There are legit considerations regarding the whole "SNAP/junk food" debate. It's not as black-and-white of an issue as many people assume.
Hypoglycemia requires people to eat quick sugar during flareups, and it is a fairly common condition. Patients commonly do this by ingesting soda pop, or candy bars- aka "junk food."
High sugar foods; while technically labeled as "junk" food do provide the body with quick energy. People who do physical work often snack on candy, and sugary drinks during the workday for energy.
In fact, the modern candy bar industry was largely built around supplying US soldiers with "energy food" (candy bars) to help them perform during world war 2.
Then, there are other, more nebulous considerations surrounding the costs of food preparation, and what poor people can afford to cook- IF they can even afford to cook.
Poverty often times makes simple things quite difficult or impossible for some people to do simple things that most people take for granted. Things like, turning on your gas stove to cook a "healthy" meal, when the utility company has cut their gas off for non-payment.
So what do they do? They use SNAP to buy a bag of chips, and some Hot Pockets (junk food) to cook in the microwave so they don't end up starving.
Then, some overly ambitious bureaucrats scrutinize their food receipts, and gets the bright idea that the govt. needs to control how people eat because tax dollars paid for the food- as if the SNAP recipient, and his family have never paid those tax dollars before.
Yeah, I get it. It would be better if more people ate healthier, and it would be better if SNAP could somehow sway people to do that. But, there is a fairly large gray area regarding what exactly is "junk food," and when should people not be allowed to purchase it.
Personally, I would ban Cheetos from SNAP purchases. That shit has no redeeming qualities as a food source, whatsoever. But, I think that the definition of "junk food" really needs to be very narrow regarding the SNAP thing, due to edge cases.
That's a great, nuanced comment. Almost like it was made in a physical room with real people who want to get along, and not some internet board. When you get into specific cases it can be blurry.
A lot of this boils down to whether we are entitled to our own tax money (as in "it's already mine so don't tell me what to do with it"), or whether it's an essentially charitable social program that the gov't needs to manage as a fiduciary.
There are legit considerations regarding the whole "SNAP/junk food" debate. It's not as black-and-white of an issue as many people assume.
Hypoglycemia requires people to eat quick sugar during flareups, and it is a fairly common condition. Patients commonly do this by ingesting soda pop, or candy bars- aka "junk food."
High sugar foods; while technically labeled as "junk" food do provide the body with quick energy. People who do physical work often snack on candy, and sugary drinks during the workday for energy.
In fact, the modern candy bar industry was largely built around supplying US soldiers with "energy food" (candy bars) to help them perform during world war 2.
Then, there are other, more nebulous considerations surrounding the costs of food preparation, and what poor people can afford to cook- IF they can even afford to cook.
Poverty often times makes simple things quite difficult or impossible for some people to do simple things that most people take for granted. Things like, turning on your gas stove to cook a "healthy" meal, when the utility company has cut their gas off for non-payment.
So what do they do? They use SNAP to buy a bag of chips, and some Hot Pockets (junk food) to cook in the microwave so they don't end up starving.
Then, some overly ambitious bureaucrats scrutinize their food receipts, and gets the bright idea that the govt. needs to control how people eat because tax dollars paid for the food- as if the SNAP recipient, and his family have never paid those tax dollars before.
Yeah, I get it. It would be better if more people ate healthier, and it would be better if SNAP could somehow sway people to do that. But, there is a fairly large gray area regarding what exactly is "junk food," and when should people not be allowed to purchase it.
Personally, I would ban Cheetos from SNAP purchases. That shit has no redeeming qualities as a food source, whatsoever. But, I think that the definition of "junk food" really needs to be very narrow regarding the SNAP thing, due to edge cases.
That's a great, nuanced comment. Almost like it was made in a physical room with real people who want to get along, and not some internet board. When you get into specific cases it can be blurry.
A lot of this boils down to whether we are entitled to our own tax money (as in "it's already mine so don't tell me what to do with it"), or whether it's an essentially charitable social program that the gov't needs to manage as a fiduciary.