4 ms·
Coke, PepsiCo Lobby to Keep Sugary Sodas in Food-Stamp Program
- impish9208 2y agoGift link: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/rfk-jr-soda-snap-food-stamps-coke-pepsi-9bd9a872?st=sLycjY https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/rfk-jr-soda-snap-food-st...
- onetokeoverthe 2y agoIt's a slippery slope to begin choosing which products are go and no go. Sugary slope. It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoNearly every slippery slope we were warned about the last decades have turned out, sometimes you’re just extrapolating a linear curve and it turns out to be obvious to predict behavior.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoThey already choose what products qualify and have for decades. Kids don't need liquid candies being pushed by mega-corps, it just increases the risk of obesity and diabetes. Coke and Pepsi can survive without government subsidizing their junk food.
- qwerty_clicks 2y agoJust because you can put something in your mouth and it’s roughly processed by your body doesn’t mean it should be considered food. These companies have created chemical cocktails and labeled them as food.
- c22 2y agoIt's important that the poorest amongst us have the least agency over their health and wellness. I mean, if they were good at making decisions for themselves they wouldn't be poor, right?
- qwerty_clicks 2y agoThat’s just such a bad argument. Anything can be a slippery slope so no one should do anything.
- seventytwo 2y agoLiterally every decision is a slippery slope.
- zaphar 2y agoThe beverage that is best for you is also the cheapest. Water. From a tap. They may have less access to certain types of food but when it comes to beverages nearly every food stamp user in the US has access to clean, cheap, good for you water. It is absolutely true that food deserts exist in the US and they tend to occur most often in the poorest areas. But eliminating soda, candy, and such from the food stamp program is one good way to give them a lift nutritionally. Which in some cases can translate into a lift out of poverty. When your welfare programs perpetuate and reward patterns that keep people in poverty it's fine to blame the program. Asking tax payers to pay for other people's bad habits is bad. The purpose of these programs should be to help them make forward progress. It should not be to subsidize a continued fall into deeper poverty.
- RiverCrochet 2y agoRed herring. - This is asking what the government should buy on behalf of poor people, not saying "go" or "no go" on a product or a proposal to ban anything. > It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green. Ha, my rather unique cousin was over my shoulder reading this and she just had to chime in on your comment. Here's what she said: "I can silly slippery slope too, watch me. Government already is deeply involved in intimate and potentially life-threatening medical decisions, so honestly we are closer to any requirement to eat Soylent Green than you think." I can't wait until I get my own house and some peace and quiet finally.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoAbout time. Their 'diet' options are not that healthy, and certainly no excuse to subsidize all their products.
- maxerickson 2y agoHHS doesn't set United States Department of Agriculture policy. Is Trump also nominating a grifter crank to lead USDA? It's embarrassing for this country that a lawyer that has spent decades ripping off deranged activists is nonchalantly described as a serious health advocate.
- whatwhaaaaat 2y agoWhat good do you believe comes from pharma companies advertising on television?
- maxerickson 2y agoHelps pay for the thimerosal.
- undersuit 2y agoBroken clocks can still be right once a day for a game of whataboutism.
- drewcoo 2y agoMine are right twice a day!
- whatwhaaaaat 2y agoWhat advantages are there to having chemicals in food that are banned in most of Europe as known carcinogens? Red 40. Some oils. Etc?
- undersuit 2y agoDistracts you from getting rid of vaccines. Like how a photographer has shiny toys to get the attention of children.
- seventytwo 2y agoA broken clock - he’s right about this.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoWe need a Menards-like zero-net-tax cost increase, where the short term cost of drinking sugar is increased by an amount that is put in a savings account rebate you get back at the end of the year to offset the health costs of drinking sugar.
- nerdjon 2y agoI am really torn on there being restrictions on what food stamps can buy in the first place, as long as it is food and stuff available at a normal grocery store (so not including alcohol). I understand the idea of what they are going for here with trying to push people to buy healthier items which on paper sounds like a good thing. At the same time I feel like people should be able to make their own decisions and if you are already having a hard time, why not be able to get a small treat with a soda or something? If they looked at the numbers and decided that they could get it with the money they had. Not exactly siding with the companies here, since they are only doing this for profits and not any positive goal. But just the core idea of saying food stamps can't be used on something. Edit: I really don't care to reply to every comment so just going to add this here. Regarding Alcohol: TBH I don't have strong feelings on this, I just feel like it is a fairly easy to show a difference between food/drinks and alcohol. Age restrictions licenses, etc. But, at the end of the day if alcohol was the line I don't think we need to die on that hill to justify saying someone having a hard time can't get a treat. This goes back to judging (and making) other people's health decisions and punishing people that are just trying to get by.
- ImJamal 2y agoIf you are torn what food restrictions then why are you in support of alcohol restrictions? Many normal grocery stores have alcohol after all.
- tptacek 2y agoPresumably for the same reason that we extensively regulate alcohol transactions made with cash, despite them being sold in the same stores as food and normal beverages. The same can't be said of Coke.
- nerdjon 2y agoSure technically a lot of stores sell it, but I think there is a clear distinction between alcohol and almost anything else at the store given that it requires special permits, has age restrictions, and a lot of red tape surrounding it. I feel like it is an easy argument to make to say, if you can safely make the assumption that it is a consumable item and any random grocery store would sell it. It should be covered. Alcohol (especially depending on the state you live in if they severely restrict licenses) does not fit that category.
- orwin 2y agoI was shocked to learn that working Americans ls lived on food stamps. I thought this was something they kept from WW2 to help their elderly and disabled survive, but it seems it's mandatory for low wage workers in some states to ask for them if they want to eat. Basically subsidising companies who don't pay their workers enough.
