5 ms·

> Then there is the widespread obesity because of corn syrup being a heavily subsidized food ingredient You forgot to mention that the US Gov't also subsides t

> Then there is the widespread obesity because of corn syrup being a heavily subsidized food ingredient You forgot to mention that the US Gov't also subsides the other side via food stamps, which poor folks use to purchase corn syrup and cheap grain foods, further exasperating the obesity epidemic. It's true insanity.

nonbel 8y ago
It gets more insane. I've also seen that in some places they instituted a "sugar-tax" but the federal government intervened and made an exception for people paying with food stamps: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-sta...
rsync 8y ago
"... which poor folks use to purchase corn syrup and cheap grain foods ..." This is true. It is truly insane that public food benefits can be used to buy soft drinks, sugar cereals and candy: "Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items"[1] [1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
- intopieces 8y ago
  The government ought to be in the business of making sugary drinks and snacks subject to the general market (I.e., through eliminating subsidies for corn and refined sugars) and not trying to become experts in what should and should not be in poor people’s shopping carts. Restrictions like that only lead to people selling their benefits at a loss for cash to get what they want. Reducing food deserts, increasing healthy food programs for children, and eliminating market distorting subsidies are less paternalistic and more effective.
- ams6110 8y ago
  To be fair, it's much easier to separate "food" from "not food" than to have to qualify whether any particular product is "good" or "junk" food. Can you imagine the additional bureaucracy needed to classify (and enforce) the use of food stamps on a more granular level?
  - briandear 8y ago
    They seem to do just fine with the WIC program. Make food stamps just like WIC.
    - xxpor 8y ago
      Or just give people cash and let them make their own decisions.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  It doesn't seem insane to me, just a reflection of the reality that people sometimes buy unhealthy foods - for both legit and frivolous reasons. Sometimes your kid will only eat sugary cereals for breakfast, because children can be fussy eaters. Or maybe you want to kick back with a can of Coke after a hard day at work (or need the caffeine to wake up for work in the morning, and coffee is too expensive). Or you want some Snickers bars to take on the train or bus to snack on. Policing what kind of food people spend their food stamps on seems like a pointless waste of time and government resources to me.
  - ACow_Adonis 8y ago
    Let me guess...American? Because coming from outside, the way you pile sugar into everything (including breakfast) is just insane and aa little stomach churning. Obviously it's a bit nurture on both our parts, but sugar for breakfast is crazy, as is being taught that things like soda or snickers should ever be eaten except for in exceptional/celebratory circumstances. One needs to be taught that those food stuffs are acceptable and gain a palette for them, because foreigners find your food sickly sweet. Clearly this is a policy/cultural thing...
    - jogjayr 8y ago
      Guessed wrong! I do live in the US at present, however. > Obviously it's a bit nurture on both our parts, but sugar for breakfast is crazy, as is being taught that things like soda or snickers should ever be eaten except for in exceptional/celebratory circumstances. There's always a gap between how things should be done and how they are actually done. I personally don't eat sugary cereals, or drink soda. I like sweets and candy and I'll admit it's a struggle to control sometimes, especially when I'm stressed out. I won't judge someone in far worse circumstances than I for indulging in sugar - it might be the only good thing in their life. And I don't approve of government resources being spent on checking what kind of food people eat - you can get far more bang for your buck elsewhere.
  - ashrk 8y ago
    > Sometimes your kid will only eat sugary cereals for breakfast Present healthy food. Vary it day over day in case they really do have some strong dislike for something. If they don't eat it, they weren't very hungry. They will eat cereal every time you give it to them, no matter how hungry they are, which is part of the problem. Do not feed them crap because "that's all they'll eat".
- jellicle 8y ago
  The amount of money we just gave Jeff Bezos for putting a headquarters near his new house would fund the entire US food stamp program for a week or two, or if you prefer depth instead of breadth, would fund food stamps for hundreds of thousands of people for the rest of their lives.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    And with the returns from that money "we just gave" Bezos, we can fund many times that. And if "we" don't get that return? Bezos doesn't get that money. The winning localities and companies offered $2 billion in rebates to amazon over 10 years, conditional upon job and revenue targets that guarantee the localities and companies are getting multiple times the rebate amount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2 Marketwatch put the local economic contribution at up to $17 billion per year (not per 10 years like the $2 billion). https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-hq2-could-bring-local-economy-as-much-as-17-billion-a-year-new-study-says-2018-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-hq2-could-bring-lo... Sounds like an amazing ROI. My only question is, how can I give Bezos money for that kind of guaranteed return?
intopieces 8y ago
There aren’t many differences between the food purchases of SNAP and non-SNAP households[0]. While Food Stamp recipients are more likely to be obese, there is not a strong correlation between that obesity and the food stamps [1]. [0]https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/food-stamps-snap-welfare-soda-new-york-times/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/food-stamps-snap-welfare-... [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/the-messy-relationship-between-food-stamps-and-health/527820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/the-messy...
daveFNbuck 8y ago
Are you arguing that poor people would live longer if they had less money for food?
- cpursley 8y ago
  No, of course not! Just pointing out the craziness of how the system actually works.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    How do food stamps add to the craziness if they're not making things worse for the recipients?
    - cpursley 8y ago
      They give the recipients the ability to get unhealthy food at the cost of the US taxpayer. This causes multiple issues that affect all taxpaying Americans in addition to the cost of the food subsidy, including adding to the cost of providing healthcare (pushing up premiums, etc).
      - daveFNbuck 8y ago
        It seems counterintuitive that having unhealthy food increases healthcare costs over not having enough food. How does that work? Is it because they don't live long enough to accumulate medical expenses? That still doesn't sound like a net win for taxpayers.

