SNAPPY SOLUTION: With a swipe of a food stamp debit card, shoppers at a farmer's market in the Bronx receive a stack of wooden tokens worth a dollar apiece. And for every five they spend on produce, they win a $2 coupon to buy more
Image: Lynne Peeples
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
NEW YORK CITY—The bustling food market on the corner of 165th Street and Grand Concourse in the Bronx almost has a casino feel, except that the chips are dull brown, and rather than cherries on a slot machine real fruit and vegetables are lined up on display. But the cheers are no less exuberant: "This is so awesome!" exclaims one happy customer clutching a handful of tokens and tomatoes. "It's just like Atlantic City."
With a swipe of a food stamp debit card on a handheld credit machine, shoppers at the Harvest Home Farmers Market receive a stack of wooden tokens worth a dollar apiece. And for every five they cash in for bananas, lettuce and the like, they win a two-dollar "Health Bucks" coupon to buy more.
A growing number of local programs from Boston to San Diego are trying to make healthier foods more appealing and affordable for low-income families—the population of Americans who are most reliant on food stamps, and most likely to be obese. Meanwhile, public health researchers are looking hard at the federal food stamp program itself, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They're questioning why the long-standing strategy for helping the hungry may, in some cases, actually be hurting their health by packing on extra pounds. But could a few simple changes transform SNAP into a powerful vehicle for curbing obesity?
"There needs to be a way for a family to not have to choose between hunger and obesity," says Lauren Dinour, a nutrition expert at the City University of New York. "I see huge potential in some new ideas."
While obesity rates have risen to about 30 percent of the U.S. population—carrying with it an epidemic of diabetes—food stamp enrollment has also exploded. About one in eight Americans now rely on the assistance, according to data just released from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), up from one in 50 people in the 1970s.
A separate study, published last August, linked these two striking statistics. People never receiving food stamps had lower rates of obesity than those who had been on them at some point in their lives, even after accounting for differences in socioeconomic status. This effect was most striking for white women: a two-unit increase in body mass index (BMI)—a standard assessment of weight that takes one's height into account. (A BMI of 30 or higher is considered obese.)
"Obesity cannot be totally pinned on food stamps," says Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at The Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research and lead author of the study, "but it certainly is related to how the program is structured."
The full monthly SNAP allocation, now averaging $124 per person nationwide, is provided at the beginning of each month. Research published in 2000 concluded that the bulk of participants also do their grocery shopping once monthly, shortly after the benefit is credited. (Wal-Mart reports a spike in sales at 12:01 A.M., as soon as federal assistance funds hit SNAP accounts.)
Another study from 2004 found a corresponding decrease of 10 to 15 percent in food consumption over the course of the month, suggesting some recipients may eat well for the first couple weeks after they've shopped and then run low on food near month's end. This kind of "binge–starvation" cycle has been linked to changes in metabolism, insulin resistance and, ultimately, increases in BMI.
Now that funds are delivered electronically rather than as paper "food stamps," however, the additional cost to distribute SNAP money every other week would be minimal. Participants themselves have suggested that the change could help them spread out their grocery shopping and keep adequate food around through the month, notes Parke Wilde, an agricultural economist at Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston and lead author of the shopping cycle paper. "It's just a little change in the environment that still gives people freedom [to shop as often as they want], yet gives them a slightly different sense of the default behavior," he says. "I'm always surprised that there's not more interest in the idea."
Obesity risk also weighs heavily on the choices people make on their shopping trips—and the choices made available by retailers. In many urban neighborhoods the most convenient places to shop are corner stores, such as the bodega down the street from the Bronx farmers market. Inside this store, past the rack of Little Debbie brownies, is a cash register framed by salt, fat and sugar. On the left are plastic compartments filled with Charleston Chews and Starbursts; on the right, Mike and Ike's and Planter's Peanuts. Double Bubble sits atop a cooler filled with caffeinated Monster drinks, alongside a cold case of ice cream. All of it can be purchased with food stamps.
