Latest news with #MakeIndianaHealthyAgain
Chicago Tribune
3 days ago
- Health
- Chicago Tribune
Indiana bans sugary drinks, candy from SNAP
Once a week, a single mother and her two young children sit around a table to play a board game. Between turns, the three of them bite into a candy bar and sip a can of soda. The mother, who is on SNAP, has a job, but has a limited income so she can't afford to take her children on vacation or to the movie theater, said her friend Stephanie Boys, an associate professor of social work and an adjunct professor of law at Indiana University. To that mother, Boys said game night with a little treat is how she makes memories with her children. 'They eat healthy the rest of the time, it's just that's their family time,' Boys said. 'She is on such a limited budget that she doesn't know if she'll be able to afford the weekly treat.' Her friend's son is autistic, Boys said, so he relies on structure and always looks forward to family game night, which includes their weekly sweet treat. Boys said her friend has been stressed further because her son only takes his medicine with a sip of ginger ale. 'Having that weekly night to look forward to is very important to him. It's going to be even more difficult than with a neurotypical kid to try to explain, 'we're still going to play our games, we just might not have our soda with it,'' Boys said. U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently signed a waiver filed by Indiana officials to remove sugary soft drinks and candy from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 'More taxpayer-funded SNAP dollars are spent on sugary drinks and candy than on fruits and vegetables. Indiana is proud to lead the way in the Make America Healthy Again agenda by making this common sense move to return the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to its intended purpose: nutrition,' said Indiana Mike Braun in a statement. Braun's statement claimed purchases of sugary drinks, desserts and candy exceed the combined sales of fruits and vegetables on SNAP, but data does not bear that out. A USDA study from 2016 showed soft drinks comprise around 5% of each dollar spent in SNAP and candy amounts to 2%. The vast majority — 80% — is spent on meat, fruits, vegetables, rice, beans, eggs, dairy and prepared foods. Children enrolled in SNAP consume 43% more sugary drinks than non-SNAP recipients with similar incomes, according to Braun's statement. Boys and Leslie Lenkowsky, professor emeritus in public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University, said they haven't seen that statistic in SNAP reports and aren't sure where Braun received that information. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was in Indianapolis in April to roll out Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again initiative and stated that every governor should follow Braun's lead. Lenkowsky said the U.S. has had various food stamp programs that have gone through many changes in eligibility rules and restrictions over the years. Indiana's ban on sugary drinks and candy will be hard to enforce, he said, because it will rely on merchants at stores telling customers they can't make those purchases using SNAP. What will likely happen, Lenkowsky said, is that people on SNAP will try to re-budget to see if they can afford soda and candy another way. If not, he said what could happen is people negotiate with their friends or neighbors that they will buy them a grocery item or two on their SNAP benefits if the other person buys them soda or candy. While the pendulum may shift on food benefits, Lenkowsky said the bottom line is that people in poverty need support. 'People may be poor and needy, but they deserve respect,' Lenkowsky said. Boys said she wasn't surprised that Indiana was approved to remove sugary soft drinks and candy from SNAP because some U.S. Congressmen and women have proposed similar actions. Arkansas filed a similar waiver to Indiana's by banning soft drinks and candy, Nebraska filed for a waiver to ban sugary drinks and energy drinks from SNAP, and Iowa filed a waiver to ban anything that's eligible for sales tax, which bans sugary snacks and drinks, from SNAP, Boys said. 'I think we're going to see more and more states asking for these waivers,' Boys said. But waivers like this don't address food deserts or access to healthy foods, Boys said. People who use SNAP typically live closer to a convenience store than a grocery store, so there's more access to snacks and processed foods, she said. While convenience stores do sell some healthy items, like apples and bananas, the cost of those foods is greatly marked up compared to a grocery store, Boys said. Government officials should work toward incentivizing healthier eating in another way, she said. Removing sugary drinks and candy from SNAP will put more of a stigma on children who live in poverty, Boys said. For example, Boys said at her children's school students are encouraged to bring candy on standardized test days to share with the class. Under this change, some students won't be able to participate. 'If their friends come to school with candy and they don't have that, it's hard for parents to explain why they can't buy that. Especially when you go to the grocery store and at check out there's all this candy right in front of you,' Boys said.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Feds approve Indiana ban on soda, candy from SNAP purchases
