Obesity: The Poor Don't Need more Food Stamps

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/why_not_food_stamps.php#comments

1) The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not.

2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food.

3) If the increase in food stamps takes the form of expanded eligibility, rather than larger grants, the administrative issues and public outreach will delay your stimulus until well after it is no longer needed.

4) The limits on the type of goods available to food stamp consumers, and the growing season, mean that some (it's hard to say how much) of the food stamp spending will simply draw down perishable stocks rather than generating new economic activity. Eventually this will probably generate more economic activity, but probably well after your stimulus is needed.

and more at the link

(Not familiar with Megan McArdle, is she serious or is this Onion-ish?)

What's needed is more fruits and vegetables, especially for the children.

You can get all of your vitamins from store-brand cereal, too.

You can get all your vitamins from a fucking One A Day, too.

Sure you're in the right place?

I used to live off cheap canned foods and those sugary cereals at which you turn your nose up.

Have you checked the back of kids' cereal these days?

intelligence, as well.

I know what you're doing--it's pretty obvious. See, all that shitty nutrition you got in your earlier years has made you less sharp than you think you are.

Which vitamins would I not be getting by eating Kellog's and General Mills cereal?

Will you answer the question? Target has some amazing deals on store-brand cereal.

I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

And I see what you're about. You're barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest, too...

... one is lactose intolerant (or even worse, just plain allergic to milk).

Peanut butter sandwiches are also a fairly good source of protein, but I got sick of those fairly quickly. ;)

I'm a great cook, and I'm very health and weight conscious, so it's not at all difficult for me to make my own meals affordably. A lot of people simply don't have the skills or resources for nutritious home cooked meals. I know how to eat well, and most Americans really do not. When I see a shopping cart full of frozen dinners, twinkies, and soda pop, I get the feeling that if they had more money they would be eating fast food from a drive-thru.

When I was briefly on food stamps, I pretty much shopped like I usually do: mostly fruits, vegetables, and raw meats. However, I didn't buy organic, I didn't buy soy milk, or fake meat, and I bought only the cheapest fruits and veggies. But most people can't do that, for whatever reason.

Edit to add: I'm a petite woman who doesn't eat very much, anyway.

I ate a lot of stove-fried popcorn. The old fashioned kind where you actually pour oil in a pan and a scoop of popcorn kernels.

Sad ain't it.

:wtf:

I agree with point 1 - obesity IS a problem among the poor. Generally because they eat like shit - but they're also in a position in which not eating like shit is too expensive.

I would love to see expanded food stamp issuance, but with a simultaneous massive reduction in the foods that can be bought with them AND instruction in nutrition and cooking.

When I worked in the grocery store, I was appalled at the crap that people would buy with their food stamps - Doritos, sodas, TV dinners, canned and boxed foods, etc. Much of which actually WAS more expensive than buying fresh and unprocessed.

There's gotta be a way to do food stamps like they do WIC, which is brilliant.

That said, though, Megan McArdle - what the fuck are you saying?!?! You're incomprehensible.

as quick sources of blood glucose.

The first time I worked in a food program for the poor, I was amazed at how much sugar some of the people dumped into their coffee, enough so that they could have made coffee-flavored rock candy out of it. One of the "veteran" workers told me about the malnutrition--sugar craving connection.

Another factor is that cooking skills have been lost. Home ec. is one of the "frill" subjects that has been lost to budget cuts. We've had two generations who wouldn't have the faintest idea what to do with a pile of assorted vegetables. (Depending on what the vegetables were and what condiments and starches I had on hand, I'd make vegetable soup, a stir-fry, a curry, a pasta primavera, or a veggie burrito.)

Thankfully, I live near a place that sells fruit and vegetables fairly cheap. But a lot of the "supermarket" stores have moved away from some neighborhoods meaning that it's a little harder to get fresh produce and fresh meat. Let's not forget the whole "television thing". I suspect a lot of parents would rather buy things that their kids would eat than go through a lot of battles at home over fresh fruit and vegetables. That's especially true if people work 2 jobs so they are never home to cook.