Although often proposed, the idea of narrowing the list of foods eligible for purchase with SNAP funds has been stymied due to fears that fewer eligible people would participate, the prices of healthy foods could rise or marketers would simply repackage a candy bar to look like a granola bar. Similar concerns arise over adding taxes or fees to unhealthy foods. Focusing on positive reinforcement, such as financial incentives, "dodges that trouble," Wilde says.
The USDA's Economic Research Service recently found that a targeted 20 percent price reduction for fruits and vegetables would raise the average SNAP participant's daily consumption of these foods by about a quarter of a cup. A New Zealand study published in December highlighted an 11 percent increase in the purchase of a wider range of healthy foods when a 12.5 percent discount was applied. This positive effect even remained significant six months after those discounts were removed.
Wilde is anxious for results from a larger, more rigorous study set to begin in the fall of 2011. The USDA-run "Healthy Incentives Pilot" evaluation will assess the effects of a 30 percent reduction in the cost of fruits and vegetables purchased with SNAP funds. The program's update from paper coupons to debit cards, combined with current checkout technology, has made automatically adjusting the relative price of certain foods more feasible. In this case, the discount will be applied indirectly in the form of a rebate.
These price cuts may also be tested in conjunction with nutrition education. "It would be a powerful combination," Wilde says, "similar to what marketers use to promote food products: communication with the customer and a real dollar benefit." Whereas SNAP already runs nutrition courses that have proved effective in studies, they are not yet mandatory to all participants. Once again, local programs are working to fill in the gap. Select New York City farmers markets even offer lessons on how to cook with fruits and vegetables that some shoppers may never have seen before.
"There's a lot of innovation going on in farmers markets and various other programs within municipalities," Wilde says. "But it would be even better to see fruit and vegetable promotions through all retail channels." Depending on the outcome of the pilot study, a SNAP revamp could bring such pervasive changes by the end of 2013.
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentSocial Science is never considered when creating government control programs. The focus is always on control not actually helping folks. As the controlled population grows (according to plan) the outcomes worsen. Artificial feeding schedules ALWAYS increase obesity. Self controlled feeding schedules always yield better health outcomes - even among the supposedly ignorant poor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously? Is this really happening? They get points for not eating bad foods? I'm all of helping people but wouldn't you feel offended if the government told you what to eat and gave you special bonus points for eating what they felt was best for you? Who gets to decide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWest Virginia has the most obese cities in the nation...the reason: "by design" poorly educated people and "intentional" higher prices on healther products. Here, you can get three handburgers for the price you can for one yellow bellpepper, so what do you think the people are going to buy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the economy is forcing more people on food stamps and the merchants are forcing these people to purchase more fattening foods, there should be pentalities placed on the merchants who conduct their businss in this manner and reward the merchants who do not with tax breaks. Food stamps should be restricted to the purchase of fruits and vegetables only. This will encourage people to find a job or use their tobacco and alcohol money to buy meat.
Fat and obese people, who are not naturally fat, greatly increases health costs. Melt some of that fat off and health costs will drop with the fat.
Food stamps should be for nutritious food. What good are they, if used for chips, soda, cookies, etc... if the government specifies the types of food on the list, so be it. The recipient can still decide what he wants, but he'll have to pay for his own junk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the money spent for incentives to eat properly, would not be near as effective as lowering the overall price of nutritious foods. I don't use food stamps, and it's all I can do to stretch my budget enough to cover some fresh fruits and vegetables...
According to James, there are "intentional" increases in price above market levels in healthy foods in order to encourage the poor in West Virginia to eat more unhealthy foods. I wonder who precisely would have both the motivation and the means to create such price imbalances. My guess is that he would suspect the coal companies and big oil, since they are behind everything that's evil in the world. Perhaps one of the SciAm readers is in on this plan and can fill us in on the details. It's an interesting theory. Totally implausible, but interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I believe those on food stamps tend to swallow a lot of aggression, along with a lot of pizzas.