With new federal approval, Indiana will ban the purchase of candy and soda using taxpayer-funded food assistance starting Jan. 1, 2026. (Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) Hoosiers will no longer be allowed to purchase candy and soda using taxpayer-funded food assistance, making Indiana the first state to receive a federal waiver for the restriction. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins signed off on Indiana's request this week, according to a Friday news release from Gov. Mike Braun's office. The Republican governor signed an executive order in April as part of his 'Make Indiana Healthy Again' plan to limit the use of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The new policy will take effect Jan. 1, 2026, per a spokesperson for the governor. 'More taxpayer-funded SNAP dollars are spent on sugary drinks and candy than on fruits and vegetables,' Braun said in a statement. 'Indiana is proud to lead the way in the Make America Healthy Again agenda by making this common-sense move to return SNAP to its intended purpose: nutrition.' RFK Jr., Dr. Oz kick off 'Make Indiana Healthy Again' initiative with Gov. Mike Braun Braun said he requested the federal waiver to allow Indiana to impose its own restrictions on the program. He pointed to USDA data showing that soda is the most purchased item with SNAP benefits. Nationwide, SNAP recipients spend more on sugary drinks, desserts and candy than on fruits and vegetables combined. Research additionally shows children in SNAP households consume 43% more sugary beverages than children in similar-income households not enrolled in the program. Indiana was one of the first states to apply for the waiver and is part of a broader push by the Braun administration to combat diet-related health problems and improve food quality in low-income Hoosier communities. The announcement initially came during a rollout event for the initiative, where U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised Indiana's approach. 'I urge every governor across America to follow your lead,' Kennedy said during the April 15 visit in Indianapolis. He called for other reforms, too, like banning certain food dyes and additives, expanding farm-to-school programs, implementing fitness testing in schools, and increasing SNAP transparency. Related executive orders recently signed by Braun include those to add work requirements for more SNAP recipients; commissioning studies about food safety and diet-related illness; and various proposals to generally limit 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the state's Medicaid program. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Indianapolis Star
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana prides itself on work. What happens when AI takes our jobs?
Strip away much of the toxicity and rancor, and a common throughline emerges in recent political developments at both the state and federal level: work. Work is central to our political and cultural identities. I'll admit that I've felt this personally. After leaving an intense, all-consuming job for something slower-paced, I've struggled with just how much of my identity is tied up in what I do. To oversimplify a complex phenomenon, much of the appeal of Trumpism is rooted in emotions and anxieties about work, whether it's about jobs that went overseas or jobs that are being taken by perceived interlopers. Consider the only seemingly certain outcome in the federal policy fight over Medicaid reform: the imposition of work requirements. Or the most significant policy shift in Gov. Mike Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again agenda: again, work requirements for nutrition assistance. Or look at the main argument advocates make when pushing for more investment in child care, public transit, or mental health services: these are framed as tools to strengthen the workforce. And of course, for most of us, our access to health care remains tied directly to employment. Set aside the fact that work requirements don't really work, or that the workforce justification for social investment is dubious at best. What matters is the political and cultural resonance of