That's another loss. Good nutrition requires cooking time, which a lot of people no longer have anymore with two jobs. That's where prepacked food comes in-you can at least take it to work.

OBTW, have you checked out the amount of corn syrup in food lately? When foods were sweetened with corn syrup, there was a saiety factor. People felt full. But apparent corn syrup fructose bypasses that, so people eat more looking for fullness.

I went years without any meat. Not to mention fresh fruit or vegetables. I would just try to give my daughter one good meal a day. She would always ask me why I was not having meat too and I would make up some kind of excuse. The rest of the time, we ate starchy and unhealthy foods. By the way, food stamps did not pay enough to buy even what little we did have to eat. I always had to supplement the amount with cash. They did not give me enough for one person, much less enough for a child too. Whoever wrote that crap is an idiot.

quite a while when she was unemployed. I don't know why people think food stamps are a panacea; far from it.

The grocery stores in the lower-income areas have really shitty meats, fruits and vegetables.

About 15 years ago I lived in the Michigan-Livernois area in Detroit (not sure what the area is like now, but it wasn't good back then). The closest grocery store's meat department was a joke. Same prices you would pay at other stores, but the quality was horrible. I also remember buying a bag of apples, and the whole thing being rotten...

than surrounding areas.

The local activist run food co-op made it possible to eat very very well.

The trade off was that every co-op member had to donate about 10 hours of work each month -which I found fun.

In big metropolitan areas, this is an impossible thing to find.

And grocery stores are moving out of poorer areas. The Mercury News has run huge articles on how the one produce supplying food store in an impoverished/gentrified San Jose CA area was leaving and being replaced by a gourmet food store that only the newly arrived, well to do could afford.

Everyone else willjsut have to adjsut to paying $ 4.99 for a bag of split peas, or else take a bus to a cheaper store.

But I was talking with my favorite cashier at my grocery store here in Bangor, and we discussed the fact that in Maine there are no controls over what food people can buy with their foodstamps, and her observation is that the money is not spent on healthy foods, by and large, but on processed foods and snacks. She said she wanted to make this knowledge more public but was afraid that if she spoke up, she'd lose her job.

Just an aside. :)

Her observation is probably colored by her own prejudice. She only notices the processed foods and snacks and not the milk, cereal, juice, and vegetables. Statistics from the USDA's own research show that the lowest income families distribute their food dollars thusly: about 21% spent on meat, 12% on fruits and vegetables, 10% on cereals and breads, 9% on dairy items, 22% on the catchall category of prepared foods, seasonings, condiments, cooking fats and oils (the remaining 26% is spent on food away from home.) These are estimates based on food dollars, not food stamp dollars -- the "food away from home" category pretty much excludes food stamp expenditures. The percent spent on vegetables and fruit is nearly constant regardless of income -- the difference is that higher income people spend more in actual dollars. They also spend more on food away from home too. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib29/eib29-4/eib29-4.pdf

Second, there are limits on what can be purchased with food stamps (no alcohol, cigs, nonfood items, or hot ready-to-eat food, to name a few.) The limits just aren't narrow enough to suit her idea of what constitutes good food. There are good reasons for it, first and foremost being that not everyone knows how to cook, never mind knows how to choose more nutritious foods over heavily processed foods and snacks. There's also the harsh reality that canned fruits and vegetables, cheap ramen, and canned tuna are often substantially cheaper than the fresh or frozen equivalents. Finally, there's the issue of storage and preparation facilities. Not everyone has a refrigerator/freezer that's reliable and large enough to store fresh and frozen food in quantity. Canned foods and other shelf-stable items help out there. Some people also live without working ovens and few cooking supplies. A prepared food that can be tossed into the microwave in its original container solves that problem.