Soccerdad has a good point. Having to depend on government handouts IS likely to increase stress hormones which increases preference for stress decreasing (feel good) foods - sugar & fat. As is often the case with government, the source of the problem is the well meaning "solution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe usual extreme right wing so-called "libertarian" cranks who haunt blogsites always insist that everyone fend for him/herself. However, only abou 2% of humanity learns to read, calculate, write, perform a sport, or ANYTHING by him/herself. If someone hasn't been taught by parents or peers, then nutrition is too complex to pick up by vague osmosis wafting through the dim polluted air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's why the federal government must do it. It's how medical and food service cleanliness has been enforced, not always perfectly but a thousand times better than a hundred years ago. If cleanliness laws and public campaigns--everything from sterilizing medical instruments to simple handwashing--had been government policy back in 1900 my grandmother wouldn't have died of childbed fever and my father and uncle would have had a mother, not a stepmother who died a few years later after my half-uncle's birth, ALSO from unwashed doctoring. I pray for the day when these know-it-all fools get off our backs and start to learn something about the real world! They might actually gain a little humility. Naaaah, probably not, but maybe they'd shut up.
People are wired up to eat properly. All animals are. Only way people don't eat "right" is when the natural order has interference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than healthy food being "intentionally" expensive, cheap food is highly subsidized through farm subsidies making it the only affordable option. Shifting farm subsidies to cover more healthy foods as well would seem to be an easy option to reset the market so there is a more natural price balance between healthy and unhealthy refined foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis, are you a farmer? Do you have personal experience growing either certified organic crops or ordinary crops? Could you explain how Massey Energy controls Wal-Mart's pricing? I grow soy beans and corn in rotation using no till methods. Neither crop is certified organic but I do know a bit about the process. No US farmer can compete with Mexico and South America on labor intensive crops - even after importing millions of Mexicans. No US certified organic farmer can sell such crops for less than the importers. I know you're just a good 'ole boy makin' it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe people we know who do not work...are all fat. Food stamps or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery enlightening article. I worked on a documentary called "The Angry Heart" about the disproportionate rates of heart disease among African Americans. All one needs to do is take a drive through a low income neighborhood and you'll find a smorgasbord of fast food joints. And they all have a "dollar menu." I would love to see restrictions put on food stamps - if there is enough sodium in these chips to kill a cow, find some cash, we're not going to subsidize something that is not even food. It's edible and yummy, but it ain't food! I'm meant, do food stamps cover cotton candy!?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"People are wired up to eat properly. All animals are. Only way people don't eat "right" is when the natural order has interference." - Psyguy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRubbish. People are wired to eat salty foods because salt is generally in short supply in the wild. People are wired to eat and grow fat because food is generally in short supply in the wild.
Our foods are designed by industry to please us by providing what the body wants, large volumes, high sugar, high fat, and high salt.
I don't know about you, but my body has salt, fat and sugar sensors. Some of which actually sit on my tongue. My tongue doesn't have a b12 sensor, or a fiber sensor or a folic acid sensor over it's entire surface.
Maybe you can ponder why this is....
JamesDavis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no nutritional difference between "organic" produce and normal produce. Give me some good genetically modified pesticide and herbicide laden food, and I'm perfectly happy.
You still haven't explained how the coal company can manipulate the price of food and why they would have the motivation to do so. But hey, that's just my opinion and, as you have pointed out, I don't live there so I wouldn't know.
"I don't know about you, but my body has salt, fat and sugar sensors. Some of which actually sit on my tongue. My tongue doesn't have a b12 sensor, or a fiber sensor or a folic acid sensor over it's entire surface. Maybe you can ponder why this is..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is to ensure that people who are genetically related to you die off. Humans clearly have not survived because our ancestors didn't have governments to force them to "eat right." May studies on children's food preferences prove that they will, over time (a week or so), choose a nutritious and balanced selection of foods. This is, of course, as long as adults do not interfere with their choices or comment on their selections.
One would think a respected magazine like Scientific American would back up the claim that obesity and food stamps use are related with more than a single peer-reviewed study that did not even control for food insecurity, or selection bias. Numerous studies have been performed on this subject by the USDA, and consensus on this "association" is murky at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly an honest (although I would argue, misguided) argument to social engineer the behavior of the poor can be made based on our opportunity to do so, but hanging the whole enterprise on a connection between food stamps and obesity that might not even exist is the definition of bad policy.