these ideas. Americans – especially Hoosiers – overwhelmingly believe that work is a duty and a responsibility, and that there's intrinsic dignity in working hard to put food on the table. It's a reasonable, even admirable, worldview. American industriousness and Midwestern grit have fueled one of the most extraordinary runs of prosperity in world history, and at the very core of that story is work. Taken together, this is our dominant political philosophy, not only in Indiana but the U.S. overall: the politics of personal responsibility. In this framework, work is central to how we understand ourselves, and the proper role of government is to step in to help people only to the extent that they are incapable of helping themselves through work. All of that is about to be tested. AI. I'm talking, of course, about artificial intelligence. A couple caveats: Making specific predictions about the evolution of AI is a fool's errand. Let's also set aside the more extreme AI doomsday scenarios, not because they aren't worth thinking about, but because they distract from what's already happening. The one thing we do know is that everything we think we know about work is going to change. It's worth engaging with the standard free-market response here. The argument goes like this: Technological revolutions always bring disruption and fear, but they also create new opportunities we can't yet imagine. When the dust settles, most workers are better off than before. It happened with the industrial revolution, the automobile and the internet, so why should AI be different? They could be right, of course. But many serious observers argue this time is, in fact, different, for a very specific reason. In all those earlier shifts, humans remained at the center. People drove innovation and strategy. Adoption of new technology was guided by firm human hands. Automation increased, but people were the ones doing the automating. This time, the automation is being automated, and that changes everything. All signs point to the idea that we are on the verge of unleashing an autonomous superintelligence chiefly tasked with advancing itself. This is the furthest thing from an original insight. Read analysis like the AI 2027 report for a deeper dive. For more on workforce trends, read the work of people like Brookings' Molly Kinder, whose research has found that the jobs in the most imminent danger are clerical jobs in the service sector. These jobs are not glamorous, but they offer stability and a foothold in the middle class. They are also predominantly held by women who are often a primary breadwinner for their families. What happens when those jobs go away, and soon? But this column isn't about technology or the workforce. It's about politics. And the central question is this: Can a political culture so tightly bound to the idea of work handle what's coming? Everyone is aware of the issue. Every state, including Indiana, has some form of AI task force grappling with these questions. But those efforts tend to focus on sectors (which industries are most at risk?) or skills (what do workers need to stay competitive?). What many people expect, though, is not just a shift in the type of work, but a sharp reduction in the amount of work available for people to do. Productivity and innovation will likely soar and those advances will almost entirely be machine-driven. Entire categories of jobs will become superfluous and irrelevant, much faster than most people think. So how do we reconcile that with a political framework in which work is the condition for receiving help or being seen as a contributing member of society? In a political culture where 'able-bodied' people who don't work are cast as takers, or where government help is derided as a 'handout,' how do we rethink the relationship between work and worth? It might seem silly or alarmist to make this argument at a time when we have many more job openings than available workers. And there are many reasons why this could not go the way most observers think it will. See above about the folly of making predictions. But, if this big shift does happen, it will happen, to borrow the famous Hemingway phrase, 'gradually, then suddenly.' We are in the gradual growth phase right now. If we wait until we know it is happening to act, it could be too late. At some point – maybe not in 2027, or even 2032, but eventually – we'll have to confront the question of how to decouple work from survival. Or even more radically, from thriving. In all likelihood, the means and resources will be there. I'm not so sure about the will. And frankly, looking at Hoosier politics in 2025, it doesn't feel like we're anywhere close to even being ready for this conversation.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana prides itself on work. What happens when AI takes our jobs?
