouldn't be leasing a car.

You want to do any of those things, get your ass off of welfare.

 

[Vette73]

I have no problem with it.

Use you own money to buy junk. Use the food stamps for good food, esp since kids are the largest number of people that get food stamps.

 

[GoPackGo]

MN wanted to do something similar and the USDA said nope!

 

[drebo]

I have no problem with it. It is a state program and the state is free to do with it what it likes.

I do like that it exempted proper fruit juice and milk, though.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not opposed to the idea of limiting how a government subsidy is spent. However, I don't see how this does any good. Food stamps do not cover 100% of even a poor person's food budget. They don't really even cover the basic food necessities. Hence, the food stamp recipient makes up the difference with money, either from a meager working income, from welfare checks, or some other source. If they want sugary drinks or anything else not government approved, they'll use money to buy it, and use the food stamps to get everything that is government approved. So last month they used the food stamps to buy Pepsi but paid cash for the broccoli. Next month they aren't allowed to use food stamps to buy Pepsi, so they use them to buy the broccoli and use cash to buy the Pepsi. Same result.

- wolf

 

[ayabe]

I'm generally against this type of nanny stuff, but we're footing the bill, there's a big distinction.

I don't believe we should be subsidizing poor health which then in turn we have to pay for out the ass in terms of healthcare. That's double-dip stupidity.

 

[spidey07]

Any food that doesn't provide necessary nutrition should be banned from food stamps. Zero junk food like chips, ice cream. You should see the crap people put in their carts with food stamps, nothing but expensive name brand junk food.

Also, if a generic brand is available over a more expensive name brand then the more expensive one is banned.

Woolfe - food stamps can easily more than cover food for the entire month no matter how many people are in the family.

 

[woolfe9999]

Any food that doesn't provide necessary nutrition should be banned from food stamps. Zero junk food like chips, ice cream. You should see the crap people put in their carts with food stamps, nothing but expensive name brand junk food.

Also, if a generic brand is available over a more expensive name brand then the more expensive one is banned.

Woolfe - food stamps can easily more than cover food for the entire month no matter how many people are in the family.

It depends on the particulars, including what state you are in, how many are in your family, your income, etc. I know someone on food stamps here in CA and she gets $12 a month. She used to get $80/mo but after the budget cuts she's down to $12. Either way, it was never enough to cover it.

I don't mind the idea of restricting it in this manner. It can't really hurt. I just doubt it will help much.

- wolf

 

[PeshakJang]

I'm not opposed to the idea of limiting how a government subsidy is spent. However, I don't see how this does any good. Food stamps do not cover 100% of even a poor person's food budget. They don't really even cover the basic food necessities. Hence, the food stamp recipient makes up the difference with money, either from a meager working income, from welfare checks, or some other source. If they want sugary drinks or anything else not government approved, they'll use money to buy it, and use the food stamps to get everything that is government approved. So last month they used the food stamps to buy Pepsi but paid cash for the broccoli. Next month they aren't allowed to use food stamps to buy Pepsi, so they use them to buy the broccoli and use cash to buy the Pepsi. Same result.

- wolf

I don't know how the NY system works, how much people get, etc., but I think that even if it only makes it harder for people to use them to buy junk food, it can help. Like I said though, I wish it would be expanded to every welfare program and become much more intrusive. Make it a disincentive to be on the program, and people will be more willing to get off of it.

 

[spidey07]

It depends on the particulars, including what state you are in, how many are in your family, your income, etc. I know someone on food stamps here in CA and she gets $12 a month. She used to get $80/mo but after the budget cuts she's down to $12. Either way, it was never enough to cover it.

I don't mind the idea of restricting it in this manner. It can't really hurt. I just doubt it will help much.

- wolf

That's weird. The article I read yesterday about the midnight shoppers at walmart (because their food stamp money get's deposited at midnight) it was 400-650 dollars a month depending on the family size.

 

[theeedude]

Should exclude all drinks except milk.

 

[bamacre]

As we grow more responsible for each others' bad decisions, so does our desire to manage each others' lives. The ends justify the means. Freedom is tossed aside for effectiveness.

 

[Vette73]

I'm not opposed to the idea of limiting how a government subsidy is spent. However, I don't see how this does any good. Food stamps do not cover 100% of even a poor person's food budget. They don't really even cover the basic food necessities. Hence, the food stamp recipient makes up the difference with money, either from a meager working income, from welfare checks, or some other source. If they want sugary drinks or anything else not government approved, they'll use money to buy it, and use the food stamps to get everything that is government approved. So last month they used the food stamps to buy Pepsi but paid cash for the broccoli. Next month they aren't allowed to use food stamps to buy Pepsi, so they use them to buy the broccoli and use cash to buy the Pepsi. Same result.

