5 ms·

SNAP households spent 9.3 percent of their grocery budgets on soft drinks

18 points by vinhboy 10y ago

vinhboy 10y ago
I find it interesting that they had to rely on data volunteered by a grocery chain. They should build in something to the SNAP card system so they can track at high level where the money is being spent. That could provide some interesting data about nutrition and budget of the low income population.
- nickthemagicman 10y ago
  This so much. That's as rigorous as a study of the most gas efficient automobile using only data provided by Volkswagen. This is not an independently controlled dataset.
  - tomnipotent 10y ago
    A single nation-wide grocery chain should be enough to establish trends - that's how statistics work. The report is looking at broad categories of foods (soft drinks, vegetables). Walk into any Kroger, Whole Foods, Von's, or Trader Joe's and you'll the same assortment of products at similar levels of inventory. Demand shifts take many years and even decades, and grocers use that data very effectively for inventory control management. Even without controlling for multiple chains, I'd wager the numbers are in the ballpark of the expected value.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 10y ago
Turning snap into wic would probably cost more than 9%
- laughfactory 10y ago
  But it's not about how much they spend on sugary drinks and junk food. The issue is that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of food and drinks which are known to be incredibly bad for the health of consumers. This is a bad thing, in large part because the additional social costs are profound. We cannot in good conscience subsidize purchasing these sorts of food and drinks (just as we don't allow purchasing alcohol with food stamps). And, I think we should tax them at a high rate just like we do with tobacco, alcohol, and now marijuana. We need to stop treating these toxic foods and drinks as somehow acceptable, just because it doesn't (but probably should) come with a Surgeon General's warning. I predict that someday we'll have the same sorts of ads which play on TV for smoking and drugs for sugary drinks and junk food. Heck, if I were a billionaire, I'd pay for the campaign myself.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    This is exactly why so many people resist nationalizing health care. They know it'll be about 30 seconds afterwards when people start trying to tell them how to live under the guise of "we're paying for it." And they aren't wrong.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      Incorrect on both counts. The evidence is that most people want federally funded healthcare. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... And the experience of nationalised health care in other countries is very much not of being told how to live. The NHS in the UK is fairly easy-going about health promotion. If anything it could have done a lot more about smoking, whose costs have always consumed some significant percentage of the entire NHS budget. Currently it could also be doing a lot more about obesity and exercise. And about sugar consumption. But instead of going through the NHS, the British gov is seriously considering a sugar tax. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
nickthemagicman 10y ago
I mean isn't there some psychological studies that show that people consume more calories when under extreme stress. And what could be more stress inducing than poverty and what provides the highest amount of calories ? It's easy to demonize these people but they're under extreme stress all the time.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > they're under extreme stress all the time. Where are you finding these people under 'extreme stress all the time'? I rented for a few months in a place where most of the tenants were on some kind of social welfare or awaiting the outcomes of disability cases (for years) - 'stressed' would be the last word I'd use to describe them and 'lazy' would come much closer. But hey anecdotal experience: do you have a citation for your claim about the stress levels of those living in poverty?
  - Casseres 10y ago
    Stress and laziness are not mutually exclusive. Mental and physical stress are two different things. Being uncertain of one's future can be very streessful, especially when it comes to money.
    - sanderjd 10y ago
      To layer on another anecdote: fairly recently, I was financially insecure for the first time in my adult life. It was the most stressed and awful that I've ever felt. I was sort of numb and lethargic all the time. I dunno, I might have seemed lazy to the people around me. I won't suggest that I know anything more than my personal experience, but it definitely gave me a lot more perspective on what it's like to be persistently unsettled about the future.
  - PlugTunin 10y ago
    "Heavy workloads, job insecurity or living in poverty are circumstances that can result in chronically increased stress, which in turn can lead to chronic psychological disorders such as depression." (Read the above in an article published two days ago. Yeah, poverty sucks -- not to dispute your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Laughing at people who've never had any financial problems. Must be nice!) http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38584975 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38584975
ejlangev 10y ago
