Proposed Florida bill bans use of food stamps for sweets/snack foods

[Grace62]

Black wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
As $tevie says, the focus should be on what ALL of us are eating, because clearly we are doing something wrong! If we're going to ban the grocery store bakery and the soda and cookie aisles for public assistance, maybe just do away with them altogether?

I wouldn't disagree with this. However, there have been public awareness campaigns to promote healthy eating my entire life, and if they're gotten us anywhere, I don't see it.
That's the great irony. We have the information and we know what's bad for us, but as a nation we're fatter than ever. All kinds of things are working against us. The additives in processed food and in fast food appear to be addictive. Also the fact that the worst food is the cheapest and easiest to eat doesn't help. And people don't take the time to actually cook like they used to. Eating out is far more common than when I was a kid; most of these big chains didn't even exist then. They serve over-sized portions to make people think it's a "value," and people will tend to eat most of what's put in front of them. I do think that requiring restaurants to put nutrition info on the menu where you can't avoid seeing it is a good place to start.

And oh yeah we don't have exercise built into our lives like we used to. Everything is automated at home and we drive everywhere.
Even the most health conscious people tend to weigh more than their parents did at the same age.

And on that note I need to go make some fattening snacks for Super Bowl watching.

[davester]

Black wrote:
I try not to focus on it but seeing shopping carts overflowing with empty-calorie comfort foods freaks me out. Especially dealing with people's health issues on a professional level daily.

I wouldn't like to see this either. However, I doubt that making up a new "food stamp eligible" classification system for the grocery stores to navigate will make those people eat any better. To me, the bottom line is "will this improve the health of those affected to any significant degree". I think the answer is "probably not". I also think that the politicians proposing this probably don't give a rat's ass about whether it will or not, so screw them.

[Rolando]

Black wrote:
[quote=Rolando]
I actually agree most processed sh!t should be off the food stamp rolls.

Five up high to my Tea-Party homie.
Sorry, no.

[Kiva]

how about the only foods available to food stamp users have to have less than 5 ingredients?

[Dennis S]

The irony is certain right-wing people are all het up to deny certain other people from buying bad food, but they are the same ones who cry "nanny state" anytime there is a push to slow down all people from buying bad food.

[Rolando]

Dennis S wrote:
The irony is certain right-wing people are all het up to deny certain other people from buying bad food, but they are the same ones who cry "nanny state" anytime there is a push to slow down all people from buying bad food.

That's why I am ok with a 100% tax on "certified junk food"!

[Lux Interior]

Kiva wrote:
how about the only foods available to food stamp users have to have less than 5 ingredients?

Fritos:

Corn, salt, oil.

[Spock]

Kiva wrote:
how about the only foods available to food stamp users have to have less than 5 ingredients?

Don't upset the "Pizza is a vegetable" lobby.

[Kiva]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=Kiva]
how about the only foods available to food stamp users have to have less than 5 ingredients?

Fritos:

Corn, salt, oil.
well, if they want to live off of frito's, more power to 'em..

[$tevie]

Kiva wrote:
[quote=Lux Interior]
[quote=Kiva]
how about the only foods available to food stamp users have to have less than 5 ingredients?

Fritos:

Corn, salt, oil.
well, if they want to live off of frito's, more power to 'em.. Which brings us back to why the bill is irritating some people.