Food Stamps at Restaurants? Yes or No?
#1
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/...ps/245002/
Readers Robyn and Will sent me a link to an ABC News story about Yum! Brands efforts to get more states to authorize the use of food stamp (SNAP) benefits in fast food restaurants.

Michigan, California, Arizona, and Florida already do this. Yum! wants it to go national.

They write:

We believe that food stamps should be used to buy nutritious food for kids and families, not junk food! This nonsense has to stop! This is a government program -- it should not be a means for corporations to sell products that will eventually lead to ever-increasing health problems -- obesity, heart issues, diabetes, etc. What can we do to be heard?

USA Today did a story on this last week. It elicited more than 1,000 comments. I'm not surprised.

The issue thoroughly divides the food advocacy community. Public health and anti-hunger advocates sharply disagree on this issue, as they do on the question of whether sodas should be taxed.

USA Today quoted Kelly Brownell, director of Yale's anti-obesity Rudd Center:

It's preposterous that a company like Yum! Brands would even be considered for inclusion in a program meant for supplemental nutrition.

But then the article quoted Ed Cooney, executive director of the Congressional Hunger Center and a long-time anti-hunger advocate:

They think going hungry is better? ... I'm solidly behind what Yum! is doing.

Of course he is. Want to take a guess at who funds the Congressional Hunger Center?

Yum! is listed as a "Sower," meaning that its annual gift is in the range of $10,000. I'm guessing Yum! is delighted that it is getting such good value at such low cost.

USA Today was negligent in not mentioning Mr. Cooney's financial ties to Yum! and other food brands. Such ties matter, and readers deserve to know about them.

But Mr. Cooney's argument worries me on grounds beyond the evident conflict of interest.

For one thing, it smacks of elitism. "Let them eat junk food" argues that it's okay for the poor to eat unhealthfully. I think the poor deserve to be treated better.

For another, promoting use of SNAP benefits for fast food and sodas makes it and other food assistance programs vulnerable to attack.

Rates of obesity are higher among low-income groups, including SNAP recipients, than in the general population.

Anti-hunger and public health advocates need to work a lot harder to find common ground if they want food assistance programs to continue to help low-income Americans.

Let's be clear about what's at stake here. SNAP is an entitlement program, meaning that anyone who qualifies can get benefits.

In June 2011 alone, according to USDA, 45 million Americans received an average of $133 in benefits at a total cost to taxpayers of more than $6 billion.

That's a lot of money to spend on fast food. Yum!'s interest in getting some of that money is understandable.

If you think low-income Americans deserve better:

Complain to Congress for permitting the legal loophole that allows this.
Insist to USDA that SNAP benefits be permitted only for real food.
Get your city to recruit farmers' markets, grocery stores, and other sources of healthy food to low-income areas.
Let your congressional representatives know that you want a safety net for people who are out of work that enables people to eat healthfully.
And tell the Congressional Hunger Center and similarly inclined anti-hunger groups that you think conflicts of interest interfere with their ability to help the clients they are supposedly trying to serve.
Image: REUTERS/Tomas Bravo.
Reply
#2
+:
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/...on/245085/
As many of you have pointed out, the use of SNAP benefits in fast food restaurants is a state decision but one that is supposed to be limited to the elderly, disabled, and homeless (whether those limitations are adhered to in practice is another question).

This morning I received further clarification from Aaron Lavallee, communications coordinator in the USDA Office of Communications. Mr. Lavallee, whom I don't think I've met, writes:

Marion,

I just read your post in the Atlantic and wanted to follow up with you with some information that can clarify some of the misinformation posted and to help bring accuracy to parts that may be misleading for your readers.

You probably know most of this but Restaurant Meal Program has been an option for states -- state run, state contracted, state administered -- since the 1977 Food Stamp Act. The decision to establish a restaurant meal program is made entirely at the state level.

Most importantly, the ONLY people who qualify are the elderly, disabled, and homeless, as this provision is intended to assist people who are unable to prepare meals at home or in a traditional kitchen setting. This key fact and requirement of the law is mentioned nowhere in your article and we can both agree that with that clarification this story changes drastically.

Since 1977 the decision to establish a restaurant meal program has been made by only a handful of states and because of this participation is very low.