Seems like the headline should read "In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Slightly More Soda Than the National Average." I wonder what the distribution of money spent on soda is by income level. My guess would be that the 7.1% number (the national average) is brought down by wealthier people who buy much less soda and if you look at income levels right above those using the SNAP program it'll be approximately in line with those on SNAP. Also easy to forget that healthier options are not that available in lots of places. Food deserts are real. In general soda consumption is on the decline in the US and if that decline follows the same pattern as cigarettes it will start with wealthier people drinking less and then move down the socioeconomic ladder. Seems a shame for tax payer dollars going to fund unhealthy food options but maybe the answer to that is a tax on sugar to correct for the negative externality on health.
stuaxo 10y ago
If it is unfair to single out a single kind of food, it is worth pointing out it is also unfair that food stamps are given and not cash.
- kazinator 10y ago
  If it were cash, this article would be about cigarettes and alcohol.
huxley 10y ago
I have a few issues with this article. One is that basing "they could buy x amount at so and so store" is meaningless because when you are poor you don't tend to arbitrage for lower prices, you buy when you're out. Not to mention that poor neighbourhoods have fewer supermarkets in number and are less likely to offer sales. But more egregious, the Walmart cited is in a shopping district with a Costco and a HomeDepot in San Leandro which is not in an especially poor area. [1] Non-SNAP families paying 7.1% for soda is a meaningless comparison since generally these families have much bigger food budgets than SNAP families so it's not unreasonable to see that figure be lower. Also non-SNAP families have access to more supermarkets and ones with sales. And 9.3% of $256 is $23.80 per month or about $0.80 a day. This is not an abusive amount of expense for a family, yes, it would be nice to offer incentives for better food, but this will be just an excuse to do more poor bashing. [1] http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/10/14/san-francisco-oakland-poverty-map http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/10/14/san-francisc... Update: ninja edit to add part of a sentence
- cheald 10y ago
  > and 9.3% of $256 is $23.80 per month or about $0.80 a day. This is not an abusive amount of expense for a family I feel like this is a bit of gymnastics of the numbers. When you recast the number as "only $23.80/month" what happens is that you mentally recontextualize that around your own budget, in which $23.80 is probably negligible. For a family on SNAP, the whole point is that $23.80 is not negligible. If you have problems with hunger and under-nutrition due to lack of income, $23.80 can go a very long way. Percentages are an appropriate way to discuss the issue in this case, because they more appropriately encapsulate the opportunity costs of such spending.
  - huxley 10y ago
    Hahaha ... people pay for groceries with dollars not percentages, the math I did is simple and plain enough that you may be overdoing the generosity in describing it as gymnastics. On the contrary, I feel it is the use of percentages that obscures the truth and allows blame to be reassigned. The poor aren't on the sort of budget or living in circumstances that allow for much weighing of opportunity costs. $23.80 for a person might go some distance on a food budget, but for a family of 3 it is less than 32 cents per person per day. If you can make that stretch "a very long way", you're a better budgeter than anyone I've ever met and could have given my mother lessons when we had to struggle to make ends meet (thankfully for not very long). I urge you to try to shop with $23.80 in a poor neighborhood's supermarket, corner store or bodega. Best of luck with the stretching. Update: the true figure for the soda budget is 5.44% or closer to $13.93/month, the discrepancy caused by the Times author including juices in with sweetened soda.
rukittenme 10y ago
When I was 16 (2006), I worked in a grocery store. I still remember vividly a woman coming in, buying $200 worth of food with SNAP and then pulling out two crisp $100 bills and buying 4 or 5 cartons of cigarettes. I was really put off by it, though I never showed. It felt like a kick to the gut. That someone would abuse the system in such a fashion felt like an affront to all the people paying for her food when she clearly had the ability to pay. This wasn't an isolated incident from her or any of the other SNAP beneficiaries in my area. It was just my first encounter with abuse. This is of course anecdotal and it only reflects on fewer than 100 people in a small Tennessee town. I truly believe we need to abolish food stamps and other welfare programs and replace it with a "negative income tax". That way these sorts of people can buy cigarettes (or soda) instead of food without the public feeling like they've been cheated.
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
  What do you propose to do about the people who don't buy cigarettes and soda with their food stamps?
  - rukittenme 10y ago
    They still receive their benefits. The negative income tax allows for them to spend money freely.
leakybit 10y ago
You should take into account that individuals with SNAP benefits: 1. Are less likely to have transportation to goto a grocery store and opt to going to small convenience stores that are in walking distance. 2. May not have the ability to prepare their meals, such as being homeless, not having a stove, or don't have utilities such as electricity/gas.

