Soda consumption in low-income households

I’m all for policies that enable and incentivize the buying and selling of healthful and affordable food in areas that are now food deserts. Those policies might look like tax incentives or restriction of business license red tape, or something else. The huge consumption of sugar by people at all income levels is a public health problem that creates costs all over the place. Helping SNAP recipients would help many other people as well, and create jobs, and help kids do better in school because a protein breakfast is a lot better for their brains than a sugar breakfast.

But no one that isn’t already going to starve is going to starve if SNAP funds can no longer buy soda.

@romanigypsyeyes At every convenience store I’ve been to in my area, there is bottled water for sale that is comparable in price to bottled soda.

Also, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities lists that 80% of SNAP purchases are “redeemed at supermarkets or superstores.” Perhaps we could look at alternatives for the other 20% of SNAP users, but the majority of SNAP users are shopping at the same kind of stores as me and others on CC.

If we accept that SNAP benefits pay for only certain items and it is a supplement to the working poor, then why can’t everyone judging the poor buying soda open their mind to the possibility that the money paying for the soda portion of that SNAP recipient’s grocery order is from their own pocket and all the ‘good food’ is from the SNAP benefit? And then mind your own business as to what someone else is choosing to eat and feed their family. The USDA study that began this conversation makes the very clear point that the study does NOT break out what items were purchased with SNAP benefits and what items were purchase with SNAP recipients ‘own’ cash. And the pertinent piece of information from this study and every other USDA study regarding eating habits of Americans is that no matter what socio economic level someone is living at, Americans (in general) spend about 20% of their food budget on crap.

When we were on SNAP (it was just called food stamps at that time)…there were lots of items we had to pay for in cash, though I wouldn’t have called any of them luxuries. Soap, toilet paper, laundry detergent, deodorant, garbage bags…all of that had to come out of pocket. As did spices and other such add ons (vanilla extract, etc) that actually make home made food tasty. We were never ‘living large’ on the benefits we received, though my mother did deal with judgey fellow shoppers who questioned why/how her children looked well groomed and cared for if we as a family needed to use government benefits. I guess many of those same “pull yourself up by the bootstrap” folks didn’t like to not being able to tell who was using benefits and who wasn’t just ‘by sight’. All those garage sales my mother spent her free time at (and resale shops along with her sewing machine) to make sure we had good quality clothing was clearly us not really needing assistance in the first place.

I truly don’t understand the philosophy some seem to have whereby if one makes enough money not to need SNAP benefits - one can buy and consumer whatever crappy food one desires and one can also buy ‘expensive’ good food without judgement (steak, seafood, organic fruits and veggies). But if you are poor…if you have less and are under more stress day in and day out - you need to ‘show’ people how morally good (or bad) you are by the food choices you make. Food choices aren’t morally good or bad. And most poor people are actually making rational, “best under bad circumstances” choices day in and day out. The number of people who seem to believe that poverty SHOULD condemn those living under it to eat a diet consisting of oatmeal, eggs, rice and beans and green veggies (kale is the only one I’ve seen thrown out in this conversation, so I guess it needs to be a highly prepared green veg to be palatable), while those with money should be able to eat whatever they would like whenever they like seem cruel to my mind. I love eggs, hate oatmeal. If I was poor, I shouldn’t be forced to eat oatmeal if there are many many other options available in order to make some stranger feel better knowing no poor person might have any special pleasure when it comes to eating.

I have been extremely lucky in my life. I have had access to opportunities, resources and experiences many won’t have. I don’t look at this as somehow proof that I was more deserving than those who didn’t get what I have. For all those questioning why poor people often make what look like less optimal choices in their life - i would highly suggest reading the reams of research done on this very topic. There is lots of research out there if this is a true area of interest. And all the research shows that poverty (and the stress and trauma related to the condition of poverty) has a horrible impact of the physical and emotional health and wellbeing of those afflicted by it.

I would just remind many of this thread that many SNAP recipients are children. Children to whom many seem to want to say to, “Since you were stupid enough to be born to poor parents, you should never have a candy bar, or a birthday cake, or a can of soda. You and your family need to prove your worth (no intrinsic worth for the poor!) by eating healthy cheap food everyday because only those lucky enough to have extra money deserve treats. You need to learn early and often that your very existence should be punished so you know exactly how little we as a society value you.”

