The Food Nazi Says NO SHRIMP FOR YOU: How One State Plans to Feed the Poor.

[Tristan Scott]

I don't agree with all the foods that were banned on the list in the OP. My argument is that I am not against setting standards.

 

[dismal]

I don't agree with all the foods that were banned on the list in the OP. My argument is that I am not against setting standards.

Well, as long as your standards don't stop me from using food stamps for my preferred meal of shrimp, tequila and amphetamines

 

[Toni]

I don't agree with all the foods that were banned on the list in the OP. My argument is that I am not against setting standards.

Why should those standards apply only to low income people reliant on food stamps?

What criteria should be used to set these standards?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looking at the WI site, 100% juice is allowed. Juice is no where near as healthy as fruit! Soup is not allowed?!

Beans are allowed, but have to be "mature".

Salmon is allowed, but not white or albacore tuna. Light is safer mercury wise.

Personally, I'd love to see the justification for block cheese being allowed (of course only mild or medium cheddar is allowed... since when was the price for sharp any higher?)!

Tomato sauce is okay, but spaghetti sauce is not. ???

All in all, it isn't too bad, but some of the yes and no seem awfully arbitrary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't agree with all the foods that were banned on the list in the OP. My argument is that I am not against setting standards.

Why should those standards apply only to low income people reliant on food stamps?

What criteria should be used to set these standards?

Simply put, it isn't their money. It isn't unreasonable to set limits especially when the money has a very specific purpose.

I ponder there has to be a better system. I'd think assigning negative and positive points to foods would be better (encourages getting fresh veggies and fruit and then being able to get a few "treats"). Allow people to buy whatever, but they can't go above a certain number of points per dollar spent at the register. People should be able to be free to choose foods that the general public is offered to purchase. Obviously certain luxuries need to be limited, but are we really having a problem with poor people trying to buy 20 lbs of lobster?

The system should be to help ensure the money goes where intended, allow for flexibility of the person receiving the funds, and to also help foster good eating habits for down road.

 

[laughing dog]

Limiting what these stamps can buy really only affects the very poor. For example, suppose a household spends $60 a week on food but doesn't buy shrimp. Then they get food stamps worth $60 a week. Now, they spend $110 a week on food - $60 of food on the approved list with food stamps, and $50 a week on food not on the approved list and $10 a week on wine. Technically the foods stamps were used for their legislated purpose, but this hypothetical household did, in essence, use the food stamps to finance the purchases on unapproved items. So to the extent that a household has some cash, it can legally evade the mandates with that cash. Households without cash cannot.

Good eating habits are learned and should be taught, not mandated via cumbersome and idiotic rules of purchase.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Most people who get nutritional assistance are employed and have incomes. If they wish they can and do buy other items with their own money.

 

[Toni]

Why should those standards apply only to low income people reliant on food stamps?

What criteria should be used to set these standards?

Simply put, it isn't their money. It isn't unreasonable to set limits especially when the money has a very specific purpose.

I ponder there has to be a better system. I'd think assigning negative and positive points to foods would be better (encourages getting fresh veggies and fruit and then being able to get a few "treats"). Allow people to buy whatever, but they can't go above a certain number of points per dollar spent at the register. People should be able to be free to choose foods that the general public is offered to purchase. Obviously certain luxuries need to be limited, but are we really having a problem with poor people trying to buy 20 lbs of lobster?

The system should be to help ensure the money goes where intended, allow for flexibility of the person receiving the funds, and to also help foster good eating habits for down road.

Why isn't letting people make their own decisions about what they eat the best option?

 

[laughing dog]

Most people who get nutritional assistance are employed and have incomes. If they wish they can and do buy other items with their own money.

For those people, these rules are simply require a bit more effort to separate out the purchases. Seems like a waste of effort on the part of the consumer and the stores who have to enforce this.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Most people who get nutritional assistance are employed and have incomes. If they wish they can and do buy other items with their own money.

For those people, these rules are simply require a bit more effort to separate out the purchases. Seems like a waste of effort on the part of the consumer and the stores who have to enforce this.

Maybe so, but they've been doing it for the last 51 years with food stamps, but yeah I can only imagine what it would be like behind someone in line in WI that has to go through this-back in the day foods would have a WIC approval label on them, but that was when WIC was just covering a few dozen items.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's better for the hungry kid, a red potato or 5 ordinary potatoes?

They aren't being given enough aid to feed the kids the expensive stuff. If they spend it on the expensive stuff they won't have enough to feed them with.

1. Red potatoes do not cost 5 times the price of "ordinary potatoes". At Publix in Miami they are frequently LESS expensive than any other kind of potato

I've never seen them that cheap.

