Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

[FollowTheWay]

Careful how you word that one. 2.8 is 14% of 20, so they spent 14% more on snacks.

It's 2.8% more of their total budget.

Or am I wrong? Not a math major.

Yes, confusing statement. I guess a better one would be the average for people not on food stamps is 20% of their food budget while for those on food stamps it is 22.8%. I wasn't getting fancy. Just said that's 2.8% more. BTW, I just retired after 40 years as an engineer with an MS in Eng. from Stanford.

Of course that means that I'm slipping a little (?).

 

[Revmitchell]

I think all of us should try to eat a healthy diet. So, I assume you supported Michelle Obama's effort to get junk foods out of the schools, right?

Uh no, I almost never support the Federal government forcing people to do anything even if it is the right thing. People need to be free to make their own choices not have them dictated by Michelle Obama

 

[Don]

What would you have done differently since you support the idea?

First, you don't splash something into a system requiring major changes, which in turn requires major funding the way this was done. The way this was foisted onto schools was "do it now" with no regard for the fact that school budgets had already been obligated; thus cost to schools was a set-up for them to fail.

Do it on a graduated scale; and because it's a requirement, make sure there is funding that goes with it, so that it's set up to succeed.

Second, you're forcing kids to eat stuff that they're not getting at home. Stuff that's made to be flashier, tastier, and more appealing. Some type of education and reward system is needed to encourage students to make the choices for themselves, rather than send their systems--both mentally and physiologically--into shock. "Eat this, and you can have that."

Third, extend it to the homes, to help enforce it in the school. Send some of the good stuff home with kids each week, and come up with a system for the family that rewards them for having their kids eat the good stuff at home AND at school.

The biggest failure piece was implementing the change in the middle of a school year, when education fiscal years typically run 1 July through 30 June; and their cafeteria budgets had already been obligated for the year. Now they were required to change their ingredients, meal plans, and food sources; and because it came without funding, the schools were told to make it happen within their own budgets, and that they faced penalties if they didn't.

The second biggest failure was the expectation that children would somehow make healthy eating choices when they'd already spent most of their lives immersed in alternatives. You don't make addicts go cold turkey; they have to want to get off the substance. You don't make people eat differently; they have to want to eat differently.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. If you see anything erroneous about it, please feel free to comment. Otherwise, would you agree that it might have been well-intentioned, but was fatally flawed from the get-go?

 

[FollowTheWay]

First, you don't splash something into a system requiring major changes, which in turn requires major funding the way this was done. The way this was foisted onto schools was "do it now" with no regard for the fact that school budgets had already been obligated; thus cost to schools was a set-up for them to fail.

Do it on a graduated scale; and because it's a requirement, make sure there is funding that goes with it, so that it's set up to succeed.

Second, you're forcing kids to eat stuff that they're not getting at home. Stuff that's made to be flashier, tastier, and more appealing. Some type of education and reward system is needed to encourage students to make the choices for themselves, rather than send their systems--both mentally and physiologically--into shock. "Eat this, and you can have that."

Third, extend it to the homes, to help enforce it in the school. Send some of the good stuff home with kids each week, and come up with a system for the family that rewards them for having their kids eat the good stuff at home AND at school.

The biggest failure piece was implementing the change in the middle of a school year, when education fiscal years typically run 1 July through 30 June; and their cafeteria budgets had already been obligated for the year. Now they were required to change their ingredients, meal plans, and food sources; and because it came without funding, the schools were told to make it happen within their own budgets, and that they faced penalties if they didn't.

The second biggest failure was the expectation that children would somehow make healthy eating choices when they'd already spent most of their lives immersed in alternatives. You don't make addicts go cold turkey; they have to want to get off the substance. You don't make people eat differently; they have to want to eat differently.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. If you see anything erroneous about it, please feel free to comment. Otherwise, would you agree that it might have been well-intentioned, but was fatally flawed from the get-go?

Since you claim that our school children are ADDICTED to a poor diet, if you offer them a choice how can you believe they will make the right choice? If a heroin addict is offered a choice between heroin and chocolate which one do you think they will choose?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Uh no, I almost never support the Federal government forcing people to do anything even if it is the right thing. People need to be free to make their own choices not have them dictated by Michelle Obama

There are a number of foods and food additives that are banned in Europe as unsafe but are allowed in the U.S.

http://tinyurl.com/ht3uje7

A key element of the European Union’s chemicals management and environmental protection policies — and one that clearly distinguishes the EU’s approach from that of the U.S. federal government — is what’s called the precautionary principle.

This principle, in the words of the European Commission, “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative” decision-making. In other words, it says that when there is substantial, credible evidence of danger to human or environmental health, protective action should be taken despite continuing scientific uncertainty.

In contrast, the U.S. federal government’s approach to chemicals management sets a very high bar for the proof of harm that must be demonstrated before regulatory action is taken.

This is basically because of the influence of U.S. corporations wanting to increase their profits. Do you believe that the profit motive is more important than saving human lives?

 

[Salty]

The bottom line is that Food Stamps comes from MY taxes.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are a number of foods and food additives that are banned in Europe as unsafe but are allowed in the U.S.

http://tinyurl.com/ht3uje7

A key element of the European Union’s chemicals management and environmental protection policies — and one that clearly distinguishes the EU’s approach from that of the U.S. federal government — is what’s called the precautionary principle.

This principle, in the words of the European Commission, “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative” decision-making. In other words, it says that when there is substantial, credible evidence of danger to human or environmental health, protective action should be taken despite continuing scientific uncertainty.

In contrast, the U.S. federal government’s approach to chemicals management sets a very high bar for the proof of harm that must be demonstrated before regulatory action is taken.

This is basically because of the influence of U.S. corporations wanting to increase their profits. Do you believe that the profit motive is more important than saving human lives?

Ok? SO? What does what Europe does have to do with us?

 

[Don]

Since you claim that our school children are ADDICTED to a poor diet, if you offer them a choice how can you believe they will make the right choice? If a heroin addict is offered a choice between heroin and chocolate which one do you think they will choose?

Your question has me befuddled, because I addressed this in my response. In fact, you're basically asking exactly what I said ("if you offer them a choice, how can you believe they will make the right choice?"). This was one of the fatal flaws of Ms. Obama's program; would you agree?

 

[777]

Since you claim that our school children are ADDICTED to a poor diet, if you offer them a choice how can you believe they will make the right choice? If a heroin addict is offered a choice between heroin and chocolate which one do you think they will choose?

What Don said, Michelle's program was a choice between not two but three options - most of them exercised the choice of throwing the Obama lunch into the trash can.

You asked me earlier if I advocated public or private schools, neither, the schools vary too much across counties here, much less nationally.

Do you think it's fine and dandy to feed this slop to public school kids, the ones that can't afford or live near that funky progressive school Obama's kids go to?

And this isn't off-topic, since the OP issue was obesity-related. I don't think the left should be focusing on school children. At that age, they need to be more active and they're not going to listen to their grossly obese parents or 300 pound teacher anyways.