Boost SNAP to make healthy eating easier
Vijay Das,
Tribune News Service
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to make it harder for poor Americans to buy unhealthy food. Together with Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins, he is asking some 15 states to submit waivers to bar beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from using those funds to buy soda and other specific items. Unfortunately, this approach is unproductive, in part because it does nothing to make it easier for Americans to buy healthy food. The nation does face an obesity crisis. But banning SNAP beneficiaries from buying a Hostess cake at Safeway will not address it in any significant way. Families on SNAP purchase approximately the same amount of unhealthy food as those not enrolled in the program. Restricting SNAP is about stigmatizing people living in poverty, not helping them.
A 2023 Cleveland Clinic study found that almost half of survey respondents considered the cost of healthy food to be the largest barrier to healthier diets. President Donald Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of groceries even further, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. SNAP is already inadequate to pay for the rising cost of groceries. SNAP provides only about $6 per person per day in food assistance. To make better food purchases more feasible for recipients, we need to increase SNAP payments, not cut them by imposing new rules and shifting responsibility to the states, as some Republican members of Congress are now looking to do. Evidence supports this strategy: When the child tax credit was expanded following the pandemic, low-income parents bought more healthy food with their extra cash. Poorer Americans (like richer ones) do buy too much junk food and consume too much ultra-processed crap — but the reasons are just as important as the facts. Poor families often lack access to stores that sell healthy fruits and vegetables. Meanwhile, billboards for fast food restaurants blanket poorer neighbourhoods, with images of attractive people savoring deep fried treats and pounding highly caffeinated sugary drinks.
Studies show poverty leads to increases in illness due to factors including the stress and financial strain of surviving with a shrinking safety-net and a lack of decent, stable paid work. With less access to healthy food and crafty ad campaigns targeting low-income youth, it's no wonder poor families dedicate a large portion of their spending to sugary and sodium-enriched junk. One model for expanding SNAP recipients' access to better, healthier food is already in place. The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, launched as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, distributed more than $73 million to local SNAP incentive projects between 2015 and 2018. The program is now known as the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP).
In 2019, Congress set aside $250 million to fund GusNIP. Allocations since have varied but the program continues. GusNIP has a competitive grant program that funds state and local non-profit organisations to provide financial nutrition incentives that subsidise purchases of fruits and vegetables for SNAP customers. Less than 1% of SNAP beneficiaries can access GusNIP, however. We must expand the programme. SNAP's 'Double Bucks' programme, now operating in more than 25 states, also helps local farmers and families. This program provides SNAP participants with matching funds to purchase locally grown produce. Congress should also pass the Supporting All Healthy Options When Purchasing Produce (SHOPP) Act, a bipartisan bill backed by Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville, R-AL, that increases SNAP incentives to buy frozen fruits and vegetables.
If Kennedy wants to boost healthy eating, he should address nationwide poor nutrition at its root by boosting programs that drive consumption of whole foods, fruits and vegetables. We should teach healthier cooking practices. We should reduce the sticker shelf price tags of healthy groceries while encouraging buying fresh and frozen vegetables. As Kennedy and Rollins tour the nation, they'll learn that good jobs are scarce. Child care is difficult to find. Grocery stores with decent produce are not on most corners. Life is tough already, and we should help families in need leverage wide use of SNAP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
11 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump sends Musk out of White House with gold key
After spending 130 days working to dismantle entire federal government agencies, firing tens of thousands of civil servants and sparking dozens of lawsuits over potential misuse of Americans' personal data, the world's wealthiest man was rewarded with a gold-plated skeleton key that can be purchased for nearly $8,000 on eBay. Seated at the iconic desk hewed from timbers harvested from H.M.S. Resolute, President Donald Trump praised Elon Musk for his four months of work leading the "Department of Government Efficiency," a role from which Musk is required to depart due to his now-former status as a Special Government Employee, which had let him work for free without complying with any financial disclosure rules but only for 130 days per year. He called the Tesla and SpaceX CEO "one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced" and hailed him for having led what Trump called "the most sweeping and consequential government reform program in generations." "Elon gave an incredible service. There's nobody like him, and he had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame, because he's an incredible patriot. The good news is that 90% of the country knows that, and they appreciate it, and they really appreciate what he did," he said. Trump then presented Musk with a trinket that dated back to the 47th president's prior term as the 45th President of the United States: A "Key to the White House." It was an oversize, gold-plated key in a wooden presentation box, with an engraving of the Executive Mansion on the inside of the lid. Musk was not by any means the first person to be gifted with this Trumpian trinket. In his 2022 memoir Breaking History, Trump's son-in-law and ex-senior adviser Jared Kushner recounted how he'd "whipped out" the same gift for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a September 2020 meeting in the Oval Office. At the time, Trump called it a "a special token of affection, given by myself and the First Lady to the Prime Minister and the First Lady of Israel." "And it's a key — we call it a key to the White House. And it's a key to our country and to our hearts," he said as he handed it over to Netanyahu. Kushner wrote that Trump had told Netanyahu that the key he gifted him was "the first key I'm giving to anyone" and claimed that it would grant the Israeli leader entry to the White House "even when I'm not president anymore." As he handed Musk the same tchotchke nearly five years later, Trump said it was "a little special something" that he gives to "very special people" as "a presentation from our country." It's not known how many of the souvenirs have been given out by Trump, but a search by The Independent revealed that identical items have