Third, ask most food stamp recipients if they've ever had a cashier sneer, make a face, or make a negative comment about food selection and I can guarantee that most of us have stories. Mine come from when I was a teenager and it wasn't over buying processed foods - it was about buying a whole chicken or five pounds of ground beef on sale or similar 'frivolous' purchases.

eligibility worker. It was a horrible job. I know the amounts of food stamps that families are expected to live on for a month, and it is ridiculous. Those stories about welfare moms loading up their shopping carts with steaks are 99.9% bogus.

The poor buy fatty/starchy foods because in MOST cases they are cheaper than buying fresh, healthy foods. They are also MORE FILLING to the stomach, making the kiddos feel fuller, and not as hungry.

The poor have mostly never been educated in how to shop for and prepare healthy foods. It does take an amount of education to know how to do this. They were fed fatty/starchy foods, and think this is the way you are supposed to do it. They don't have access to cook books, magazine recipes, newspaper/mag coupons. You also have to be taught how to make and follow a realistic budget, instead of spending all your monthly food stamps in the first week.

I see too many elderly who live on VERY fixed incomes, who are also not managing to stretch their meager resources to include healthy foods....they are also buying fatty/starchy foods for that full-stomach feeling, even tho they know it is not healthy.

poor out there buy with food stamps. Yet every stinking cashier claims that they see food stamps spent on snacks and soda pop, never mind the cashier doesn't know if said persons are poor or if they are taking care of foster kids or if said person is a drug dealer, unless they check that persons food stamp eligibility card, which few do. Seems theres some in DU buying into that old Raygun lie, poor people are living high off the fat of the tax payer BS. And by the way who the fuck are you to decide what another can or can't buy, most that do buy snacks is for treats for their kids. Whats next on your list of things poor people don't need? From some of the posts I thought I was at freeper ville.

or whatever tennis shoe is "in" these days. Who are we to judge when a mother just can't stand it anymore...for her child to be the "clothes outcast" or the "clothes joke" at school. For once, they want their kids to have what other kids have, and not to look different or "poor." So, I imagine that sometimes they would like to see the happy look after giving their child a soda or a candy bar or some ice cream. Who are we to judge, indeed? Freeperville is right. Compassion is dead.

Thanks so much for your informative posts on this subject, and for your your clarity and compassion.

Isn't it interesting how poor folk are slammed both ways?

You nailed it.







Damn those bastards for being poor! :sarcasm:

ground!

I'm appalled at the ignorance, and degree to which people are happy in their denial--and I'm talking "progressives"!

I welcome your input!

and please quit calling that fast/processed garbage "food"

can take its toll. Not to mention crappy "food in a box" like mac & cheese. I used to live near a big housing project, and the local butcher shop had these "first of the month" packages where they would sell a variety of meat for people to buy and freeze when they got their food stamps. Talk about the lowest-grade, fattiest piles of graying hamburger you ever saw. :(

The cheapest food is loaded with starch, fats, and who knows what kind of chemicals. Wholesome food is expensive. And cheap starchy food contributes to the high rate of diabetes in poor communities, which exacerbates the problem.

Peanut butter, beans, canned veggies and fruits are not expensive. As others have mentioned a lot of people on food stamps have themselves been raised by parents who do not know much about good nutrition so the habits are passed on. And cooking from scratch (for anyone of any income) is becoming a lost art.

I also agree about the WIC program. I have been in line behind WIC recipients and the program is strict about what you can buy. For example, if you get a box of cereal you can get plain cheerios or Total, but you can't get Trix or Corn Pops or anything like that.

If baby food is allowed,how can they say any particular brand is not? Is this inthe federal guidelines?

I'd like to see this for myself. Do you have a link?

Cheap and nutritious food is possible, yes, but it takes knowledge and forethought. There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about nutrition out there.

I've come to the conclusion that we poor folk are the current hate targets, and will continue to be slammed no matter what we do, until/unless the "progressives" rise up and defend us, as they did minorities, gays and religious groups of the past.

We're waiting.

People talk about "the poor" as though they were talking about a different species, or pets, or a permanent underclass.

