GOP wants to ban foodstamp-purchased junk food

[Alyska]

What I really want to know is how food would be labelled as junk or nutritious. Sure there is a common (though occasionally vague) consensus as to what is healthy and what isn't, but in order for such a law to be put in place there must be a precise legal definition as to what is junk food and and what isn't. There would likely have to be an arbitrary definition, a clear line between junk food and healthy food.

Because junk food is a general term, It's important to know where such a line would be drawn. The line could be biased to include foods one would think are healthy (e.g. frozen yogurt) in order to put many important junk food alternatives out of reach of the poor as well.

Alternatively, someone could draw the line to include a lot of junk food in the "healthy" category as to render the entire law a useless and irrelevant waste of time.

The only way to make a good, concise distinction would be to analyze the nutritional value of each food in existence, which is ridiculous.

Do realize that we have already pretty much done that? How else would we have nutritional labeling?

[Alyska]

As a Libertarian

No, you're not.

If you were a libertarian, you'd be an advocate of socially-guaranteed income equality and opposed to capitalism altogether, because capitalism is a fundamentally authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization. Libertarianism is and always has been communist and anti-capitalist in orientation.

So tell me--why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

[Tlaceceyaya]

The only way to make a good, concise distinction would be to analyze the nutritional value of each food in existence, which is ridiculous.

Do realize that we have already pretty much done that? How else would we have nutritional labeling?

And those labels are extremely deceptive.
Want to find out how much sugar is in a bottle of something that you're going to drink in one sitting? Best make sure they aren't listing a different serving size from how much liquid there is.
Fat. If it's saturated, it might just say "Fat" rather than Saturated Fat.
"Serving size is 50 grams." Okay. How much is that? Weight is extremely difficult to estimate when it's small.
But none of that even matters, because it doesn't tell you if it's healthy or not. Some foods are clearly unhealthy, and some are clearly healthy, but many are in between. Is a bit of fat okay? How about a few hundred calories? What about all of that sugar? Is that too much sodium? Is 20 grams of carbohydrates too much?
Frankly, someone who needs help to be well-fed doesn't have time to analyze the nutritional value of all of the food that they buy — if they don't get that extra $10 because they spent an hour calculating the nutritional value of their food, they might be sleeping on the street tonight.

[Alyska]

Do realize that we have already pretty much done that? How else would we have nutritional labeling?

And those labels are extremely deceptive.
Want to find out how much sugar is in a bottle of something that you're going to drink in one sitting? Best make sure they aren't listing a different serving size from how much liquid there is.
Fat. If it's saturated, it might just say "Fat" rather than Saturated Fat.
"Serving size is 50 grams." Okay. How much is that? Weight is extremely difficult to estimate when it's small.
But none of that even matters, because it doesn't tell you if it's healthy or not. Some foods are clearly unhealthy, and some are clearly healthy, but many are in between. Is a bit of fat okay? How about a few hundred calories? What about all of that sugar? Is that too much sodium? Is 20 grams of carbohydrates too much?
Frankly, someone who needs help to be well-fed doesn't have time to analyze the nutritional value of all of the food that they buy — if they don't get that extra $10 because they spent an hour calculating the nutritional value of their food, they might be sleeping on the street tonight.

Whether or not nutritional labes are deceptive isn't the point. The point is that the fact that they even exist refutes your claim that it would be "ridiculous" to "analyze the nutritional value of each food in existence." Not only is it not ridiculous, it has been done.

[Tahar Joblis]

What part of rerouting spending on farm subsidies to food stamps do you not understand? I'm saying that we reduce farm subsidies and spend that money on food for the poor. Also, how is feeding everyone with healthy food a utopian idea? Have you ever looked at the shelves of a grocery store? We have plenty of food for everyone, it just doesn't get to everyone who needs it.

Farm subsidies are in place to make sure that most people can afford their food, the SNAP program is to ensure that anyone can. If you rerouted farm subsidy funds to SNAP funds you'd have to raise the eligibility for SNAP to include just about everyone.

Farm subsidies are not a blanket subsidy of all food, and quite a bit of food, especially produce, is imported.