Soccerdad - I don't have any supporting evidential data, but I suspect manufacturers receive higher profit margins on lower nutritional food products. If sawdust could be adequately packaged and advertised, I bet the margins would be great!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to claim any knowledge of wrongdoing, but hypothetically manufacturers might encourage retailers to promote high margin products, somehow.
Well we can't eat carbs at our house, due to my husband's diabetes. So I am sure they would want him to eat foods he is not allowed to eat on his diet. He is skinny as a rail, too. Atkins diet for diabetics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, all the people I see at WallMart paying with food stamps are obese people. This may not be true everywhere, but here in south Texas, I see people with two carts. One is full of junk food and instant mixes, and they pay with food stamps for that. Their other cart has huge bag of dry dog food, beer, cigarettes, things you can't get with food stamps. I have yet to see one who is thin or skinny, they are always well dressed, they drive off in cars nicer and newer than mine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Humans clearly have not survived because our ancestors didn't have governments to force them to "eat right."" - PsySciGuy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans did not evolve in a junk food laden environment where bags of high caloric foods, saturated fats, sodium and sugars were sprouting from every tree branch, with easily obtained stashes found at every branch in every path by goons who value their own personal gain ahead of the greater social good.
It is a fact of science that most higher order mammals must be trained by their peers about what is proper and not proper to eat. Typically parents fill that roll of teacher. But in modern society - particularly the failed American Corporate culture - where the corporate message has more sway on the evolution of behaviour than parental guidance, and where parential guidance has been reduced to a minimum by a corporate wage slave culture where mommie and daddie and often da chillen, work in order to afford their diet of junk food and worthless trinkets - sold to them from the corporate stores - the influence of parents is at an all time low.
Hence the desire to correct the imbalace by first instructing and then gently reducing the choices open to those caught in the corporate sponsored dietary failure.
"May studies on children's food preferences prove that they will, over time (a week or so), choose a nutritious and balanced selection of foods." - PsySciGuy
I have never met a Libertarian who wasn't a chronic and perpetual liar.
"This is, of course, as long as adults do not interfere with their choices or comment on their selections. " - PsySciGuy
Ya, restricting a childs choice of junk food clearly leads to them eating less fruits and vedgetables.
Death is the only cure for your kind of Libertarian stupidity.
Education is pointless.
"One would think a respected magazine like Scientific American would back up the claim that obesity and food stamps use are related with more than a single peer-reviewed study that did not even control for food insecurity, or selection bias." - paz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis isn't the first study to document the connection. For decades, there was even an illegal trade in food stamps, allowing people to ultimately purchase - at a premium - all manner of items, including payments for cars, houses, etc. The current system of funds distribution has put an end to most of that I believe. At least I haven't heard of mealy mouthed Conservatives whining about it over the last couple of decades.
In any case, I see no problem with government assistance coming with strings attached. The "food stamp" program is intended to provide nutritional assistance to those in need.
It is <NOT> intended to provide money for food.
When nutritional assistance is used to purchase nutritionally incomplete products, then those funds are not
being properly used, no matter how the person receiving them feels about their use.
A bag of BBQ chips is certainly nice to have. But it lasts one person day and costs as much as a 10 lb bag of potatoes that will last 3 person weeks.
Restrict the funds to the sale of meats, grains, bread, fruits and vegetables.
Ultimately this will improve the health of those receiving nutritinal assistance, and to some extent lower the burden on society in general.
"If sawdust could be adequately packaged and advertised, I bet the margins would be great!" - jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you think the synthetic blueberries are made from?
"I have yet to see one who is thin or skinny, they are always well dressed, they drive off in cars nicer and newer than mine. " - Butters
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the Reagan era was a failure at ridding the U.S. of "Welfare Queens" as well.
Is there anything that Republicans have touched that they haven't screwed up or destroyed?