18 points by vinhboy 10y ago

I find it interesting that they had to rely on data volunteered by a grocery chain. They should build in something to the SNAP card system so they can track at high level where the money is being spent. That could provide some interesting data about nutrition and budget of the low income population.

nickthemagicman 10y ago
This so much. That's as rigorous as a study of the most gas efficient automobile using only data provided by Volkswagen. This is not an independently controlled dataset.
- tomnipotent 10y ago
  A single nation-wide grocery chain should be enough to establish trends - that's how statistics work. The report is looking at broad categories of foods (soft drinks, vegetables). Walk into any Kroger, Whole Foods, Von's, or Trader Joe's and you'll the same assortment of products at similar levels of inventory. Demand shifts take many years and even decades, and grocers use that data very effectively for inventory control management. Even without controlling for multiple chains, I'd wager the numbers are in the ballpark of the expected value.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

michaelmrose 10y ago

Turning snap into wic would probably cost more than 9%

laughfactory 10y ago
But it's not about how much they spend on sugary drinks and junk food. The issue is that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of food and drinks which are known to be incredibly bad for the health of consumers. This is a bad thing, in large part because the additional social costs are profound. We cannot in good conscience subsidize purchasing these sorts of food and drinks (just as we don't allow purchasing alcohol with food stamps). And, I think we should tax them at a high rate just like we do with tobacco, alcohol, and now marijuana. We need to stop treating these toxic foods and drinks as somehow acceptable, just because it doesn't (but probably should) come with a Surgeon General's warning. I predict that someday we'll have the same sorts of ads which play on TV for smoking and drugs for sugary drinks and junk food. Heck, if I were a billionaire, I'd pay for the campaign myself.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  This is exactly why so many people resist nationalizing health care. They know it'll be about 30 seconds afterwards when people start trying to tell them how to live under the guise of "we're paying for it." And they aren't wrong.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Incorrect on both counts. The evidence is that most people want federally funded healthcare. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... And the experience of nationalised health care in other countries is very much not of being told how to live. The NHS in the UK is fairly easy-going about health promotion. If anything it could have done a lot more about smoking, whose costs have always consumed some significant percentage of the entire NHS budget. Currently it could also be doing a lot more about obesity and exercise. And about sugar consumption. But instead of going through the NHS, the British gov is seriously considering a sugar tax. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608
- michaelmrose 10y ago

nickthemagicman 10y ago

I mean isn't there some psychological studies that show that people consume more calories when under extreme stress. And what could be more stress inducing than poverty and what provides the highest amount of calories ? It's easy to demonize these people but they're under extreme stress all the time.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> they're under extreme stress all the time. Where are you finding these people under 'extreme stress all the time'? I rented for a few months in a place where most of the tenants were on some kind of social welfare or awaiting the outcomes of disability cases (for years) - 'stressed' would be the last word I'd use to describe them and 'lazy' would come much closer. But hey anecdotal experience: do you have a citation for your claim about the stress levels of those living in poverty?
- Casseres 10y ago
  Stress and laziness are not mutually exclusive. Mental and physical stress are two different things. Being uncertain of one's future can be very streessful, especially when it comes to money.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    To layer on another anecdote: fairly recently, I was financially insecure for the first time in my adult life. It was the most stressed and awful that I've ever felt. I was sort of numb and lethargic all the time. I dunno, I might have seemed lazy to the people around me. I won't suggest that I know anything more than my personal experience, but it definitely gave me a lot more perspective on what it's like to be persistently unsettled about the future.
- PlugTunin 10y ago
  "Heavy workloads, job insecurity or living in poverty are circumstances that can result in chronically increased stress, which in turn can lead to chronic psychological disorders such as depression." (Read the above in an article published two days ago. Yeah, poverty sucks -- not to dispute your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Laughing at people who've never had any financial problems. Must be nice!) http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38584975 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38584975

ejlangev 10y ago

Seems like the headline should read "In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Slightly More Soda Than the National Average." I wonder what the distribution of money spent on soda is by income level. My guess would be that the 7.1% number (the national average) is brought down by wealthier people who buy much less soda and if you look at income levels right above those using the SNAP program it'll be approximately in line with those on SNAP. Also easy to forget that healthier options are not that available in lots of places. Food deserts are real. In general soda consumption is on the decline in the US and if that decline follows the same pattern as cigarettes it will start with wealthier people drinking less and then move down the socioeconomic ladder. Seems a shame for tax payer dollars going to fund unhealthy food options but maybe the answer to that is a tax on sugar to correct for the negative externality on health.