been listed on eBay, with two current listings showing prices of $7,250 and &7,950. The auction site RR Auction also shows another of them having sold for $3,670. Musk, who wore a black "Make America Great Again" cap, a black suit and a t-shirt with the words "The Dogefather" on it and appeared to look around the Oval Office aimlessly as Trump spoke, accepted the box from the president as he told reporters that his time in the administration "necessarily had to end" and had been "a limited time." But somewhat paradoxically, he said the DOGE team he put in place "will only grow stronger over time" and compared DOGE to "sort of Buddhism." "It's like a way of life. So it is permeating throughout the government, and I'm confident that over time, we will see a trillion dollars of savings and reduction in a trillion dollars of waste," he said. He added that he will "continue to be visiting" Washington "as a friend and adviser" to Trump and stressed that he looked forward to being back in the Oval Office as he praised the president for his redecorating efforts, which have seen the iconic space take on a distinctively gilded look through copious amounts of gold leaf on the walls and ceiling. Musk also sported a noticeable black eye during the press conference, and when a reporter asked him what had happened to him, he blamed his young son, X Æ A-12, who goes by "Little X." "I was horsing around with Little X, and I said 'go ahead, punch me in the face. And he did," he said. But the centibillionaire's face wasn't the only one that was discussed during the hour-long session. After he and Musk spoke, Trump took questions on multiple topics, including one about a recent incident involving French president Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, during which the French First Lady appeared to strike her husband as they were exiting an aircraft earlier this week. Asked whether he had any advice for his French counterpart, Trump — who has been married three times and divorced twice — replied: "Make sure the door remains closed." He added that he'd spoken with Macron recently and said the French first couple was "fine." "They're two really good people. I know him very well, and I don't know what that was all about, but I know him very well, and they're fine," he said. Andrew Feinberg, The Independent
The National
2 days ago
- The National
We should consume information like we eat our food
Before the advent of the digital age, for someone to be considered a well-informed person – knowledgeable about news, current affairs and events – was a hard-won status. It wasn't easy to have regular access to the full range of books, newspapers and periodicals we now have at our fingertips. We had to keep our daily appointment with the evening news simply to know what had happened that day. To be well-informed was, to some extent, an aspirational pursuit. The newspaper you bought would say a lot about that aspiration. Yet beyond acquiring facts or being 'in the know', it was also, at its purest, about cultivating judgment, enriching the inner life, and developing the wisdom to make decisions that might help us prosper and thrive. Today, access to information is no longer seen as a luxury but as a necessity, despite the heavy irony of it being in far more regular supply than ever before. Research from Pew, published this month, underscored this, suggesting that the questions of how 'closely Americans are following the news, where they get their news and how much they trust the news they see … are not as straightforward as they once were … as people are exposed to more information from more sources than ever before and lines blur between entertainment, commentary and other types of content'. 'People don't always like news, but they say they need it: while many express negative emotions surrounding news [such as anger or sadness], they also say it helps them feel informed or feel that they 'need' to keep up with it,' according to Pew. While it has always been true that few would readily admit to any kind of ignorance, these days you can inadvertently make such an embarrassing admission by revealing you know too much. This is because the idea that we 'need' information has led, by and large, to no longer consuming it to understand the world but instead consuming it just to consume. This claim isn't revolutionary – 'infobesity' has been around as a term for a while, for example. Like the overconsumption of fast food, many of us are gorging ourselves on information far beyond what we actually need for a healthy life. But the consequences of a data binge are subtler and perhaps more insidious. The deluge often gets in the way of making good decisions. Knowledge isn't enough by itself to let go of our bad habits. We need to want it At least with overeating, the signs of our bad choices are more immediately evident: typically weight gain and a direct correlation with health issues and the general sense of being unwell. With information overload, the links are not always obvious at first. We feel anxious, distracted and overwhelmed, but we often don't connect these feelings to our overconsumption of data. No one would argue anymore that the effects have been far-reaching, creating volatility and uncertainty across the political, economic and cultural landscape. A chief topic of interest at the moment – artificial intelligence – has us excitable and fretful as we hungrily absorb as much information about it as we can get hold of. In a sense, we are each of us behaving like large language models, rampantly ingesting vast quantities of data with abandon. But obviously, we are not machines and this isn't a sustainable state to be in. We do eventually learn to say enough is enough. Parents and teachers are advocating for limits on screen time for children and organising pledges to delay giving them devices in order to protect them from overuse. Beyond these efforts, the US state of Utah, for example, has tried to enact legislation to limit children's screen time, and many others have proposed similar moves. Digital detoxes and digital fasts are wise initiatives, and we should practise them often. But like with any resolution, we eventually we go back to our bad habits. The long-term solution might be found in a lifestyle change. Yes, we need to have access to information but not constantly. Just as we have intervals between meals to allow our bodies to digest, we need periods during each day when we take a break from consuming news and information, particularly from digital sources. This isn't only because we necessarily need a break from our screens, but because our minds need time to digest, reflect and synthesise what we've already taken in. My suspicion is that this will probably happen naturally anyway, over time. Subsequent generations are already highly media and technology-literate, and they are very aware of the risks of wanton consumption at younger ages. It won't be a straight line though. Look how we are still struggling with the consequences of obesity, despite how much we have learnt about nutrition and health. You see, knowledge isn't enough by itself to let go of our bad habits. We need to want it, more than we want to have unfettered access to information, to really experience a change for the better.