Strip away much of the toxicity and rancor, and a common throughline emerges in recent political developments at both the state and federal level: work. Work is central to our political and cultural identities. I'll admit that I've felt this personally. After leaving an intense, all-consuming job for something slower-paced, I've struggled with just how much of my identity is tied up in what I do. To oversimplify a complex phenomenon, much of the appeal of Trumpism is rooted in emotions and anxieties about work, whether it's about jobs that went overseas or jobs that are being taken by perceived interlopers. Consider the only seemingly certain outcome in the federal policy fight over Medicaid reform: the imposition of work requirements. Or the most significant policy shift in Gov. Mike Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again agenda: again, work requirements for nutrition assistance. Or look at the main argument advocates make when pushing for more investment in child care, public transit, or mental health services: these are framed as tools to strengthen the workforce. And of course, for most of us, our access to health care remains tied directly to employment. Set aside the fact that work requirements don't really work, or that the workforce justification for social investment is dubious at best. What matters is the political and cultural resonance of these ideas. Americans – especially Hoosiers – overwhelmingly believe that work is a duty and a responsibility, and that there's intrinsic dignity in working hard to put food on the table. It's a reasonable, even admirable, worldview. American industriousness and Midwestern grit have fueled one of the most extraordinary runs of prosperity in world history, and at the very core of that story is work. Taken together, this is our dominant political philosophy, not only in Indiana but the U.S. overall: the politics of personal responsibility. In this framework, work is central to how we understand ourselves, and the proper role of government is to step in to help people only to the extent that they are incapable of helping themselves through work. All of that is about to be tested. AI. I'm talking, of course, about artificial intelligence. A couple caveats: Making specific predictions about the evolution of AI is a fool's errand. Let's also set aside the more extreme AI doomsday scenarios, not because they aren't worth thinking about, but because they distract from what's already happening. The one thing we do know is that everything we think we know about work is going to change. It's worth engaging with the standard free-market response here. The argument goes like this: Technological revolutions always bring disruption and fear, but they also create new opportunities we can't yet imagine. When the dust settles, most workers are better off than before. It happened with the industrial revolution, the automobile and the internet, so why should AI be different? They could be right, of course. But many serious observers argue this time is, in fact, different, for a very specific reason. In all those earlier shifts, humans remained at the center. People drove innovation and strategy. Adoption of new technology was guided by firm human hands. Automation increased, but people were the ones doing the automating. This time, the automation is being automated, and that changes everything. All signs point to the idea that we are on the verge of unleashing an autonomous superintelligence chiefly tasked with advancing itself. This is the furthest thing from an original insight. Read analysis like the AI 2027 report for a deeper dive. For more on workforce trends, read the work of people like Brookings' Molly Kinder, whose research has found that the jobs in the most imminent danger are clerical jobs in the service sector. These jobs are not glamorous, but they offer stability and a foothold in the middle class. They are also predominantly held by women who are often a primary breadwinner for their families. What happens when those jobs go away, and soon? But this column isn't about technology or the workforce. It's about politics. And the central question is this: Can a political culture so tightly bound to the idea of work handle what's coming? Everyone is aware of the issue. Every state, including Indiana, has some form of AI task force grappling with these questions. But those efforts tend to focus on sectors (which industries are most at risk?) or skills (what do workers need to stay competitive?). What many people expect, though, is not just a shift in the type of work, but a sharp reduction in the amount of work available for people to do. Productivity and innovation will likely soar and those advances will almost entirely be machine-driven. Entire categories of jobs will become superfluous and irrelevant, much faster than most people think. So how do we reconcile that with a political framework in which work is the condition for receiving help or being seen as a contributing member of society? In a political culture where 'able-bodied' people who don't work are cast as takers, or where government help is derided as a 'handout,' how do we rethink the relationship between work and worth? It might seem silly or alarmist to make this argument at a time when we have many more job openings than available workers. And there are many reasons why this could not go the way most observers think it will. See above about the folly of making predictions. But, if this big shift does happen, it will happen, to borrow the famous Hemingway phrase, 'gradually, then suddenly.' We are in the gradual growth phase right now. If we wait until we know it is happening to act, it could be too late. At some point – maybe not in 2027, or even 2032, but eventually – we'll have to confront the question of how to decouple work from survival. Or even more radically, from thriving. In all likelihood, the means and resources will be there. I'm not so sure about the will. And frankly, looking at Hoosier politics in 2025, it doesn't feel like we're anywhere close to even being ready for this conversation. Jay Chaudhary is the former director of the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction and chair of the Indiana Behavioral Health Commission. He writes the Substack, Favorable Thriving Conditions. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Artificial intelligence mocks Indiana's work requirements | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana prides itself on work. What happens when AI takes our jobs?
