Fooducate (a great app to use in the grocery store to see
how healthy your food really is) asked the title question on their
blog. My response: The choices should be limited to
healthy foods. They listed these potential objections, to
which I would ask people to simply consider a parallel of neighbors
helping each other.
- Limiting the food choices
is paternalistic nanny state oversight.
sizes is ridiculous. That is true nanny-statism. But
this is vastly different: You have a choice to accept or reject the
free food offered by fellow citizens.
Would you accuse your neighbor of such things if they only
offered you free healthy food?
- Eliminating food
choice would create a stigma and shame SNAP
You should be grateful.
- The diets of SNAP
participants are generally comparable to the diets of Americans of
similar economic means, so why single poor people out?
- The cost of reprogramming computers and retraining
grocery store staff for the hundreds of thousands of food items in
stores is prohibitive.
And it would save on the medical
- Where will the line be drawn between healthy /
non-healthy foods? Is a cereal with 12 grams of sugar nutritious? 8
grams? 4 grams? What if it has added fiber?
out. I would make things really simple and focus on things like
oatmeal, milk, bread, cheese, fruits, etc. And I wouldn’t let
them have cards that they could sell for cash and use it for drugs,
cigarettes, bad food, etc. Part of our problem is that by
trying to save money with technology (normally a good thing!) we’ve
made it too easy to abuse the program. That kills the cost