If you are really a proponent of ‘good choices’, how about tackling the bad choices 99% of America is making - the vast majority of whom aren’t on SNAP, and if you can’t change the habits of those with the least number of barriers to change - why would anyone want to concentrate on those whose lives are the hardest and least flexible? So much of this is clearly punitive, no matter what those who say concern is their only motive would like to believe.

I think this thread highlights the difference between working-class households that don’t qualify for free lunch/SNAP and the households that do. The former group also works full time yet also must economize, cook from scratch, provide inexpensive meals/bag lunches for their kids, and minimize pricey purchased convenience foods, bakery-made birthday cakes (usually baking their own,) etc, simply because the family budget can’t support them. No one is screaming that this group has some right to buy premade bakery items, convenience foods, or daily sodas. These folks work full-time, too, but still manage to cook from scratch and bake cakes for birthdays.

@beebee3 actually my comments are only about soda. While some may view it as a “treat,” I do not. I don’t support using SNAP funds for soda any more than I would support SNAP funds being used for liquor.

^By definition, those middle class families aren’t in the same boat. Otherwise, they would qualify for SNAP. It’s apples and oranges.

I don’t either. At all. Nor have I seen that opinion expressed in this thread, It’s not about showing anyone else how morally good or bad you are. It’s about feeding your family healthy food.

One other thing to think about is how this rhetoric about “healthy food” and the use of taxpayer funds for it is in practice, applied differently when it comes to the US military from at least WWII to the present.

Even though the mission of providing mess hall food and field rations was to ensure good nutrition for military personnel, the food and drinks provided weren’t limited solely to the “basics”. They often included small luxuries such as sodas*, candies, and even cigarettes.

And this has carried on into the present MREs and mess halls in the present. Heck, there’s many news stories of fast food establishments like Burger King and Pizza Hut being allowed to open up right near warzones during OIF/Afghanistan. One former colleague who served as an NCO during the early-mid phases of OIF before completing his 8 year enlistment and opting for an honorable discharge felt this was absurd.

  • Especially considering the instances when truckloads/crates of coca-cola were captured by North African Nazi troops from the Allies after their positions were overrun.

If I wouldn’t give soda to my own children on a regular basis why would I advocate giving soda to someone else’s children on a regular basis? This is a “nutritional assistance” program and soda has zero nutritional value and contributes to obesity and diabetes. That’s what studies show not just what I think. As far as I know SNAP does not cover vitamins – so perhaps the food that it does cover should be food that will assist in supplying the basic nutritional requirements. Especially for children.

I should be open to more criticism if I took the position that I would shield my own children from the deleterious effects of soda but endorse giving soda to those who have to economize on groceries. So because they are on assistance we should advocate for them purchasing one of the cheapest and least nutritious beverages on the market?

I have no problem whatsoever with things like junk food and soda being excluded on food benefit programs or of soda taxes to raise revenue for cities. These things are wants, not needs.

Nobody is preventing people from spending their own limited resources on these things as an occasional treat, but why the government should have to subsidize any of it is beyond me.

There are plenty of unhealthy habits that are more accessible to people with money than without for example alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling. Nobody argues about equal access.

As far as a soda tax is concerned, no one suffers if soda becomes too expensive for people( at any income level) to justify. On the other hand, benefits to city programs could be significant. If the silver lining is better choices and health benefits that’s okay with me, too.

Also, what is perceived officially as “nutritious food” has changed over the last several decades.

For instance, most Americans IME who were of the Depression/Boomer generation or older relatives/immigrants of that generation who bought into the prevailing official notions of “nutritious food” grew up with the idea that White bread/wonder bread is the gold standard of nutritious breads and disdained/avoided whole wheat or darker breads with higher grain/nutritious content because it wasn’t considered as nutritious by most “real murikans” of the period.

Not to mention whole wheat/darker breads had the additional stigma of being “foods for the poor” because they were so unpopular with the Upper and Middle-class Americans of the period that they were much cheaper than White/Wonder Bread.

It’s ironic how the whole situation has flipped with darker/whole wheat breads now being regarded as nutritious and “good for you” and thus, being so heavily in demand by upper/middle class families that they’re now among the more expensive types of breads available whereas Wonder Bread/white bread being regarded as less nutritious and “food for the poor/undereducated” by many in the upper/middle classes.