As noted in your article, California, Arizona, and Michigan are operating State-administered restaurant programs serving their elderly, homeless, and disabled populations. Rhode Island began a limited pilot restaurant program on August 1, 2011. However, you also mention Florida without providing the facts to your readers. In 2009, Florida began operating a pilot program in one county and has a total of only 14 restaurants participating. Furthermore in Florida this option is ONLY available to the homeless. To date, Florida has not expanded that pilot.

The original emails to you from readers Robyn and Will were inaccurate -- this is not an option for any SNAP beneficiary which is what they are thinking.

Additionally, you close by drawing a false conclusion -- "In June 2011 alone, according to USDA, 45 million Americans received an average of $133 in benefits at a total cost to taxpayers of more than $6 billion. That's a lot of money to spend on fast food." This can't be spent on fast food because it is not an option for the 45 million Americans on SNAP.

Your voice has been and will continue to be an important one when it comes to nutrition in America. Your opinion continues to add to the healthy dialogue on critical issues ranging from MyPlate to the school meal programs. Your insight and knowledge on these topics is beneficial to everyone working to improve the health and wellbeing of Americans.

This is a critical opportunity for those of us with the ability to communicate to do so actively and accurately.

Because of that I ask that you add a clarifying note to your blog post highlighting the facts and clarifying for your readers you're the truth about this program.

Please know that I am glad to help provide any information I can. Tim Laskawy at Grist hit the nail on the head with his piece.

I apologize for not making the restrictions clear in my original post and I thank all of you and Mr. Lavallee for taking the trouble to file corrections.

I also should have said that the billions of dollars in SNAP benefits could be a lot to spend on fast food.

SNAP must look like a honey pot to fast food and other companies that cannot wait to get their hands on some of those benefits. That's what Yum! (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.) is trying to do.

But make no mistake. Yum! is not a social service agency concerned about feeding the elderly, disabled, or homeless. Yum! wants to attract low-income people with SNAP money to spend to its fast food restaurants.

Image: Creative Commons.
Reply
#3
NO!
Reply
#4
Yes


Most importantly, the ONLY people who qualify are the elderly, disabled, and homeless, as this provision is intended to assist people who are unable to prepare meals at home or in a traditional kitchen setting
Reply
#5
Hell No

Nor should food stamp recipients be allowed to smoke. At $8 a pack or whatever they cost if you can afford to smoke you can afford to buy your own food.
Reply
#6
We should nicotine test them for eligibility too. Smiling
Reply
#7
(09-14-2011, 07:13 PM)Red White and Blue Wrote: Hell No

Nor should food stamp recipients be allowed to smoke. At $8 a pack or whatever they cost if you can afford to smoke you can afford to buy your own food.

So you don't care about the elderly, disabled, and homeless people who can't cook or prepare meals?

And how are you going to enforce your no food if you smoke program? Ans why just cigs. Why not food stamp recipients who drink alcohol?
Reply
#8
(09-14-2011, 07:38 PM)PonderThis Wrote: We should nicotine test them for eligibility too. Smiling

Red is too smart to ever be addicted. Wink
I was. Addicted that is. Never very smart.
I was married very young, and divorced later. I had little money left over in those early years and although I had a good job I was paying both spousal and child support.
Red, I sometimes skipped lunch so I could pay a pack of smokes.

I finally quit many years later. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. (another very hard thing was to give up eating moth balls). Razz


Later edit: Oh, forgot about the subject. Damn straight, what TVg said!
Reply
#9
First to be upset that they buy $8 packs of cigarettes can be solved if we sell poor folks cigarettes tax free.
Would you be so upset that they smoked a quarter a day pack of cigarettes.

Or do you favor taxing the poor at the same amount as the rich.

Hot meals programs are not part of food stamps.. They should remain a sperate service.

People who prepare food for the eligible folks can prepare food with food bought with stamps.

My understanding is you can't buy a hot meal with stamps.
Walmart takes whole chickens which they cook and sell warm and put some in a refrigerated shelf. They can buy that, take it home and microwave it.

If you go to 7-11 and buy a frozen burrito, pay for it, then microwave it. Don't heated it before you pay.