Strip away much of the toxicity and rancor, and a common throughline emerges in recent political developments at both the state and federal level: work. Work is central to our political and cultural identities. I'll admit that I've felt this personally. After leaving an intense, all-consuming job for something slower-paced, I've struggled with just how much of my identity is tied up in what I do. To oversimplify a complex phenomenon, much of the appeal of Trumpism is rooted in emotions and anxieties about work, whether it's about jobs that went overseas or jobs that are being taken by perceived interlopers. Consider the only seemingly certain outcome in the federal policy fight over Medicaid reform: the imposition of work requirements. Or the most significant policy shift in Gov. Mike Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again agenda: again, work requirements for nutrition assistance. Or look at the main argument advocates make when pushing for more investment in child care, public transit, or mental health services: these are framed as tools to strengthen the workforce. And of course, for most of us, our access to health care remains tied directly to employment. Set aside the fact that work requirements don't really work, or that the workforce justification for social investment is dubious at best. What matters is the political and cultural resonance of these ideas. Americans – especially Hoosiers – overwhelmingly believe that work is a duty and a responsibility, and that there's intrinsic dignity in working hard to put food on the table. It's a reasonable, even admirable, worldview. American industriousness and Midwestern grit have fueled one of the most extraordinary runs of prosperity in world history, and at the very core of that story is work. Taken together, this is our dominant political philosophy, not only in Indiana but the U.S. overall: the politics of personal responsibility. In this framework, work is central to how we understand ourselves, and the proper role of government is to step in to help people only to the extent that they are incapable of helping themselves through work. All of that is about to be tested. AI. I'm talking, of course, about artificial intelligence. A couple caveats: Making specific predictions about the evolution of AI is a fool's errand. Let's also set aside the more extreme AI doomsday scenarios, not because they aren't worth thinking about, but because they distract from what's already happening. The one thing we do know is that everything we think we know about work is going to change. It's worth engaging with the standard free-market response here. The argument goes like this: Technological revolutions always bring disruption and fear, but they also create new opportunities we can't yet imagine. When the dust settles, most workers are better off than before. It happened with the industrial revolution, the automobile and the internet, so why should AI be different? They could be right, of course. But many serious observers argue this time is, in fact, different, for a very specific reason. In all those earlier shifts, humans remained at the center. People drove innovation and strategy. Adoption of new technology was guided by firm human hands. Automation increased, but people were the ones doing the automating. This time, the automation is being automated, and that changes everything. All signs point to the idea that we are on the verge of unleashing an autonomous superintelligence chiefly tasked with advancing itself. This is the furthest thing from an original insight. Read analysis like the AI 2027 report for a deeper dive. For more on workforce trends, read the work of people like Brookings' Molly Kinder, whose research has found that the jobs in the most imminent danger are clerical jobs in the service sector. These jobs are not glamorous, but they offer stability and a foothold in the middle class. They are also predominantly held by women who are often a primary breadwinner for their families. What happens when those jobs go away, and soon? But this column isn't about technology or the workforce. It's about politics. And the central question is this: Can a political culture so tightly bound to the idea of work handle what's coming? Everyone is aware of the issue. Every state, including Indiana, has some form of AI task force grappling with these questions. But those efforts tend to focus on sectors (which industries are most at risk?) or skills (what do workers need to stay competitive?). What many people expect, though, is not just a shift in the type of work, but a sharp reduction in the amount of work available for people to do. Productivity and innovation will likely soar and those advances will almost entirely be machine-driven. Entire categories of jobs will become superfluous and irrelevant, much faster than most people think. So how do we reconcile that with a political framework in which work is the condition for receiving help or being seen as a contributing member of society? In a political culture where 'able-bodied' people who don't work are cast as takers, or where government help is derided as a 'handout,' how do we rethink the relationship between work and worth? It might seem silly or alarmist to make this argument at a time when we have many more job openings than available workers. And there are many reasons why this could not go the way most observers think it will. See above about the folly of making predictions. But, if this big shift does happen, it will happen, to borrow the famous Hemingway phrase, 'gradually, then suddenly.' We are in the gradual growth phase right now. If we wait until we know it is happening to act, it could be too late. At some point – maybe not in 2027, or even 2032, but eventually – we'll have to confront the question of how to decouple work from survival. Or even more radically, from thriving. In all likelihood, the means and resources will be there. I'm not so sure about the will. And frankly, looking at Hoosier politics in 2025, it doesn't feel like we're anywhere close to even being ready for this conversation.