Likewise the official pronouncements a few decades ago that eating many eggs is bad for you which has been debunked in more recent times.

This combined with a disturbing puritanical streak among many which makes me wonder whether Charles Dickens would have found their attitudes towards the poor to be as familiar as those he observed and satirized among many middle classes/well-to do in Victorian Britain.

Seems they believe me to live in one - that I’ve always managed to possess a running car disqualifies me from being oppressed, unfortunately.

Trying to think of a reason the rural person is expected to walk 10 miles for every one the urban does and have come up with only a couple of possibilities:

  • They're expected to be healthier and hardier.
  • If the USDA used the same metrics, 'food deserts' wouldn't be an urban problem and as such wouldn't matter.

Yet the one where the poor aren’t often poor because of the choices they make remains perennially fresh.

It’s a conundrum.

While attending college in rural NE Ohio in what was then proclaimed by a local paper as one of the two poorest counties in the entire state in the mid-late '90s, I’ve met many local/area residents who had no running car or whose car hasn’t been in working condition for years because they didn’t have the finances to fund repairs/replacement.

And public transportation was so unreliable and infrequent that it practically didn’t exist. Basically, if you didn’t have a car/access to one, your options were very limited.

It’s often cheaper to buy another burner than fix the one that let you down. The junk value of a complete car is a large percentage of the purchase price of another, running one.

@MotherOfDragons, I think you misunderstand what I meant. It’s clear to me from your posts that you do have some understanding of what it’s like to be poor. The first paragraph of my post thanking you for your advice was the only part directed at you, and it wasn’t meant sarcastically. I apologize if it offended you.

I wonder if the people posting here would be willing to apply the same rules to the funds colleges give you as those you want to impose on the benefits we give to the poor. If you get merit aid or need based grants (which are, after all, other people’s money) do colleges get to tell you what you can buy and what you can’t? Maybe there’s a limit to how many days/month you should be able to buy meat, because meat is a luxury when you’re spending other people’s money. And maybe they should review your clothing budget to see how many new clothes you buy, because those are a luxury, too, when you’re spending other people’s money. How much control do we get, and over whom?

@austinmshauri I was thinking that exact thing this afternoon as I stood behind a woman using her SNAP benefits to buy groceries. I didn’t notice at first, but began paying attention as she started handing things back to the checker because she didn’t have enough on her card. There wasn’t a thing in her cart that was junk food-it’s a store with lots of discounted organic and healthy food, but I got to wondering where the controls would end for some people.

What about those who believe vegetarianism or vegan eating is the way to go-should they impose rules to disallow meat at all for SNAP users? Conversely, what about those who feel Paleo and lots of meat is actually preferable? Or how about white rice, potatoes and other unhealthy carbs? Should SNAP users be allowed to buy white bread? What about certain vegetables that don’t offer much nutrition like celery? What about dairy? I know someone who thinks that milk is for cows and it should not be sold, period. And what about ethnic foods? Where does the line get drawn there? Are chitlins ok? What about tamale wrappers? Crisco for frying?

I understand “vice taxes” and controls on buying “vice products” like alcohol and cigarettes. But it gets dicey when people start deciding what’s ok and not ok when it comes to eating. There are a lot of whole foods that aren’t exactly healthy, but still legal. Where do we draw the line?

Just so we’re absolutely clear: I am not advocating giving poor children pop any more than I would advocate giving it to non-poor children.

What I am TRYING to convey is the reality on the ground. If you cut out junk food from SNAP benefits, you will literally be starving many people who do not have access to grocery stores.

There is a difference between what I think should be done in theory and what would happen if it was actually implemented without any other reforms.

@austinmshauri that’s a great way to look at it. What if we refused to provide financial aid for majors we found did not prepare a student for a job? Accounting? Yes! Musical Theater? No aid for you!

I’m only half kidding. If you want to tell someone what kind of drink to buy with with their snap card, then get ready to be told what to study in college if you are getting aid…after all, with FA, the stakes are much higher, much more $, and so little to go around? This is sarcasm…I’m not going to advocate eliminating certain majors from FA! The point is, you should not be told what to do by your “benefactors”, or singled out as different bc you need some help!

PS: sadly, right now, I’m eating M&Ms I bought for cash at the evil Walmart today…and I totally know better!!!