It doesn't really matter what a person's "position" is on the poor, nor what brilliant plans they have or ideas, the fundamental problem is a lack of empathy - an inability to see our common humanity.

There is a nasty undertone - although people have learned how to sugar-coat it and make it sound benign - in the discussions about what "they" should do, and what "they" are doing wrong, or what "we" should be doing about "them."

The attitude and the premises behind that talk reflect a commitment to maintaining the very forces that keep a certain segment of the population in desperation and oppression.

It is all very disturbing to me and difficult to talk about. I will think on it and post more later.

Don't people realize that it is like a lottery? That they themselves could be in desperate straights through no fault of their own in the blink of an eye? Do they realize that they would then be put in the category of "the poor" and experience what it is like to become invisible? Don't they realize the moral compromises involved in all of the things they do - all out of fear - to avoid falling into that category, which they then deny exists as they tell themselves that their luck and good fortune is because they made the "right choices" with the implication that those less fortunate people must have made the "wrong choices?"

Don't people realize that in this culture it is now the right choices that are punished and the wrong choices that are rewarded?

The way these "Chistians" despise and look down on he poor never ceases to amaze me. And there's a million "thems," liberals, gays, "one-worlders," atheists, the whole world is a "them."

"The poor will always be with us". How that's supposed to excuse greed and self-righteousness, I don't know.

I had this conversation with a fundie the other day -- her idea is "Jesus said there will always be poor people among us" so fuck them. I'm paraphrasing of course....but that was they gist.

Yes, the faith-related things are bandaids, but.... what do the atheists do?

Talk doesn't feed people, or create homes or jobs.

or any kind of feudal system such as "faith based voters" routinely support via Reagan/Bush.

Or, profit-based health care, this is another "values voter" type thing.

These religious people, so often they're just like, oh let people beg. They'd rather spend the money bombing people in other countries, and another thing, if they're so sure of their fab afterlife, what's this THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US paranoia about anyway.

and I truly believe he will make a difference.

:hug:

oops- didn't mean to make this political. I forgot I'm not in GD-P.

What kind of evil person wants to fuck with getting food to people who may end up going hungry?

What an asshole.

:silly:

The heroes who rescue burning toast.

Or whipped potatoes?

I don't know what "abusing food" means, but poverty is clearly but one symptom of a society that abuses human beings, and as anyone who has been poor knows, too often the “cures” recommended can be more abusive than the original problem.

It is no accident that many people are left behind and suffering. It is the nature of the game we are all participating in of winners and losers. The game is inherently abusive to human beings, because it places profits before people, capital before labor, and it rewards those who are most efficient and successful at exploiting others.

Wow that's really an asshole thing to say -- people how have eating disorders, whether they starve or binge or whatever, are hurting and need treatment, not jail! Nobody overeats or undereats because it's fun to be fat or it's fun to be anorexic.

this is how she is described:

Megan McArdle stands out in a crowd. Over six feet tall with fair skin and delicate features, she resembles “an overgrown elf,” she says. “I’m a real oddity

http://www.affdoublethink.com/archives/2007/04/15/whats_your_stor_6.php

uh, megan, the poor (some of them, anyway) aren't going to be helped by cutting food stamps. get a clue.

About Megan McArdle
Megan McArdle was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra dry skim milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster recovery firms at Ground Zero . . . all before the age of thirty.

While working at Ground Zero, she started Live from the WTC, a blog focused on economics, business, and cooking. She may or may not have been the first major economics blogger, depending on whether we are allowed to throw outlying variables such as Brad Delong out of the set. From there it was but a few steps down the slippery slope to freelance journalism. For the past four years she has worked in various capacities for The Economist, where she wrote about economics and oversaw the founding of Free Exchange, the magazine's economics blog. She has also maintained her own blog, Asymmetrical Information, which moved to the Atlantic Monthly, along with its owner, in August 2007.