Specifically, almost no subsidies go to produce. Feed corn is heavily subsidized, representing a large indirect subsidy for meat; as is corn ethanol, which ends up doing very little helpful for us. The food items which are in shortest supply among the poor - in particular fruits and vegetables - benefit little if any from food subsidies.

It's not clear that the US farm subsidies are necessarily correctly structured or wholly helpful; in the case of subsidies of corn used for feed or ethanol production, in fact, it subsidizes highly inefficient use of cropland.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And those labels are extremely deceptive.
Want to find out how much sugar is in a bottle of something that you're going to drink in one sitting? Best make sure they aren't listing a different serving size from how much liquid there is.
Fat. If it's saturated, it might just say "Fat" rather than Saturated Fat.
"Serving size is 50 grams." Okay. How much is that? Weight is extremely difficult to estimate when it's small.
But none of that even matters, because it doesn't tell you if it's healthy or not. Some foods are clearly unhealthy, and some are clearly healthy, but many are in between. Is a bit of fat okay? How about a few hundred calories? What about all of that sugar? Is that too much sodium? Is 20 grams of carbohydrates too much?
Frankly, someone who needs help to be well-fed doesn't have time to analyze the nutritional value of all of the food that they buy — if they don't get that extra $10 because they spent an hour calculating the nutritional value of their food, they might be sleeping on the street tonight.

Whether or not nutritional labes are deceptive isn't the point. The point is that the fact that they even exist refutes your claim that it would be "ridiculous" to "analyze the nutritional value of each food in existence." Not only is it not ridiculous, it has been done.

Excellent. So, using nutritional labels, define junk food. I'll be waiting right here.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

No, you're not.

If you were a libertarian, you'd be an advocate of socially-guaranteed income equality and opposed to capitalism altogether, because capitalism is a fundamentally authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization. Libertarianism is and always has been communist and anti-capitalist in orientation.

So tell me--why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

Given that I, as an anti-capitalist communist, am a libertarian, how is it even possible for a libertarian's "ideology and world view to be a lot closer to [your] own than [mine] is"?

[Belmaria]

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

Given that I, as an anti-capitalist communist, am a libertarian, how is it even possible for a libertarian's "ideology and world view to be a lot closer to [your] own than [mine] is"?

Okay, I give up. What universe are you in?

[Blasveck]

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

Given that I, as an anti-capitalist communist, am a libertarian, how is it even possible for a libertarian's "ideology and world view to be a lot closer to [your] own than [mine] is"?

Because your definition, Bluth, of libertarian, does not fall in line with his definition?

[Frisivisia]

Given that I, as an anti-capitalist communist, am a libertarian, how is it even possible for a libertarian's "ideology and world view to be a lot closer to [your] own than [mine] is"?

Okay, I give up. What universe are you in?

The one in which free markets are equivalent to authoritarianism, a very fair point.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Given that I, as an anti-capitalist communist, am a libertarian, how is it even possible for a libertarian's "ideology and world view to be a lot closer to [your] own than [mine] is"?

Okay, I give up. What universe are you in?

The one in which libertarianism is, and always has been, fundamentally anti-capitalist and communist in orientation.

In other words, the real world.

[The Parkus Empire]

No, you're not.

If you were a libertarian, you'd be an advocate of socially-guaranteed income equality and opposed to capitalism altogether, because capitalism is a fundamentally authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization. Libertarianism is and always has been communist and anti-capitalist in orientation.

So tell me--why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

Seeing socially constructed classes as the beating heart and lifeblood of civilization for thousands of years, doesn't make you a lunatic conspiracy theorist. I'd say you'd have to be a lunatic NOT to perceive it that way. How good or bad or necessary you think it is is something else entirely.

[United States of Natan]

I don't think this is a good idea. for one thing, what would they define as junk food? and people can always find ways around it. and when people are poor, eating healthy is not usually a top concern. I mean, really, if they want to eat junk food, it is their problem. besides, not everything in junk food is entirely bad for you. for instance, people need SOME sugar and salt. and besides, healthy food is not entirely cheap. in some places, it could cost more food stamps that it would to buy less healthy food. and besides, that would outlaw the usage food stamps at cheap restaurants like Mcdonalds, which is often the difference for some families between life or death. by keeping them from using them at mcdonalds, you could be starving them. also, why is it the governments business what people eat? if they want to eat junk food, it is their own problem. why should the government care what people eat? sure, there should be regulations for food manufacturers, but if the people choose to eat it, knowing how unhealthy it is, then that is their problem.