Unfortunately, some on food stamps have learned they can buy what they can/have to using the food stamps then return what they don't like, get a cash refund then buy what they really want now using (food stamp) money. This increases the cost of doing business for the stores and the customer get what they really want, not just what the food stamp program says they can buy. Where there is a will there is a way!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, (sometimes) where there is a will there is a way. Some users of food stamps buy what they have to per food stamp rules, then return what they don't want getting their refund in cash. The cash is then used to buy what they really want. This increases the cost of doing business for the store and the customer get what they really want from the food store or any other seller of goods or services because they now have cash - not food stamps!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the government (essentially our tax dollars) is paying the tab then incentives, as well as restrictions, are completely acceptable. Quite often our tax dollars are also paying the bill for the medical/health costs resulting from the poor food choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the government (essentially our tax dollars) is paying the tab, then restrictions & incentives are completely acceptable. Quite often, our tax dollars are also having to pay the medical/health costs resulting from the poor food choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFarm subsidies are a big part of the problem. Every five years, Congress renews the Farm Bill, which grants enormous subsidies to industries that grow commodity crops like corn, cotton and wheat. Farmers that grow vegetables, not so much. We worked very hard to change this the last time the bill came up, but to no avail. I think it comes up again in three years. Get ready to call your congresspeople!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe really scary fact is that your neighbours up north are cosidering food stamps as one of the options to stamp out poor nutrition, for those who are struggling with poverty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite the political rage of some posters, SCIENCE prevails:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavis. C. (1928). Self selection of diets by newly weaned infants. American Journal of Diseases of Children 36, 651 679.
Davis, C. (1939). Results of thc self selection diets of young children. Canadian Medical Association Journal 41,257-261.
WRIGHT, P. (1991) Development of food choice during infancy. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50, 107-113
More recently, food choice in children research has placed an emphasis on learning, breast milk co-factors, peer influence, adulterants/attractants, marketing, television, and even computer games. The older studies were based on the premise that ordinary, unadulterated foods were the only choices. Infra-human studies do support the notion that access to foods laced with artificial adulterants/attractants can lead to abnormal consumption and obesity. It is noteworthy that those in charge of our schools and “nutrition programs” have created an environment where children are exposed to artificial adulterants/attractants in school food. Please note that duplication of the 1930/30s studies have not been attempted. Modern studies only present children with various combinations of artificial adulterants/attractants laced material and “novel” foods
For example see:
Fisher JO, Birch LL Restricting access to palatable foods affects children's behavioral response, food selection, and intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1264-72.
Sarah-Jeanne Salvy,* Elizabeth Kieffer, and Leonard H. Epstein, Effects of social context on overweight and normal-weight children's food selection Eat Behav. 2008 April; 9(2): 190–196.
Want to reduce obesity. How about changing the program rules where gas & convenience stores cannot be authorized to accept benefits from recipients? Most of these firms stock marginal amounts of food and what they do have is mostly unhealthy junk food. These type of stores are also more likely to engage in trafficking. This would be a no cost move for the government, would reduce trafficking outlets and recipients could still shop at grocery stores with better products at lower prices. Unlikely to happen though because politicians wouldn't get their contributions from the convenience store associations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoverty is the lack of finances to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStupidity is not included as part of the definition of poverty
in any dictionary, except for the dictionary of those who are biased.
Why not go back to the times when certain folks were branded with the star of David?
The times when people of colour sat in the back of the bus and could not use drinking fountains and washrooms intended for the priviledged.