Megan holds a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania, and an MBA from the University of Chicago. After a lifetime as a New Yorker, she now resides in northwest Washington DC, where she is still trying to figure out what one does with an apartment larger than 400 square feet.

Sorry, but I'm just not that interested in taking it away from them. Their lives are hard and sad, and I'm not going to be the person who forces them to eat kale in honor of my sensibilities.


Our energies to effect change are limited. In the end, we'll either devote them to reforming capitalism, or we'll devote them to reforming capitalism's victims.


I know which option I choose.

*sigh*

In the richest country in the world... it's enough to make one want to cry.

Our economy has dire structural problems. That's the bottom line. Making the poor eat sprouts should not be anywhere near the top of our list of priorities for action.

We desperately need to focus on the system itself for a change -- instead of on the lifestyle flaws of its victims.

Focusing on the habits of the poor just allows us to cling to the illusion that our economy is fundamentally healthy, and that it readily allows anyone who makes reasonable choices to prosper. That was more or less true at one time. But it's not anymore, and we have to acknowledge that.

"We desperately need to focus on the system itself for a change -- instead of on the lifestyle flaws of its victims."

Very well said.

We need to go organic on a mass-scale, not only will it be better for us by allowing us access to more nutritious food that's not sprayed with poison, it will reduce the energy needed to produce food.

We can buy a hamburger, or a crappy microwave dinner, for about a dollar, or we can buy a couple apples. There is something seriously wrong there.

We look in the wrong place when we discuss poverty. We look at "the poor" and try to figure out what is "wrong" over there and how "we" - presumably the "winners" - can fix that problem.

It is our success model that is wrong. The assumption is always that we need to help "them" embrace and join the success model to "fix" what is wrong with "them." We never look at ourselves, and we can't see that it is the success model we admire than guarantees poverty will exist. There is no way to lift people out of poverty by imposing our success model on them, because the success model does not work and depends upon some being "winners" at the expense of others being left behind.

Bullying, greed, self-centeredness - that is the path to success. Those are the essential qualities needed to escape poverty in our model, those are the qualities that are lavishly rewarded, those are the qualities that we associate with the “winners.” That is what is wrong, there is not anything wrong with the people who cannot or will not emulate that model.

We measure “winners” as those who are comparatively better off. That requires people to be suffering so we have something to measure our “winning” against. It is not possible to hang onto our model for “winning” without having millions of people suffering as a direct result of that.

Great programs... lifesavers, really.

I would NEVER advocate that food stamp recipients be restricted to only certain types of food. That's just out-and-out bullshit.

When we've had problems and depended on those stamps to help us out of our rut and ease the pain, food was really the only joy we had. We obviously didn't have any discretionary funds, so getting a treat like ice cream or something was a BIG DEAL. And really, food stamp recipients can't win for losing... people bitch that they're "hording up on steaks and shrimp" then bitch that they're buying "cheap junk food and empty calories". Many of the people that have utilized this program are taxpayers that are going through a temporary rough time. They earned the right to those benefits. And that program will be there for you, too, if you ever needed it. And believe me, MOST people don't think they'll ever need it, but shit happens. And when and if it does, you don't suddenly become a sub-human imbecile who needs self-righteous assholes telling them what they can and can't eat.

By the way, none of us are overweight and never have been.

Honestly the people I see using WIC tend to shop very wisely. I believe there are some restrictions on it anyway since I've seen stuff be rejected (soda or something..I forget...)

Mostly I see people buying basically rice, beans, tortillas, etc.

Working on a farm in a very poor rural district, we made sure that nothing went to waste and no one in the county went hungry. Seconds, pick your own, donations - whatever it took. We never found that poor people made bad choices about food, and we never made an issue when someone was needy nor passed judgment on anyone - we treated everyone with dignity and respect.

