I know the government doesn't have to pay for my abortion, but does it have to pay for my Cheetos?
Florida lawmakers are loosely emulating what has been tried (and failed at this point) in Minnesota, NYC, Iowa, California, and Texas: barring the buying of non-healthy food when using food stamps. While a state may pass the law, the tricky part to implementing it comes in when the USDA has to approve it. So far, the federal government has said "Absolutely no way, not on my watch, go away." Essentially, the concern is that we're letting people who receive money spend it in ways we don't think are best for them. Seems awfully paternalistic, eh? The obesity and subsequent diabetes epidemics are known all throughout America, but does that give the government a right to attach "no junk food" strings to the assistance it provides? (This is no cash-for-roads in exchange for age-21-drinking-limit as seen in the Con Law case out of South Dakota. We're dealing with feeding people who need money to buy food.) As a practical standpoint, many people who receive assistance live in food deserts -- if they don't have the access to appropriately-healthy foods, what is the State going to do about that? Let them starve? It's an extreme answer, but it's a real problem. What are we saying as a society -- if you are poor, then everyone else gets to tell you what you can eat? How do you begin to define a sufficiently health vegetable? Is a can of peas okay, or should it only be fresh or frozen? What about whole milk, as compared to skim? This isn't just a slippery slope, it's an outright mudslide. Don't go here.
To read more, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46270895/ns/us_news-life/#.Ty6wGRy-fmw
Florida lawmakers are loosely emulating what has been tried (and failed at this point) in Minnesota, NYC, Iowa, California, and Texas: barring the buying of non-healthy food when using food stamps. While a state may pass the law, the tricky part to implementing it comes in when the USDA has to approve it. So far, the federal government has said "Absolutely no way, not on my watch, go away." Essentially, the concern is that we're letting people who receive money spend it in ways we don't think are best for them. Seems awfully paternalistic, eh? The obesity and subsequent diabetes epidemics are known all throughout America, but does that give the government a right to attach "no junk food" strings to the assistance it provides? (This is no cash-for-roads in exchange for age-21-drinking-limit as seen in the Con Law case out of South Dakota. We're dealing with feeding people who need money to buy food.) As a practical standpoint, many people who receive assistance live in food deserts -- if they don't have the access to appropriately-healthy foods, what is the State going to do about that? Let them starve? It's an extreme answer, but it's a real problem. What are we saying as a society -- if you are poor, then everyone else gets to tell you what you can eat? How do you begin to define a sufficiently health vegetable? Is a can of peas okay, or should it only be fresh or frozen? What about whole milk, as compared to skim? This isn't just a slippery slope, it's an outright mudslide. Don't go here.
To read more, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46270895/ns/us_news-life/#.Ty6wGRy-fmw
No comments:
Post a Comment