- pyuser583 2y agoFood stamps are about subsidizing farmers. I qualified form them after I was out of poverty, but a lot.
- mlinhares 2y agoLike most large countries, the US contains multitudes and you're never too far away from abject poverty that people usually think only exists in third world countries. Unfortunately, it's not improving.
- lupusreal 2y agoIf soda were banned for everybody we'd all be better off. That shit is as bad as cigarettes. There's probably no way to do that legally, but maybe the government should start looking for one.
- refracture 2y agoLike alcohol or cigarettes there's no way they could ever be banned, but I think if society really pushed for it we could lump soda into the same category: Illegal to give to minors, warning labels, ID to purchase. The slippery slope argument is that people will argue that next comes targeting ice cream, pastries, etc.. while conveniently ignoring that drinking a soda with one or more meals a day is normalized yet eating a slide of pie at that rate would be alarming. I doubt it will ever happen but it would probably help with our obesity rates among children.
- chiph 2y agoOn doctor's advice, I have started a fat loss program. The diet change that has made the most difference is eliminating sodas. I love how smooth Diet Dr Pepper is but if I drink one - I won't lose any weight that day and will probably actually gain weight. Like many people here, I hate to tell others what they should and shouldn't do in their lives. But the evidence is pretty clear (and not just from my personal experience) that sodas should not be a staple of anyone's diet, and should be actively avoided. If you're going to drink one - regard it as a treat. Like a candy bar. That the soft drink companies are engaging in rent-seeking behavior (like the tobacco industry did) is also a sign that they shouldn't be on the list of allowed purchases.
- baseballdork 2y ago> I love how smooth Diet Dr Pepper is but if I drink one - I won't lose any weight that day and will probably actually gain weight. Because... it makes you hungry and so you eat more calories from other sources? When I'm cutting, diet soda is a godsend. The carbonation acts like a pseudo fiber and keeps me full.
- 2y ago
- GeekyBear 2y agoWe means test government assistance for individuals. Perhaps it's time to means test government assistance for private companies as well? If you are a billion dollar company, should you still qualify for ongoing government subsidies? At some point, we should draw the line, just as we currently do with individuals seeking assistance.
- jonhohle 2y agoA lot of subsidies are no longer means tested due to cost and complexity. ACA, for example, is only income tested.
- ortusdux 2y agoI was surprised to learn that SNAP covers energy drinks.
- refracture 2y agoSoda isn't food. It's empty calories with no nutritional value. Obviously Coke/Pepsi don't care about this, they just like money, but from my perspective if I gave somebody money so they could stock their pantry and feed their family I would not be pleased to see soda on the receipt.
- foobarian 2y agoBet you wouldn't be saying that if you were starving. Wonder what the highest calories/$ food is out there, though probably not soda. edit: hah, someone's done the legwork: https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/ https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/ No drinks though. Looks like soda from a $2 2L bottle comes in at about 500cal/$, much lower than the leader in that list. Not sure how cheap one can get soda elsewhere though (from fountains etc).
- zaphar 2y agoIf you are starving you need both calories and nutrients. Missing either one of them means you will still be starving.
- mrguyorama 2y agoYou will survive significantly longer with plentiful calories and no nutrition than you can with very few calories but a "correct" nutrition profile. Most of human history was lived by people with some amount of malnutrition. It's almost a default state of being alive. It's only since the broad cultivation of the Potato and after that, green revolution that allows us to grow enough food to technically feed everyone (and then throw half of it away because god forbid we help people survive rather than build a system that incentivizes dragon hording)
- refracture 2y agoHah I wondered the same and found that same list. Obviously it's easy to speak from my perspective where I'm fortunate that I don't have to worry about accessing food.. but even when confronted with that my position remains unchanged. Maybe if you were arguing about healthy/neutral drinks I would feel different, but I've had enough people in my life develop obesity and diabetes from addiction to soda to regard it as marginally better for you than alcohol and tobacco. I hope I live long enough to see society in this country start revolting against HFCS/sugar and excess sodium in our diets, it's death by diabetes and heart attacks/strokes.
- Eumenes 2y agoGet ready for RFK Jr to be called "racist" for this. The NCAAP screams wolf everytime this comes up: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/minorities-soda-lobby_b_2541121 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/minorities-soda-lobby_b_25411...
- josefritzishere 2y agoCoke and PepsiCo want to keep their share of the free money despite consumer risk? Shocking!
- LittleTimothy 2y agoIf the route we want to go down is looking at lobbying my guess is that the more complexity you add to the SNAP rules, the more lobbying you will get. If this is on the table every food company and their dog will be lobbying to X,Y,Z product on the list. The more prescriptive you are the more you're opening the door to lobbyists putting in quirky rules that benefit themselves over the competitors. It also just seems like a bad idea to let one unelected weirdo personally choose the rules surrounding millions of people's groceries. Plenty of people are saying "oh, well I agree with him on this one" - you haven't seen the list yet, it's RFK, by the end of this we're probably going to have anabolic steriods and bear meat subsidized, I'd read every line of small print before endorsing this.
- Zigurd 2y agoOn the one hand, this is perpetuating the idea that the poor make bad choices. On the other hand, I find myself never going to some aisles in the market because there is no food there, and these are rules for food stamps.
- vaadu 2y agoHe who pays the piper calls the tune. The taxpayer is paying for the food and the healthcare consequences. So yeah, sugar water should be banned. As should all junk food. If you want to eat something sweet buy an apple. Pay for it yourself if you don't like it.
- JOArmyGirl 2y agoPeople should be able to make their own decisions. Everything is so expensive already and now eliminating soda in snap. What are they going to take away next?
- corinroyal 2y agoSockpuppet created for this comment.