nonbel 8y ago

It gets more insane. I've also seen that in some places they instituted a "sugar-tax" but the federal government intervened and made an exception for people paying with food stamps: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-sta...

rsync 8y ago

"... which poor folks use to purchase corn syrup and cheap grain foods ..." This is true. It is truly insane that public food benefits can be used to buy soft drinks, sugar cereals and candy: "Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items"[1] [1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

intopieces 8y ago
The government ought to be in the business of making sugary drinks and snacks subject to the general market (I.e., through eliminating subsidies for corn and refined sugars) and not trying to become experts in what should and should not be in poor people’s shopping carts. Restrictions like that only lead to people selling their benefits at a loss for cash to get what they want. Reducing food deserts, increasing healthy food programs for children, and eliminating market distorting subsidies are less paternalistic and more effective.
ams6110 8y ago
To be fair, it's much easier to separate "food" from "not food" than to have to qualify whether any particular product is "good" or "junk" food. Can you imagine the additional bureaucracy needed to classify (and enforce) the use of food stamps on a more granular level?
- briandear 8y ago
  They seem to do just fine with the WIC program. Make food stamps just like WIC.
  - xxpor 8y ago
    Or just give people cash and let them make their own decisions.
jogjayr 8y ago
It doesn't seem insane to me, just a reflection of the reality that people sometimes buy unhealthy foods - for both legit and frivolous reasons. Sometimes your kid will only eat sugary cereals for breakfast, because children can be fussy eaters. Or maybe you want to kick back with a can of Coke after a hard day at work (or need the caffeine to wake up for work in the morning, and coffee is too expensive). Or you want some Snickers bars to take on the train or bus to snack on. Policing what kind of food people spend their food stamps on seems like a pointless waste of time and government resources to me.
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  Let me guess...American? Because coming from outside, the way you pile sugar into everything (including breakfast) is just insane and aa little stomach churning. Obviously it's a bit nurture on both our parts, but sugar for breakfast is crazy, as is being taught that things like soda or snickers should ever be eaten except for in exceptional/celebratory circumstances. One needs to be taught that those food stuffs are acceptable and gain a palette for them, because foreigners find your food sickly sweet. Clearly this is a policy/cultural thing...
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    Guessed wrong! I do live in the US at present, however. > Obviously it's a bit nurture on both our parts, but sugar for breakfast is crazy, as is being taught that things like soda or snickers should ever be eaten except for in exceptional/celebratory circumstances. There's always a gap between how things should be done and how they are actually done. I personally don't eat sugary cereals, or drink soda. I like sweets and candy and I'll admit it's a struggle to control sometimes, especially when I'm stressed out. I won't judge someone in far worse circumstances than I for indulging in sugar - it might be the only good thing in their life. And I don't approve of government resources being spent on checking what kind of food people eat - you can get far more bang for your buck elsewhere.
- ashrk 8y ago
  > Sometimes your kid will only eat sugary cereals for breakfast Present healthy food. Vary it day over day in case they really do have some strong dislike for something. If they don't eat it, they weren't very hungry. They will eat cereal every time you give it to them, no matter how hungry they are, which is part of the problem. Do not feed them crap because "that's all they'll eat".
jellicle 8y ago
The amount of money we just gave Jeff Bezos for putting a headquarters near his new house would fund the entire US food stamp program for a week or two, or if you prefer depth instead of breadth, would fund food stamps for hundreds of thousands of people for the rest of their lives.
- kbutler 8y ago
  And with the returns from that money "we just gave" Bezos, we can fund many times that. And if "we" don't get that return? Bezos doesn't get that money. The winning localities and companies offered $2 billion in rebates to amazon over 10 years, conditional upon job and revenue targets that guarantee the localities and companies are getting multiple times the rebate amount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2 Marketwatch put the local economic contribution at up to $17 billion per year (not per 10 years like the $2 billion). https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-hq2-could-bring-local-economy-as-much-as-17-billion-a-year-new-study-says-2018-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-hq2-could-bring-lo... Sounds like an amazing ROI. My only question is, how can I give Bezos money for that kind of guaranteed return?

intopieces 8y ago

There aren’t many differences between the food purchases of SNAP and non-SNAP households[0]. While Food Stamp recipients are more likely to be obese, there is not a strong correlation between that obesity and the food stamps [1]. [0]https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/food-stamps-snap-welfare-soda-new-york-times/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/food-stamps-snap-welfare-... [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/the-messy-relationship-between-food-stamps-and-health/527820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/the-messy...

daveFNbuck 8y ago

Are you arguing that poor people would live longer if they had less money for food?

cpursley 8y ago
No, of course not! Just pointing out the craziness of how the system actually works.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  How do food stamps add to the craziness if they're not making things worse for the recipients?
  - cpursley 8y ago
    They give the recipients the ability to get unhealthy food at the cost of the US taxpayer. This causes multiple issues that affect all taxpaying Americans in addition to the cost of the food subsidy, including adding to the cost of providing healthcare (pushing up premiums, etc).
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      It seems counterintuitive that having unhealthy food increases healthcare costs over not having enough food. How does that work? Is it because they don't live long enough to accumulate medical expenses? That still doesn't sound like a net win for taxpayers.