Originally Posted By TomSawyer There is a great Washington Post article about food stamp use along the Mexican border in Texas, and how the cheap, high-calorie low-nutrition foods that food stamps encourage recipients to buy is creating huge health problems. We know that high-carb, low protein foods are much cheaper than healthier foods and how expensive produce is, but what was a little surprising to me is the lack of interest in revamping the system to encourage healthier choices. Even the liberals approached about changing the program are uncomfortable with the government "telling people what they can eat." It's probably safe to say that most of the people on food stamps are also on Medicaid. And if we are tacitly encouraging them to eat foods that promote obesity and diabetes then we'll be paying their enormous health care costs as well. It seems like it would be more effective to promote healthier choices. But how? How do you think that we can change the food stamp system to encourage better nutritional choices?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Link to the article: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/11/09/too-much-of-too-little/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...-little/</a>
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I believe the government used to actually distribute surplus foods at certain locations. They were basic things, like dry milk, cheese, oatmeal, rice, beans, canned meats and such. Why not eliminate food stamps for general garbage foods and simply distribute the essentials for healthy nutrition? Produce, and basic household items like detergent and toilet paper could still be purchased with the stamps, or cards, or whatever they are using. Might not seem as convenient, but it would surely eliminate a lot of waste.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 One big (but complicated and thus unlikely) thing we could do is to revamp what foods get subsidized. Corn is subsidized to a degree most Americans don't realize. Why do you think high-fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in so many things? It's cheap. It's cheap because corn is subsidized. We also get corn in our meats because it makes cheap feed and fattens animals up quick. Cows really aren't supposed to eat corn - they're supposed to eat grass. But they don't get fat as quick on grass, therefore it takes longer to raise one to slaughter age, therefore they aren't fed grass (and if you get "grass-fed beef" it's more expensive - but also way more tasty.) There's nothing wrong with corn per se. But we eat way more of it than most people realize. Through meat, HFCS and corn oil, we eat TONS of corn. Most Americans eat corn every day without ever seeing an actual ear of it. What if we didn't subsidize corn but subsidized healthier produce instead (or at least re-balanced things)? (And corn is but one example.) As Tom Coliccio puts it, our current system means that calories are cheap, but nutrition is expensive. As someone whose family farmed corn (and other things) in MO for generations, I can tell you that subsidies once made some sense; but the family farm is largely a thing of the past and huge agri-business concerns now control the lion's share of the land in the heartland - yet are still getting the subsidies. My Mom's generation were farmers; my cousin's generation (and their kids) are farm workers. Doing the same job, but not owning the land - big difference. So what if we stopped subsidizing ADM and the other agri-conglomerates (or at least reduced the subsidies) and started subsidizing actual small farms who produce healthier produce - thus re-balancing the price people pay for things. You can call that government interfering with the marketplace, but newsflash: that's what the current subsidies do already. It's unlikely to happen; agri-conglomerates have enormous political pull in the farm states. But it IS something we could do.