I would encourage you to leave West Virginia every now and then. You might then realize that fresh fruits and vegetables are more expensive than fast food EVERYWHERE, and that organic produce is more expensive than non-organic produce EVERYWHERE. This is not some grand conspiracy to keep you dependent on some entity. Try organic farming for yourself and you will realize how much more labor-intensive it is than just pouring chemicals on things to keep the bugs away. And I'm not sure where you're getting your information about imported non-organic produce from Mexico being far more expensive to import than it is to grow organic produce here, but I again would encourage you to educate yourself in this area using reliable data and information. I think you will find that the truth is significantly different than your argument. Tip: blogs are not reliable sources of information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Davis. C. (1928). Self selection of diets by newly weaned infants. American Journal of Diseases of Children 36, 651 679." - Dishonest Libertarian
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFoods offered to the children
-----------------------------
Water
Sweet milk
Sour milk
Sea salt
Apples
Bananas
Orange juice
Fresh pineapple
Peaches
Tomatoes
Beats
Carrots
Peas
Turnips
Cauliflower
Cabbage
Spinach
Potatoes
Lettuce
Oatmeal
Wheat
Corn meal
Barley
Ry-Krisp
Beef
Lamb
Bone marrow
Bone jelly
Chicken
Sweetbreads
Brains
Liver
Kidneys
Fish (haddock)
Foods not offered to the children
---------------------------------
Freedom Fries
Potato chips
Milk Chocolate
Peanut butter
Pizza
Ice Cream
Deep Fried Chicken
Milkshakes
Cookies
Chocolate Cake
Apple Pie
Cherry Pie
Candyfloss
Doritos
Popcorn
Strawberry jam
Jolt Cola
Twinkies
Carmals
Lollypops
CandyCanes
Marshmellows
Cheetos
CheeseBurgers
Here is a documentary on the subject for Libertarian Fools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOq8AO8HONM
Interesting thoughts. I recently saw a movie called "Food, Inc." Kind of hard to discard all of the content, no matter your political leaning. I suggest viewing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure why James Davis thinks Socceerdad's thoughts are eerie...Corporate towns are a nasty holdover from America's Industrial Revolution. Not sure why he says Soccerdad would fit in...
As far as passing legislation to limit types of food that can be purchased with food stamps; with one in eight people purchasing their food with stamps, the folks from ConAgra, Kraft and Cargill are lobbying to prevent that.
As one of the "working poor" who receives food stamps, it is important to point out there are those of us who shop for and purchase healthy foods, make lists of ingredients for complete and wholesome meals and use coupons whenever possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't cost much more (often costs less) to buy nutritious, rather than junk, food.
I only occasionally buy a bottle of soda, when friends who are habitual soda drinkers are planning to stop by. Then, I will buy a more expensive but far healthier bottle of a brand of Mexican soda that's made with pure cane sugar rather than anything containing high fructose corn syrup and/or Aspartame. Produce is bought either fresh, frozen or dehydrated -- never canned.
Many people do not read the labels or seem to not care what's in the food they're buying (often aiming for quantity at the expense of quality).
If one spends their food stamp allocation on commercial potato or corn chips, buys processed pasta and cheese processed to form an orange and mostly imitation gelatinous block, sugary breakfast cereals, purchases prefabricated sauces, toaster pastries, donuts, fruits and vegetables in cans, the cheapest cooking oil on the shelves, the cheapest 'TV dinners' available and ground beef (with boxes of "helper"), of course these people will get fat!
A diet high in sodium, starches, high fructose corn syrup, saturated fats and low in nutrients will cause lethargy and weight gain. It's not rocket science to recognize that spending the money you're allocated on "foods" which provide huge amounts of calories but little or no nutritional value is like shooting oneself in both feet.
I do wish we (in Mohave County, AZ) had the luxury and convenience of a Farmer's Market nearby that would accept EBT (no such luck). And so this season I've started an organic garden of vegetables and medicinal and culinary herbs.
While I'm not a Vegan and enjoy eating poultry and fish on occasion, I will point out that tofu is usually far cheaper than the anonymous creatures that can be bought in shrink-wrapped packages in any meat department.
The reason many people steer away from tofu is that they either have some prejudice against it, have never learned which sort of tofu is most suited to the intended purpose (such as stir-frying with vegetables) and the necessary steps required to bring out the best qualities of the tofu. Marinating tofu makes it tasty, rather than bland. To learn more, google (for example), "Selecting+preparing+tofu" or "Great tasting tofu recipes" (quotation marks not required).
Oh, please give me a break. While some fresh vegetables may be expensive, there are plenty of others that are not. Frozen vegetables are a very affordable option, as are carrots, iceberg lettuce, celery, broccoli, etc. The problem is that most of those people prefer fast foods and unhealthy foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am on disability and therefore by default use food stamps. I resent the implication that I am ignorant or lazy. It is easy to judge what you don't have experience with, I suppose. Even though it would imply prejudices which are the height of ignorant thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHealthy food is expensive. For one person, making less than 1000 dollars a month, I receive 60 dollars in food stamps, to feed myself for an entire month. I manage. Not by eating cookies, soda and other junk food, but by stretching the healthy food with starches, such as pasta, or potatoes. A 5lb bag of potatoes costs less than the equivalent volume of salad. Far less.
