Food Stamps: The economics of eating well - NYT debate forum

Just some excerpts here.. go to the link for the full debate....

Food stamps:the economics of eating well - NYT


A recent article in The Times by Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff detailed the effects of the soaring dependence on government food stamps in the United States. The social stigma of using them has faded, the Times writers found, yet judgments are still made.

If people buy fresh vegetables or other relatively expensive though nutritious foods, they are considered to be living high on the hog at the taxpayers’ expense. But if they buy cheap foods like hot dogs they are criticized for poor health habits.

Despite these common complaints, does the system work? Are the current rules fair in regulating what people can buy and not buy? Or should the requirements be changed? Should un-nutritious products like soda be banned? Is there a better way to distribute free food and promote nutrition in this country?

* Tom Laskawy, food policy blogger
* Caryn Sweeney, “A Mile in Another’s Shoes” blog
* Adam Drewnowski , obesity researcher, University of Washington
* Julie Guthman, University of California, Santa Cruz
* Marion Nestle, author of “Food Politics”
* Christopher Greenslate, author of “On a Dollar a Day”

Subsidize Salads, Not Snacks
Tom Laskawy

Tom Laskawy blogs on food policy for Grist.org and Beyond Green.

Anti-poverty programs in this country currently operate from the premise that poor people cannot be trusted with cash benefits, and as a result such programs come with strict eligibility and performance requirements. Food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) have been politically sustainable precisely because they are not cash transfers, and thus can’t be “misspent” by the “idle,” “improvident” or “uneducated” poor people to whom they are given.

Food stamp benefits should be reserved for whole, nutritious foods — meats, grains, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables.

Why, then, the furor over reform proposals that would allow the food stamp program to favor — even subsidize — the purchase of healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables over snacks and soda?

Could this controversy result from a belief on the part of pundits and policy makers that being poor in America means acquiescing quietly to a substandard diet? Healthy foods, in this line of reasoning, are a luxury that should be reserved for those who can afford them. As unjust as this sounds when presented so baldly, it is exactly this belief that underlies attempts to deny government the right to make good nutrition a cornerstone of the food stamp program.

Read more…

We know that demand among low-income people for fresh, healthy food is high. New York City recently reported that food stamp use at its farmers’ markets doubled in the past year. The city’s subsidized vegetable cart program for underserved neighborhoods has also been a great success. And market research has for years shown no connection between buying organic and income level.

Food stamp benefits should be reserved for whole, nutritious foods — meats, grains, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables. Such a common-sense position should be entirely uncontroversial. Shame on us that it is not.



Good Nutrition, on a Budget - Caryn Sweeney

Caryn Sweeney, a writer for an international nonprofit agency, has been writing “A Mile in Another’s Shoes,” about her experience of living on a food-stamp budget.

Before the age of fast food, poor families cooked from scratch after long hours in the fields and factories.

During my month-long challenge of living on a food-stamp budget, I chose to get the most nutrition for my dollar rather than the most food volume. Given my health problems, I could not base my menu on grains. I set out getting as much produce and protein as I could afford.

I researched in-season produce and found farmers’ markets offering deals to those receiving assistance. I adjusted those prices in my budget as if I had actually qualified. I managed an average of just over six servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

Read more…

I checked the sale fliers, and made a spreadsheet of recipes to determine what to buy. I favored eggs, whole chickens and beef with bones for protein. From the leftovers I made stock to use in stir fries, soups, and rice to make them tastier and more filling.

I made multiple stops in a single grocery shopping trip for different sales. I had marathon vegetable chopping sessions on weekends, packing away sliced peppers, diced onions, blanched beans and more for use during the work week.

It’s hard work being poor, and many families on assistance are already working hard for long hours at low-paying jobs. I think a good addition to the food stamp program would be materials with time-saving tips, recipes for alternative appliances like electric skillets and toaster ovens for those who don’t have full kitchens, and ideas on how to maximize nutritious ingredients. Poor families for generations cooked from scratch after long hours in the fields, factories or mills because they had no 7-Eleven or McDonald’s on hand.

Today, too many poor Americans are both malnourished and overweight, at risk for diabetes and heart disease, because empty calories come so cheaply.


Obesity and the Underclass - Adam Drewnowski

Adam Drewnowski is director of the University of Washington Center for Obesity Research.

The issue of the affordability of healthy diets will only become more pressing as more people slide into poverty.

Larger portions of broccoli are not going to help the poor.

I agree that we tend to censure food choice behaviors of low-income groups, no matter what they do. It’s as though being poor were equivalent to a moral failure, and uplifting homemade lentil soup were the only cure. The new WIC package in Washington State is full of contradictions — no white potatoes, no yogurt, no canned soups or vegetable juices — but plenty of fresh kale. We do not want those low-income mothers to have too much fun at the taxpayers’ expense.