[Tlaceceyaya]

And those labels are extremely deceptive.
Want to find out how much sugar is in a bottle of something that you're going to drink in one sitting? Best make sure they aren't listing a different serving size from how much liquid there is.
Fat. If it's saturated, it might just say "Fat" rather than Saturated Fat.
"Serving size is 50 grams." Okay. How much is that? Weight is extremely difficult to estimate when it's small.
But none of that even matters, because it doesn't tell you if it's healthy or not. Some foods are clearly unhealthy, and some are clearly healthy, but many are in between. Is a bit of fat okay? How about a few hundred calories? What about all of that sugar? Is that too much sodium? Is 20 grams of carbohydrates too much?
Frankly, someone who needs help to be well-fed doesn't have time to analyze the nutritional value of all of the food that they buy — if they don't get that extra $10 because they spent an hour calculating the nutritional value of their food, they might be sleeping on the street tonight.

Whether or not nutritional labes are deceptive isn't the point. The point is that the fact that they even exist refutes your claim that it would be "ridiculous" to "analyze the nutritional value of each food in existence." Not only is it not ridiculous, it has been done.

Someone else's claim, though I agree with it.
An apt analogy between what we are saying is this:
Gas may be $1.10 per litre right by your house, and $1.08 per litre a few kilometres away, but the fuel used to travel there and back makes the difference negligible. The time is also important — driving and doing the math. Except the math is far more complicated, and some of the values are deceptive, and by virtue of being poor you're more likely to make poor choices.

[Grenartia]

As somebody who had to depend on foodstamps, I'll simply say that this is a shitty idea.

First, "junk food" is rather cheap (cheaper than most "health food", and often more filling), and boosts morale (which somebody who is forced to depend on foodstamps often needs). Second, exactly what foods would this mean you can buy? I guarantee well over half the shit you can buy in Walmart qualifies as junk food. Which means you can't get much bang for your buck. I mean, are you going to start forcing people to go to hipster healthfood stores and shit? Then what's the fucking point? I mean, a loaf of gluten-free, whole wheat, suck your dick, wipe your ass bread costs $30. I can run down to the local Dollar General and get a month's worth of bread for that much.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

As somebody who had to depend on foodstamps, I'll simply say that this is a shitty idea.

First, "junk food" is rather cheap (cheaper than most "health food", and often more filling), and boosts morale (which somebody who is forced to depend on foodstamps often needs). Second, exactly what foods would this mean you can buy? I guarantee well over half the shit you can buy in Walmart qualifies as junk food. Which means you can't get much bang for your buck. I mean, are you going to start forcing people to go to hipster healthfood stores and shit? Then what's the fucking point? I mean, a loaf of gluten-free, whole wheat, suck your dick, wipe your ass bread costs $30. I can run down to the local Dollar General and get a month's worth of bread for that much.

And even then, it ends up being one-size fits all when the government attempts to dictate these things, and there's no room for maneuvering. For instance, my wife and I get WIC. One of the things that we're able to get for her is whole grain cereal. Problem? My wife has celiac disease, and there's no whole grain gluten free cereal, meaning that even one thing that doesn't have wheat gluten as an ingredient (Kix) isn't certified to be free of it, and has actually triggered symptoms due to cross-contamination at the plant where it was packaged. But WIC doesn't have the ability to make exceptions, and allow us to get Rice Chex or another cereal that she can eat.

Seriously, it's far more effective and less risky to let things stand as they are.

[Grenartia]

As somebody who had to depend on foodstamps, I'll simply say that this is a shitty idea.

First, "junk food" is rather cheap (cheaper than most "health food", and often more filling), and boosts morale (which somebody who is forced to depend on foodstamps often needs). Second, exactly what foods would this mean you can buy? I guarantee well over half the shit you can buy in Walmart qualifies as junk food. Which means you can't get much bang for your buck. I mean, are you going to start forcing people to go to hipster healthfood stores and shit? Then what's the fucking point? I mean, a loaf of gluten-free, whole wheat, suck your dick, wipe your ass bread costs $30. I can run down to the local Dollar General and get a month's worth of bread for that much.