Again, I am disabled and unable to work, not lazy, not ignorant, or uneducated. Find out who and what you are talking about before making assumptions.
As a former food stamp recipient. I purchased lots of canned fruits and vegetables because they would last the longest. I tried to avoid the end of month lack of food that many people on food stamps experience. Fresh fruits and vegetables just were not viable the last two weeks of the month, and I didn't buy them often. I didn't buy much meat either as it always doubled my bill. My son and myself ate lots of green beans and rice with turkey sausage for flavoring, spinach and rice, and red beans and rice. It is very hard eating healthy with food stamps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a mature man I find that I don't seem to give those looks a second glance anymore but really appreciate and find attractive the woman that can put herself together well whether casual or sophisticated and carries herself with class and confidence, as you do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done, like it a lot.
<a href='http://www.replica-HANDBAGS-shop.com'>replica bags</a>
As a mature man I find that I don't seem to give those looks a second glance anymore but really appreciate and find attractive the woman that can put herself together well whether casual or sophisticated and carries herself with class and confidence, as you do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done, like it a lot.
<a href='http://www.replica-HANDBAGS-shop.com'>replica bags</a>
Good article. It's refreshing to see an article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGirls, give that cute, if not shy and awkward, guy a chance! He might be the one you're looking for!
<a href="http://www.Replica-HANDBAGS-shop.com/"><a href="http://www.Replica-HANDBAGS-shop.com/">http://www.Replica-HANDBAGS-shop.com/</a></a>
As a poor single mom on food stamps, I can say that a lot of the comments are offensive. I pay taxes as do most working poor, not every one on food stamps is taking advantage and trying to return things for cash or just get junk food. and as far as i know to return anything you need a receipt if you want money back, and if it was bought on a debit or EBT card it gets credited back to the card,other wise you do an exchange. I do everything I can to assure that my son and I eat healthy, and get fresh groceries once a week. I have always had a garden and found out once i was on food stamps that you can by food crop seedlings and seed with food stamps which i have been doing to supplement the high costs of fruits and veggies by growing my own to stretch out the food stamp dollar and have a wholesome activity to share with my child. It saddens me to see so many snarky judgmental comments. There are many people rich and poor who make unhealthy choices, and healthy food is more expensive. It is nice that the market is using the wooden token exchange but maybe they could do it for everyone. And even though i occasionally buy some food labeled junk food as treats, it would not change how I eat. But there are obese poor and rich people, and every poor person is not out to steal your tax money and they also pay taxes, I know I've been to the food stamp office and I know that it happens,I saw someone with a Bentley up there last time. but please don't demonize everyone who is poor, there are plenty of white collar criminals, that have robbed poor working people blind of their life savings, and i do not demonize everyone who is rich. this isn't a class war. The caliber of people does not depend on their income but their actions and virtues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Food Stamp Program should be restructured so that recipients can attend nutrition classes and learn how to shop for healthier foods that are economical and how to plan and prepare nutritious meals. Further, there should be a limit on how much soda, chips, cookies, etc can be purchased over the period of one month. Also, the program should not be administered by the Federal Government. Let the states administer the programs to save money and also to provide adequate services to the recipients.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI worked in Social Services for many years and I can attest to how desperately clients need to be educated about health, nutrition, and parenting. The Government programs were initially put into place to secure votes from a vulnerable population and unfortunately pouring more money into programs that don't work or that are mismanaged is detrimental to the overall physical and emotional health of poor people.
We need to empower people instead of continuing to make them dependent on the government.
You are to be commended for trying to help yourself. You also mentioned a very important issue...planting a garden to grow vegetables that will supplement your food budget. You sound to me like a very motivated young woman and it's people like you who should be working in the Food Stamp Program. You could teach clients how to learn self sufficiency skills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Luck to you and your son.