Of course, distributing more fruits and vegetables probably is not the answer either. The problem is that the fiscal policies of the last two decades have created a permanent underclass that has become obese and diabetic. The only way out of this is to promote jobs, education and yes, health reform. Larger portions of broccoli are not going to do it on their own.
Poor People Get the Dregs
Julie Guthman

Julie Guthman is an associate professor of community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and has written extensively on the American food system.

Recently I spotted a hand-written sign at the checkout counter of my local Whole Foods supermarket. The sign requested that customers bring in cans of conventional food, for which they would receive the equivalent in 365, the market’s private label. The donated cans would be taken to the county food bank.

Increased use of food stamps must be seen as a good thing in a worsening economy. The system works.

That sign captured perfectly the limits of food charity as a way to address the problem of food insecurity in America: poor people get the dregs.

Much of the enormous network of food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens that collect and distribute donated food to those in need relies on the damaged goods of low-cost retailers and the surplus of the government’s commodity support programs. Processed cheese made from milk byproducts is not the sort of fare you’d find at Whole Foods, much less the farmers’ market.

Read more…

Food banks around the country are depleted right now, as one might expect during a recession. The biggest problem with food charity is that when people need it most, these programs are least able to deliver.

Scholars of hunger have long championed entitlement programs, such as the food stamp program, as the most efficient, dignifying and effective way to provide reasonably nutritious food to people with insufficient income to buy it. Unlike food charity, the food stamp program is countercyclical – it picks up when times are tough. The increased use of food stamps must therefore be seen as a good thing despite that it reflects a worsening economy.

Those who complain about the use of food stamps to purchase cheap, junkie food ought to set their sights elsewhere. They should consider the myriad policies that allow products laden with high fructose corn syrup, transfats, growth hormones and synthetic processing aids to be sold as food. In my view, the unemployed and poor shouldn’t pay the moral price for our collective failure to curb the excesses of the food industry.


The Job Loss Factor - Marion Nestle

Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, is the author of “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.” Her comments are excerpted from her blog.

The Food Stamp program, now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is one of several food assistance programs run by the U.S.D.A. SNAP is an entitlement program, meaning that anyone who meets income eligibility requirements can get benefits. Even so, only two-thirds of people eligible for the program apply for and get the benefits. Recipients get a credit card to use at grocery stores. The cards were worth an average of $101 per month in 2008 for individuals, and $227 for households.

SNAP participants can use the money to buy foods, seeds and food plants. They cannot use the cards for alcohol, tobacco, pet food, supplements, paper goods, or hot prepared foods.

So what’s going on? Nearly 15 percent of American households, up a couple of percentage points this year, are considered “food insecure,” meaning that they cannot count on a reliable, legally obtained source of food from one day to the next. Surprise! The uptick in SNAP participation exactly parallels the uptick in jobs lost.

Read more…

What do you have to do to qualify for food stamps? For a family of four, your household must make less than $2,389 per month gross, or $1,838 net and meet certain other requirements. An individual can’t make more than about $1,000 a month. These days, 36 million Americans make less than that or otherwise qualify for food assistance, and their numbers are rising rapidly.

This doesn’t look like an improving economy to me. Or am I missing something?


Benefits Are Meager and Underused - Christopher Greenslate

Christopher Greenslate is co-author of “On a Dollar a Day: One Couple’s Unlikely Adventures in Eating in America,” to be published by Hyperion in February 2010.

Despite the roar from the well-fed about what people in poverty should do to be self-reliant, federal nutrition programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps) are doing what they can to make sure people who need help are able to get it, at least at the federal level. However, in the debate over food stamp allocation, common misperceptions travel faster than truth.

People on food stamps know what is healthy, and what isn’t.

To understand the problem on a more personal level, my partner and I lived it: for a month. We ate according to the average SNAP allotment, and contributed the suggested amount of personal income as well. We even followed the USDA’s “Thrifty Food Plan” and bought only food listed on its menu plan; we ran out of food before the end of the month.

What we learned about food stamps was at odds with everything we had heard. For instance, while many people think that the poor are duping the system, the actual rate of fraud is only 2 to 4 percent. The government has mostly settled the controversy over what types of foods people should buy, and these issues only serve as distractions. The real challenges facing SNAP are mostly at the state and local level.
Where we live in San Diego, only 29 percent of those who are eligible for benefits are receiving them, the worst rate for an urban area in the country. The application process is complex, intrusive and humiliating. The average applicant has to make five trips to a center, have every adult in the home fingerprinted, and is subject to home searches by the district attorney’s office.

The irony is that these costs put a drain on the economic boost that food stamp funds give to the economy. Every dollar of food stamps spent generates $1.84 in economic activity, which means that since our county is not getting benefits to those who need them, we’ve lost over $250 million this year. For California, that’s a $3-million loss in potential tax revenue.

People on food stamps know what is healthy and what isn’t. But this doesn’t help them unless local governments are doing everything they can to ensure that those who are eligible are getting access to the benefits they so desperately need.