2. It appears to be your assumption that poor people would rather starve their children than to make reasonable food choices without your help.

It's not so much that they would rather, it's that they don't plan ahead well enough. (It's usually a lack of planning ahead that got them on welfare in the first place.) At the start of the month they buy the stuff they want, at the end of the month they run out of money.

- - - Updated - - -

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-gwyneth-paltrow-succeeded-failing-the-food-stamp-challenge

From the start, Paltrow’s poorly conceived, if photogenic, effort drew criticism.

The ingredients the actress bought, looking more like the elements of a health food smoothie or juice cleanse, were not only glaringly insufficient to cover three meals a day for seven days, but calorically impractical for sustaining a typical human diet.

She has $29 to spend, and she bought 7 limes. Seven fucking limes. And a garlic. Please people. Do not pay attention to that woman. Make sensible choices. Use your head.

Yup. This is even worse than the sort of stuff I've been talking about. She's got enough money that she can afford to be wasteful in her food purchases without going hungry so there's little harm done.

- - - Updated - - -

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Beans, nuts, red potatoes, and not even shrimp are poor nutritional choices. As I said before, IF the list was restricting chips and sodas and other unhealthy food, I could maybe see a valid argument - though my argument would be more from the perspective of government should not be promoting bad food (or cigarettes or alcohol) than because I think a paternalistic government should be making poor people's food choices for them.

But even there, IF it is the proper role of government to ban "bad" foods, then do so... across the board. No rich people get to eat shrimp either.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the beans were a red herring--the prohibition was against bulk beans (the loose ones in the bins you scoop out what you want), not against beans.

- - - Updated - - -

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

If it were solely about nutrition, we probably could just give them military food rations. Calling shrimp unhealthy is a stretch.

That would be a bad idea. Military rations are expensive for what you get--they're chosen more for being light and non-perishable than cost. They're also more calories than the average person needs.

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the beans were a red herring--the prohibition was against bulk beans (the loose ones in the bins you scoop out what you want), not against beans.

Perhaps you have never seen this, but everywhere I have lived, bulk beans are less expensive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why should those standards apply only to low income people reliant on food stamps?

What criteria should be used to set these standards?

Simply put, it isn't their money. It isn't unreasonable to set limits especially when the money has a very specific purpose.

I ponder there has to be a better system. I'd think assigning negative and positive points to foods would be better (encourages getting fresh veggies and fruit and then being able to get a few "treats"). Allow people to buy whatever, but they can't go above a certain number of points per dollar spent at the register. People should be able to be free to choose foods that the general public is offered to purchase. Obviously certain luxuries need to be limited, but are we really having a problem with poor people trying to buy 20 lbs of lobster?

The system should be to help ensure the money goes where intended, allow for flexibility of the person receiving the funds, and to also help foster good eating habits for down road.

I like the idea.

As for 20# of lobster--I haven't seen that. I have seen an awful lot of expensive meat being bought by people paying with food stamps, though. We do most of our produce shopping at Hispanic markets and a substantial percentage of the customers are using EBT cards.

 

[Toni]

1. Red potatoes do not cost 5 times the price of "ordinary potatoes". At Publix in Miami they are frequently LESS expensive than any other kind of potato

I've never seen them that cheap.

2. It appears to be your assumption that poor people would rather starve their children than to make reasonable food choices without your help.

It's not so much that they would rather, it's that they don't plan ahead well enough. (It's usually a lack of planning ahead that got them on welfare in the first place.) At the start of the month they buy the stuff they want, at the end of the month they run out of money.

- - - Updated - - -

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-gwyneth-paltrow-succeeded-failing-the-food-stamp-challenge

From the start, Paltrow’s poorly conceived, if photogenic, effort drew criticism.

The ingredients the actress bought, looking more like the elements of a health food smoothie or juice cleanse, were not only glaringly insufficient to cover three meals a day for seven days, but calorically impractical for sustaining a typical human diet.

She has $29 to spend, and she bought 7 limes. Seven fucking limes. And a garlic. Please people. Do not pay attention to that woman. Make sensible choices. Use your head.

Yup. This is even worse than the sort of stuff I've been talking about. She's got enough money that she can afford to be wasteful in her food purchases without going hungry so there's little harm done.

- - - Updated - - -

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Beans, nuts, red potatoes, and not even shrimp are poor nutritional choices. As I said before, IF the list was restricting chips and sodas and other unhealthy food, I could maybe see a valid argument - though my argument would be more from the perspective of government should not be promoting bad food (or cigarettes or alcohol) than because I think a paternalistic government should be making poor people's food choices for them.

But even there, IF it is the proper role of government to ban "bad" foods, then do so... across the board. No rich people get to eat shrimp either.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the beans were a red herring--the prohibition was against bulk beans (the loose ones in the bins you scoop out what you want), not against beans.