- wolf

Problem is many get the food stamps and use them for soda and other junk and make their kids get all their food from school.

I worked the boys/girls club and the local school had a program to feed kids in the summer as many got little if not. Only problem is school food has got worse over the year so its not much better now.

 

[Vette73]

That's weird. The article I read yesterday about the midnight shoppers at walmart (because their food stamp money get's deposited at midnight) it was 400-650 dollars a month depending on the family size.

Not sure how it works in most states but many have levels and give out certain amounts based on income, kids, etc...

I remember when my family was poor we did not get food stamps but damm Gov chesse is good. And no I am not joking. Have a Gov cheese grilled cheese sandwich and you will know what I am talking about.

 

[PeshakJang]

That's weird. The article I read yesterday about the midnight shoppers at walmart (because their food stamp money get's deposited at midnight) it was 400-650 dollars a month depending on the family size.

From looking at the NY website that gives you estimates on benefits, it can range anywhere from 0 to $1800/month, depending on household size and your income.

 

[PeshakJang]

As we grow more responsible for each others' bad decisions, so does our desire to manage each others' lives. The ends justify the means. Freedom is tossed aside for effectiveness.

So you would prefer that those making poor decisions should be allowed to continue doing so, and we should pay for those poor decisions on top of it? Correct me if that's not what you are saying.

 

[spidey07]

From looking at the NY website that gives you estimates on benefits, it can range anywhere from 0 to $1800/month, depending on household size and your income.

Have more kids that you can't afford = get mo money, mo money, mo money!

 

[woolfe9999]

That's weird. The article I read yesterday about the midnight shoppers at walmart (because their food stamp money get's deposited at midnight) it was 400-650 dollars a month depending on the family size.

It may be that California's food stamp program is different from many other states. I've seen a statistic floating around that 1/3 of all welfare recipients are in California, but that statistic doesn't jive with the fact that CA welfare spending per capita is only slightly above the national average. My theory is that CA gives enormous numbers of people very small food stamp allowances, whereas in other states the eligibility requirements are narrower, but the benefits are higher.

- wolf

 

[bamacre]

So you would prefer that those making poor decisions should be allowed to continue doing so,

Yes.

and we should pay for those poor decisions on top of it? Correct me if that's not what you are saying.

No.

 

[Throckmorton]

The calorie limitation makes no sense. They should have restricted solely based on sugar content.

Now, soy milk is presumably banned because it's not milk or juice.

 

[woolfe9999]

From looking at the NY website that gives you estimates on benefits, it can range anywhere from 0 to $1800/month, depending on household size and your income.

I don't know if this is the website you're referring to or not:

http://www.otda.state.ny.us/main/programs/food-stamps/#benefits

According to that, you'd need a family of 12 to get $1800 a month, but that is the "maximum" food stamp benefit you can get for that family size. My impression is that food stamps have an eligibility threshold based on income, but you do not get the maximum by just getting barely under the income threshold. I think the actual amount you get is scaled as inversely proportionate to income, with the benefits in the chart being the maximum you can get.

- wolf

 

[Ns1]

not seeing a problem here

if you're getting food stamps you should probably buy a brita filter.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Drinks aren't food to begin with. Milk ok.......otherwise...deal with water like normal people.

 

[her209]

It may be that California's food stamp program is different from many other states. I've seen a statistic floating around that 1/3 of all welfare recipients are in California, but that statistic doesn't jive with the fact that CA welfare spending per capita is only slightly above the national average. My theory is that CA gives enormous numbers of people very small food stamp allowances, whereas in other states the eligibility requirements are narrower, but the benefits are higher.

- wolf

I believe Commiefornia, for the most part, requires work to receive welfare (CalWORKS) which skews welfare recipient statistics.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have to disagree Bamacre. There ought to be significant strings attached to receiving government money. There shouldn't be unlimited license to procreate. I'd support a cashless system much like what is done with health savings accounts. Only certain items are covered, and if one doesn't like the "menu" then when they are on their own resources they can expand their options. We had George Soros obligate the government to spend $175 million in NY on anything welfare recipients wanted. It supposedly was for school supplies and was spent on alcohol, tobacco and electronics like HDTVs.

No.