The merchants are not directly forcing. . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndustrial agriculture is highly efficient, and the overwhelming efficiency of scale causes the most unhealthy basics to be the cheapest.
case:
HFCS is a highly industrialized product made from corn, which with greatly enlarged harvesting tools (like huge powerful heavy trucks, and other power tools resulting from national efforts in WWII)became attractive to industrialization. The rise of fossil-fuel fertilizers moved production to the oil refining industry. The development of pesticides from corporations inheriting the poison gas patents - also WWII products - helped other industries get involved, and the rising science of understanding genetics and evolution led to many products necessary to monocropping, that most scale-efficient method of production.
You who saw the crushing of private farmers by seed companies and ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, in the 70s, saw the roots.
No longer did farms offer diversified crops across the year, nor were they any longer places where farmers grew their own food. They sold out to the above, and died - those who did not enlarge and deeply entwine themselves with those corporate giants.
So you have corn syrup - it lives in your drinks, your crackers, breads, tomato sauces, and became ubiquitous.
Those with diabetes (type 1) recognize the term, glycemic index. It is a measure of how quickly sugars enter the blood, and therefore affect your system.
Industrial foods are designed to appeal, and therefore cause impulse buying. Since we evolved to crave high fat and high glycemic index substances, these being relatively rarely concentrated in nature, we are suckers for junk food.
Since it makes the most money for corporations, those who market such win the consumer.
Merchants are merely middlemen, traders who bring the products to you.
I am uncertain why farmers market prices have grown so high since strong development by the 1980s. Could it be that they suffer from the propensity of man with strangers, to charge as high as they an and still sell their product? Could it be that they are greedy social consumers, wanting the most bling for themselves and their children? They will claim, as does nearly everyone, that costs rise, but viewing their vehicles alone, I am not at all convinced that their sincerity exceeds Wall Street's.
I strongly believe that many disadvantaged people are clinically depressed and they use food as a means of self medicating. It is quicker and easier to purchase unhealthy snacks than it is to shop at a market and then go home and cook. I am tired of hearing about the epidemic of obesity in this country when the only strategy seems to be "move" and "eat healthy". Depressed people often have difficulty putting one foot in front of the other much less worry about what they eat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur health care costs would be significantly lower if we would begin to look at root causes of behavior instead of just focusing on the fact that overweight people eat too much of the wrong foods.
Both you and Psy guy in # 5 and 6 show incisive thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, conspiracy is a practice and not descriptive of operating to achieve similar ends.
Marketing is a well-researched profession, and the fact that large corporations have the most money to spend on inundation and skill tends to make practices coincide.
Remember, in this culture it is all about using money to make money: capitalism - and performance is rewarded by shareholders. Competition in this arena streamlines efforts and the best products (methods) look alike.
they may not be healthy to the inheritors or users, but are evaluated as best through rigor of selection.
As you may know in science, paradigms are coherent, and become simple (odd! just as parasites do!), until revolution or evolution occur. New ideas evolve, but cellular, multicellular, and social organization each share internal characteristics. What will happen through this trend toward sociocorporate development?
Those with the right answer will be later heralded, though several answers are easily perceived.
To the point, though:
Yes, stress is involved. An individual of this, our animal, feels more insulated from threat when it is larger. It is one of some broad characteristics existing in biological nature. The fact that we can and do change size appears to have organically solved problems of threat, food storage, and homeostasis in cold climates (and more!) through neurophysiological/hormonal/physical individual adaptation.
I say organic, because life processes - those which appear most evolutionarily successful - gain multiple ends. It is the hefty insulated human that longest survives shipwreck in cold seas, for instance. Mountain and arctic peoples are built quite differently than foot travelers on central African savanna.
Most or all psychological disorders and most less-than-admirable traits are likely to serve a purpose of assisting possible offspring survival.
I enjoy the words of those of you who speculate or hypothesize - keep posting!
Commenting on various comments:
Those of you who separate yourselves intellectually from those less well-off in this culture may be only suffering from a self-imposed illusion. Should changes occur, social standing and survival probabilities will be restructured.
So please, all, resist social evaluation of others. By all means enjoy whatever humor you will, but never believe that in fact your genes or phenotype, or yourselves as you imagine them, are superior. You thrive in a very simple and so far, short-lived culture.
Niches and worlds change.