- - - Updated - - -

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

If it were solely about nutrition, we probably could just give them military food rations. Calling shrimp unhealthy is a stretch.

That would be a bad idea. Military rations are expensive for what you get--they're chosen more for being light and non-perishable than cost. They're also more calories than the average person needs.

Red potatoes are about the same price as white potatoes where I live as well.

It makes NO sense to prohibit the purchase of beans in bulk. Bulk dry beans (and rice) ate far less expensive and can be prepared cheaply and much more healthily than canned-- with far less salt, fat and other additives.

News flash: People who purchase dry beans in bulk are planning ahead, making wise use of limited money for food.

 

[Toni]

Why should those standards apply only to low income people reliant on food stamps?

What criteria should be used to set these standards?

Simply put, it isn't their money.

It is as much 'their' money as it is yours or mine. More, since it is something THEY were awarded.

It isn't unreasonable to set limits especially when the money has a very specific purpose.

I ponder there has to be a better system. I'd think assigning negative and positive points to foods would be better (encourages getting fresh veggies and fruit and then being able to get a few "treats").

Please. It is not possible to assign points in such a way that EVERYBODY will agree that they are fair and just and do not allow poor people to enjoy their lives even a little bit. That's the real point, isn't it? To remind poor people that they are being punished for being bad and stupid and making bad decisions? Thank heavens that not poor people never are stupid or bad or make bad decisions!

Since EVERYBODY will not agree on what is fair, why not let the people who are eating the stuff make the decisions? Or maybe we should just round up all the poor people and put them in some kind of prison--except, let's not call it 'prison' but WE who have been smart enough to never need help will make all their decisions for them. What better possible way to help people regain control over their lives and plan ahead and make good decisions for their future and that of their children?

The system should be to help ensure the money goes where intended, allow for flexibility of the person receiving the funds, and to also help foster good eating habits for down road.

I am a BIG believer in healthy eating habits. I'm not a believer at all in making food choices for adults. Period.

 

[bilby]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

And clearly the government knows better than the people what money should be spent on. This principle should be extended as widely as possible; perhaps CEOs should be prohibited from wasteful spending on private jets, and told by the government that they must instead buy yachts. Money could be earmarked by the government for investment only in banking stocks, rather than being wasted on venture capital. After all, the government knows best!

If red potatoes happen to be on special at half the price of other potatoes, then tough shit - the government knows best, and you should by only the potatoes they allow. Because reasons.

 

[Bronzeage]

What I like about theses kinds of internet discussions is the tales of welfare mothers who are observed in the check out line, dealing out their "food stamps" for junk and luxury food. I don't know of any state which still uses paper coupons for food stamps. These days, it's debit card, which the casual observer can't distinguish from any other card.

The base of all these duly attested observations are not based on seeing a purchase with food stamps. It's based on the assumption the person in question is on public assistance.

 

[Toni]

What I like about theses kinds of internet discussions is the tales of welfare mothers who are observed in the check out line, dealing out their "food stamps" for junk and luxury food. I don't know of any state which still uses paper coupons for food stamps. These days, it's debit card, which the casual observer can't distinguish from any other card.

The base of all these duly attested observations are not based on seeing a purchase with food stamps. It's based on the assumption the person in question is on public assistance.

Because it isn't possible to be on public assistance and to have any other kind of debit card. Not even a gift card.

And it's always possible to know who is on assistance and who is not, just by looking at them. Hint: look at the color of their skin and do they have kids.


Snort.

 

[RavenSky]

That doesn't answer my question.

Should we limit the food sold? If, for example, Spaghetti Sauce isn't good a good nutritional food stuff, should we just not sell it, period?

I did answer your question. I am making a distinction between what can be purchased by a consumer with food vouchers provided by the government and what can be purchased by a consumer with their own funds.

Why? What difference does it make? What if they need "their" funds for rent and electricity?

 

[RavenSky]

1. Red potatoes do not cost 5 times the price of "ordinary potatoes". At Publix in Miami they are frequently LESS expensive than any other kind of potato

I've never seen them that cheap.

I don't really care what you will admit to seeing. I have, and on a regular basis. That's when I buy them.

2. It appears to be your assumption that poor people would rather starve their children than to make reasonable food choices without your help.

It's not so much that they would rather, it's that they don't plan ahead well enough. (It's usually a lack of planning ahead that got them on welfare in the first place.) At the start of the month they buy the stuff they want, at the end of the month they run out of money.

Your misplaced obnoxious arrogance is really stomach-turning. But you do serve the purpose of illustrating exactly why our public policies are so petty and callous.