And even then, it ends up being one-size fits all when the government attempts to dictate these things, and there's no room for maneuvering. For instance, my wife and I get WIC. One of the things that we're able to get for her is whole grain cereal. Problem? My wife has celiac disease, and there's no whole grain gluten free cereal, meaning that even one thing that doesn't have wheat gluten as an ingredient (Kix) isn't certified to be free of it, and has actually triggered symptoms due to cross-contamination at the plant where it was packaged. But WIC doesn't have the ability to make exceptions, and allow us to get Rice Chex or another cereal that she can eat.

Seriously, it's far more effective and less risky to let things stand as they are.

Indeed.

[United Angkoria]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

[Gauthier]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

Except the "luxury" is very much cheaper than "the basic essentials" in many places. And in food deserts, that's all there is.

[Frisivisia]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

Because junk food is monolithic as fuck and it's not like it's a cheap, easy way to quell one's hunger or anything.

Someone here doesn't understand poverty.

[Grenartia]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

Except the "luxury" is very much cheaper than "the basic essentials" in many places. And in food deserts, that's all there is.

Indeed. Angkoria, I refer you to this:

As somebody who had to depend on foodstamps, I'll simply say that this is a shitty idea.

First, "junk food" is rather cheap (cheaper than most "health food", and often more filling), and boosts morale (which somebody who is forced to depend on foodstamps often needs). Second, exactly what foods would this mean you can buy? I guarantee well over half the shit you can buy in Walmart qualifies as junk food. Which means you can't get much bang for your buck. I mean, are you going to start forcing people to go to hipster healthfood stores and shit? Then what's the fucking point? I mean, a loaf of gluten-free, whole wheat, suck your dick, wipe your ass bread costs $30. I can run down to the local Dollar General and get a month's worth of bread for that much.

The fact is, this. IS. A. SHITTY. IDEA. I cannot possibly emphasize that enough.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

Define "junk food". Don''t just give examples, but define it.

[Big Jim P]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

Because junk food is monolithic as fuck and it's not like it's a cheap, easy way to quell one's hunger or anything.

Someone here doesn't understand poverty.

As someone wheo was raised in poverty (and knows it all too well) and worked his way out of it, I will say that United Angkoria is right. Junk food is a luxury.

Life's a bitch. Suck it up and drive on.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because junk food is monolithic as fuck and it's not like it's a cheap, easy way to quell one's hunger or anything.

Someone here doesn't understand poverty.

As someone wheo was raised in poverty (and knows it all too well) and worked his way out of it, I will say that United Angkoria is right. Junk food is a luxury.

Life's a bitch. Suck it up and drive on.

Define "junk food". Don''t just give examples, but define it.

[Grenartia]

Because junk food is monolithic as fuck and it's not like it's a cheap, easy way to quell one's hunger or anything.

Someone here doesn't understand poverty.

As someone wheo was raised in poverty (and knows it all too well) and worked his way out of it, I will say that United Angkoria is right. Junk food is a luxury.

Life's a bitch. Suck it up and drive on.

As somebody who had to depend on foodstamps, I'll simply say that this is a shitty idea.

First, "junk food" is rather cheap (cheaper than most "health food", and often more filling), and boosts morale (which somebody who is forced to depend on foodstamps often needs). Second, exactly what foods would this mean you can buy? I guarantee well over half the shit you can buy in Walmart qualifies as junk food. Which means you can't get much bang for your buck. I mean, are you going to start forcing people to go to hipster healthfood stores and shit? Then what's the fucking point? I mean, a loaf of gluten-free, whole wheat, suck your dick, wipe your ass bread costs $30. I can run down to the local Dollar General and get a month's worth of bread for that much.

To say nothing of the fact that for the price of that $30 loaf of hipster bread, I could get lunch meat, cheese, chips, and snack cakes for a week at Dollar General.

Which would you rather live off of for a week? $30 hipster bread with nothing else, or sandwiches, chips, and snack cakes?