Food should never be seen as a consumer item. Food, shelter, air, water, health care - a decent society makes certain that all have those, whatever it takes. Those basic necessities of life do not belong on the "free market." If we as Democrats do not stand for that, what do we stand for? We should never have any lack of clarity or debate about that. To the contrary, we should not stop there. Education, public transportation, workers' rights and many other things the right wingers have been trying to destroy should be seen as the baseline - non-negotiable, fundamental and essential elements for building sane and humane communities.

which can make people appear to be overweight because they are retaining enormous amounts of fluids.

But regardless, it's mean-spirited to attack the poor for their eating behaviors, which are most likely dictated by the amount of money they have to spend and what is available to them where they live. Junk food is cheap and filling. Besides, it's not too hard to imagine that poor people are depressed as hell and have more things to worry about than longevity and eating organic products.

Perhaps (and hopefully) Ms. McCardle's sentiments are satirical--I just hope if so it is perceived accordingly. I can see people agreeing with her, and that scares the hell out of me. One more reason to hate poor people. Uggg.

I can say honestly that it's not enough, and those who think it is need to try and live on it. This is when I was kid, so I had no choice, for anyone out there who might be a fuckwad.

She should walk a mile in the shoes of some poor people before she judges them. Stupid twit.

I tend to agree with Jonathan Kozol that people who are poor ought to do what they want with what little they have; their lives are often miserable, painful experiences.

But part of me wishes for a nutritional information program to help clarify for people who don't know about these things which products are good and which are not good. A couple of weeks ago I was waiting in line behind a couple that was using food stamps and--yes--the products they were buying were horrible from the point of view of nutrition. And I know it wasn't their fault; it used to be assumed that these were healthy things to buy and eat.

Until the government is honest with the people, people will eat things that are not good for them, thinking that they are eating in their best interest.

The food pyramid is more like an atomic bomb than a health guide.

We once had a strong and effective outreach program to the public, educating them about food and agricultural issues. As with so many things, the Republicans - with far too little objection let alone serious opposition from the Democrats - have de-funded and crippled the agencies and programs, and corrupted and corporatized them, as well. Meanwhile corporate agri-business has been de-regulated and unleashed to pursue absolute control over all aspects of our food supply.

I do have to object to any attempts at blaming the farmers or the consumers - particularly those struggling to survive - for this crisis.

I am a type of mobile therapist for children. Most of my clients are from the inner city, usually in one of the projects. It's like clockwork; people get their money/vouchers and rush to the markets. This lasts for about 4 or 5 days, then it dies away. The family's then try and make their food stretch out till the end of the month. But also during this time, they splurge on things they probably can't afford, and most of the time, it's for their children. DVD's, games, name brand clothes, etc. A good portion of them have furniture "purchased" through Rent-a-Center type places, which is the only way they see they can have something that in their eyes is nice. Most of them are clinically depressed and use food to comfort. Boundaries are non-existent within the family as well as with outsiders. They live in a.. what's the saying.. "hurry up and wait" mentality. They are always waiting to run out of food, a utility to be shut off, a collector to call, and more. And... they deal with it. Everyday of every week they find ways to survive. Nobody should be looking down on these people for any reason. They deserve so much more.

Some of you may know (or not), that not to long after Bush took office, Mental Health services were cut (financing). Many of the Governor's took the cuts even further. But many of the programs that assisted family's in need came from these services. We use to have programs that workers would go into the homes and teach budgeting. Another service had people go in and assist housework, hygiene, nutrition etc. All of these programs are gone now, at least in the states near me. And I voted for Bush (the first time), which makes me directly responsible for it. All I can do is keep working with them and do my best to try and make a difference for it.

There are no fitness facilities in low-income areas, and forget about jogging around the neighborhood if you have to worry about getting mugged.

In a poor family where both parents work, the kids go from school to home and that's it. No running around the neighborhood. And the only places to really hang out in that are safe and well-lit are fast food places. i can def see how that lifestyle could be an obesity trap.

assholes. :eyes:

The Atlantic was bad enough.

If you have to make these comments, could you use a Republican please, and not one of these people who wanted to include the food stamp in the stimulus package? Sad, so sad. F* you and the Megan ...