Zawya
2 days ago
- Zawya
High yields bring US fiscal 'precipice' even closer: McGeever
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) ORLANDO, Florida - Few would disagree that U.S. public finances are deteriorating, but debt Cassandras have been warning of a fiscal day of reckoning for 40 years and it has yet to arrive, so why should this time be any different? The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's baseline forecast sees federal debt held by the public rising to 117% of GDP over the next decade from 98% last year, and net interest payments rising to 4% of GDP, a sixth of all federal spending. While these eye-watering figures are concerning, it still seems difficult to fathom the United States experiencing a genuine debt crisis where investors turn their backs on Treasuries and the dollar, the two cornerstones of the global financial system. Both should enjoy strong demand – at least for the foreseeable future – even if their prices may need to fall to attract buyers. And in times of extreme crisis, like 2008 and 2020, the Fed can always buy huge quantities of U.S. bonds to stabilize the market. But that doesn't mean investors should ignore the swelling tide of fiscal gloom. We may not see a full-blown debt crisis, but there's a sense that "the fiscal" matters for markets more now than it has for decades. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS To better understand the risk at hand, it's useful to explore the assumptions baked into the current U.S. debt and deficit projections. The CBO's comprehensive fiscal projections are a benchmark for many policymakers and investors. But amid the fog of uncertainty created by U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war, the baseline economic assumptions underlying this outlook may be too optimistic. The CBO assumes that the United States will experience continuous, uninterrupted economic growth over the next decade. While it's true that since 1990 the U.S. economy has twice gone on streaks of more than a decade without experiencing a recession, conditions today - not the least of which is the country's bloated public debt burden - suggest that a repeat is highly unlikely. And in the event of a downturn, U.S. public finances would almost certainly suffer the double whammy of shrinking tax receipts and a surge in benefit payments, pushing the country closer to a fiscal cliff. Of course, an economic downturn would probably also prompt the Fed to lower interest rates, which would likely cause bond yields to fall and offer some relief on debt-servicing costs. But investor angst over the debt may keep market-based borrowing costs higher than they would otherwise be, something that is also not baked into the CBO's central projections. And if government borrowing costs over the next decade are higher than currently projected, the U.S. fiscal picture is even more troublesome than thought. YIELD CURVE ASSUMPTIONS Yield curve assumptions play a major – and often underappreciated – role in U.S. debt sustainability projections. The current CBO projections are based on the expectation that the yield curve will "normalize" in the coming year. They assume that the three-month Treasury yield will fall to 3.2% and the 10-year yield will settle at 3.9%. But what if the yield curve stays near current levels over the next decade, with a three-month rate of 4.40% and a 10-year yield of 4.50%? Chris Marsh at Exante Data crunches the numbers and finds that, in this scenario, federal debt held by the public could rise to 125% of GDP by 2034 and interest payments as a share of revenue would approach 30%. Interest payments as a share of revenues are already about to exceed their late-1980s peak and may end up at the highest level since at least the 1950s. Adding to this concern, Saul Eslake and John Llewellyn at Independent Economics note that if the yield curve does not normalize, the United States could get in the dangerous position where nominal GDP growth remains persistently below the 10-year Treasury yield, meaning debt dynamics would deteriorate because interest payments would outstrip growth. Given that the Trump administration's current budget bill is expected to add nearly $4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade, the risk of this is especially pertinent today. One consequence of higher-for-longer U.S. interest rates then could be a much-heavier-for-much-longer debt burden. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters) (By Jamie McGeever; Editing by Mark Porter)