stuaxo 10y ago

If it is unfair to single out a single kind of food, it is worth pointing out it is also unfair that food stamps are given and not cash.

kazinator 10y ago
If it were cash, this article would be about cigarettes and alcohol.

huxley 10y ago

I have a few issues with this article. One is that basing "they could buy x amount at so and so store" is meaningless because when you are poor you don't tend to arbitrage for lower prices, you buy when you're out. Not to mention that poor neighbourhoods have fewer supermarkets in number and are less likely to offer sales. But more egregious, the Walmart cited is in a shopping district with a Costco and a HomeDepot in San Leandro which is not in an especially poor area. [1] Non-SNAP families paying 7.1% for soda is a meaningless comparison since generally these families have much bigger food budgets than SNAP families so it's not unreasonable to see that figure be lower. Also non-SNAP families have access to more supermarkets and ones with sales. And 9.3% of $256 is $23.80 per month or about $0.80 a day. This is not an abusive amount of expense for a family, yes, it would be nice to offer incentives for better food, but this will be just an excuse to do more poor bashing. [1] http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/10/14/san-francisco-oakland-poverty-map http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/10/14/san-francisc... Update: ninja edit to add part of a sentence

cheald 10y ago
> and 9.3% of $256 is $23.80 per month or about $0.80 a day. This is not an abusive amount of expense for a family I feel like this is a bit of gymnastics of the numbers. When you recast the number as "only $23.80/month" what happens is that you mentally recontextualize that around your own budget, in which $23.80 is probably negligible. For a family on SNAP, the whole point is that $23.80 is not negligible. If you have problems with hunger and under-nutrition due to lack of income, $23.80 can go a very long way. Percentages are an appropriate way to discuss the issue in this case, because they more appropriately encapsulate the opportunity costs of such spending.
- huxley 10y ago
  Hahaha ... people pay for groceries with dollars not percentages, the math I did is simple and plain enough that you may be overdoing the generosity in describing it as gymnastics. On the contrary, I feel it is the use of percentages that obscures the truth and allows blame to be reassigned. The poor aren't on the sort of budget or living in circumstances that allow for much weighing of opportunity costs. $23.80 for a person might go some distance on a food budget, but for a family of 3 it is less than 32 cents per person per day. If you can make that stretch "a very long way", you're a better budgeter than anyone I've ever met and could have given my mother lessons when we had to struggle to make ends meet (thankfully for not very long). I urge you to try to shop with $23.80 in a poor neighborhood's supermarket, corner store or bodega. Best of luck with the stretching. Update: the true figure for the soda budget is 5.44% or closer to $13.93/month, the discrepancy caused by the Times author including juices in with sweetened soda.

rukittenme 10y ago

When I was 16 (2006), I worked in a grocery store. I still remember vividly a woman coming in, buying $200 worth of food with SNAP and then pulling out two crisp $100 bills and buying 4 or 5 cartons of cigarettes. I was really put off by it, though I never showed. It felt like a kick to the gut. That someone would abuse the system in such a fashion felt like an affront to all the people paying for her food when she clearly had the ability to pay. This wasn't an isolated incident from her or any of the other SNAP beneficiaries in my area. It was just my first encounter with abuse. This is of course anecdotal and it only reflects on fewer than 100 people in a small Tennessee town. I truly believe we need to abolish food stamps and other welfare programs and replace it with a "negative income tax". That way these sorts of people can buy cigarettes (or soda) instead of food without the public feeling like they've been cheated.

HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
What do you propose to do about the people who don't buy cigarettes and soda with their food stamps?
- rukittenme 10y ago
  They still receive their benefits. The negative income tax allows for them to spend money freely.

leakybit 10y ago

You should take into account that individuals with SNAP benefits: 1. Are less likely to have transportation to goto a grocery store and opt to going to small convenience stores that are in walking distance. 2. May not have the ability to prepare their meals, such as being homeless, not having a stove, or don't have utilities such as electricity/gas.