Reply
#10
Yes but only at corporate owned restaurants. This would pass the Tea party and GOP test. Laughing
Reply
#11
(09-14-2011, 08:55 PM)chuck white Wrote: First to be upset that they buy $8 packs of cigarettes can be solved if we sell poor folks cigarettes tax free.
Would you be so upset that they smoked a quarter a day pack of cigarettes.

Yes I would. Smoking causes long term health problems and the bill will be passed on to those of us who actually pay taxes.

Or do you favor taxing the poor at the same amount as the rich.

Depends on the tax. For sin taxes yes.


Hot meals programs are not part of food stamps.. They should remain a sperate service.

I agree.

People who prepare food for the eligible folks can prepare food with food bought with stamps.

I agree.

My understanding is you can't buy a hot meal with stamps.
Walmart takes whole chickens which they cook and sell warm and put some in a refrigerated shelf. They can buy that, take it home and microwave it.

If you go to 7-11 and buy a frozen burrito, pay for it, then microwave it. Don't heated it before you pay.

Yep. Thanks the way it works.

Reply
#12
Cigarettes don't cost anyone 8 bucks a pack. They might cost up to about $5.79 if you buy name brand and buy a pack one at a time.
You can buy generic brands cheaper and you can buy pipe tobacco a LOT cheaper.

All this anger at people who still smoke but need help buying food is a bit odd. Cigarettes are taxed heavily.The fact is the most smokers are at the bottom of the income earners and not as well educated and able to get a higher paying job as most non smokers.
Yet these people pay a LOT of taxes to the government when they buy their addictive drug of choice. Alcohol is exactly the same. In other words our government is the biggest of all drug dealers and profits immensely off of these drug addicts.

So knowing that does it strike anyone else as a bit odd to be so worried that some of these people might be able to spend their food stamps on a hot meal?
Reply
#13
I never thought about it that way. Now I'm in favor of them buying tobacco with food stamps too. Smiling
Reply
#14
(09-15-2011, 09:31 AM)tvguy Wrote: The fact is the most smokers are at the bottom of the income earners and not as well educated and able to get a higher paying job as most non smokers.

A fact? Really? I think you would be amazed at how many intellectually superior, high-wage earners are in fact...SMOKERS.

I realize you said "most", but you should change that to "some".
Reply
#15
I wonder what the average would be?
Reply
#16
My initial response is absolutely NO. Reading TV's post made me think a bit but I believe we have enough programs that help the elderly, handicapped and homeless with hot meals for much cheaper than it costs to go to a restaurant.
Reply
#17
(09-15-2011, 10:01 AM)broadzilla Wrote:
(09-15-2011, 09:31 AM)tvguy Wrote: The fact is the most smokers are at the bottom of the income earners and not as well educated and able to get a higher paying job as most non smokers.

A fact? Really? I think you would be amazed at how many intellectually superior, high-wage earners are in fact...SMOKERS.

I realize you said "most", but you should change that to "some".

Sorry Darling but I believe it is in fact a fact that the majority of today's smokers are less educated and have lower earnings than non smokers. That's why I said "most".
As far as intellectual superior people I never said anything about intellect.


Reply
#18
People of all intellects are capable of becoming addicted. It seems like the smarter ones learn from the experience though.
Reply
#19
(09-15-2011, 11:06 AM)PonderThis Wrote: People of all intellects are capable of becoming addicted. It seems like the smarter ones learn from the experience though.

Ponder I don't know if you have seen this but in construction the lower the level wage earners of pay the more smokers. That may be anecdotal but it's true.
As far as the smarter people learning from the experience, yeah I suppose that's true but who today is dumb enough to not know smoking is unhealthy?
It's an addiction and different people have more or less problems quitting.

It seems to me like a lot of people who are what you might say a lower level of society simply don't care if smoking is unhealthy and already have a lousy attitude.

I remember once the Jackson county Sheriff said that virtually 100% of the inmates were smokers.
I bet if you sat on the side of the road and watched for people driving by that were smoking you would find that the most crappy cars have the highest rates of people smoking.
Reply
#20
You're preaching to the choir here. I tell people to their face that smoking turns them into voluntary outcasts and low lifes. Not only does it cost them financially and healthwise, but it costs them in work efficiency, relationships, and lost opportunities because nobody else wants to be around their stinky selves. This has been a personal crusade of mine for years now, not that it's helped much.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)