Did you miss this post-
[quote=“LHCOOG, post:58, topic:68866, full:true”]
i cannot believe it but i am agreeing with olutrain, shows people with different perspectives can agree when it is allowing freedom of choice for the people
1 Like
SNAP recipients? Sounds like Big Food is financing this.
1 Like
Even cereal usually has 9-12grams of added sugar, does that not make the cut ?
I’m not sure I fully understand how the SNAP benefits are distributed but I think the
states have say in it. Texas seems to have already implemented restrictions from
last years legislation. Don’t know if Texas law will withstand court review, but it seems like each state can control what products are eligible. Of course if you
want to purchase soda and the Lonestar card can’t be used, the buyer can probably just pay for the sodas with cash , and put some other grocery item on the
lonestar card. Nothing is accomplished.
If purchasing cheese at the supermarket, guess that can be put on your lonestar card still.
Why should SNAP recipients be limited to the cheapest processed deli meats, and corn tortillas?
It gets very tricky to try and legislate what some people can eat or drink.
I mean if the high sugar foods are so bad, take them off the shelves for
everybody. If highly processed foods are so bad, ban them for everyone.
Is that the nanny state y’all want ?
1 Like
Legislating what people eat is one thing. Giving people money to spend on food should come with strings.
3 Likes
Because you’re normally for government regulations?
1 Like
Well, it’s all technically food.
Certain foods for me but not for thee ?
Is that really where you want to go ?
If it’s such a health issue, have FDA ban it or restrict sugar content.
Remember the S in SNAP is just supplemental assistance; avg is only $200/month.
2 Likes
So here’s the disingenuous thing, you can’t make this a “public health” issue if you aren’t also mad about all the deregulation going on that has noticeable impacts on populations health. Environment, vaccines, cutting printable that encourage better eating either through getting farmers to still their produce and such to schools, general access to healthy foods, etc.
Now if it’s just about being d!ck to poor/er people, then own that.
7 Likes
Such as these, to “end the war on saturated fat” ?
These new guidelines prioritize protein consumption—including full-fat dairy
Key Details on Saturated Fat Regulations:
- Historical Limits (1980–2020): Since the first DGA in 1980, the government advised limiting saturated fat, officially setting a recommendation to keep it under 10% of total daily calories starting in 1990.
- Current Shift (2025–2030): The 2025–2030 dietary guidelines, released in January 2026, officially aim to “end the war on saturated fat”. These new guidelines prioritize protein consumption—including full-fat dairy, red meat, and beef tallow—and reduce the previous focus on avoiding saturated fat.
- Controversy and Science: The shift away from strict limits on saturated fat is controversial, with some experts arguing it contradicts decades of research linked to cholesterol and heart disease, while proponents, including HHS leaders, argue the older science was flawed or heavily influenced by industry.
- School Meals: The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act mandated school meals meet these DGA standards, meaning changing federal guidelines directly affect school food nutrition standards.
- FDA Labeling: FDA guidelines historically provided for a “low saturated fat” claim, requiring foods to have 1 gram or less of saturated fat per serving.
Yes. If you’re getting free money, there may be strings attached. Of course, you don’t have to take the money if you don’t like the terms.
1 Like
Or starve
You can’t live on just Soda, no one is starving because soda is banned
2 Likes
Didn’t mean to infer that.
If you don’t take the money (as was suggested) then you will starve. Or, of course, you could become a thief or panhandler.
There are other reasons for SNAP besides nutrition.
1 Like
What is your attached string based on exactly ? Are you concerned about health ?
While some studies have shown a positive correlation between SNAP recipients
and obesity, it’s not a really strong correlation. Men 37% vs 32%; women 52% vs
40%
Higher Obesity Rates: A 2021 study found adult men on SNAP had a 37% obesity rate (vs. 32% for eligible non-participants) and women 52% (vs. 40% for non-participants).
A 2016 study notes this.
SNAP households spend about 10 percent of food dollars on sugary drinks, which is about three times more than the amount they spend on milk.
In general, non-SNAP households spend almost as much on sweetened drinks — about 7 percent of food purchases, according to the USDA report.
“Low-income American adults now consume nearly two [sugar-sweetened beverage] servings a day, and for every one to two daily servings consumed, the lifetime risk of developing diabetes increases by 30 percent,” according to a paper published this year by Harvard adjunct public policy professor Robert Paarlberg and collaborators in the journal Society .
So all this hand wringing over SNAP recipients having 2 cans of coke a day.
Surprise, there is correlation between being poor and being unhealthy,
In the United States, a significant, positive correlation exists between poverty and obesity, a phenomenon often termed the “poverty-obesity paradox”. People in high-poverty areas are more prone to obesity, with counties having >35% poverty rates showing a 145% higher obesity rate than wealthier counties. This is driven by limited access to nutritious food, high costs of healthy diets, and stress.
A healthy diet comes at a premium
I’m of the belief that if you take money from the government, the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot spend it on. If you can’t abide by the government’s terms, you can’t have the money.
1 Like
Fair enough, it’s not about health at all then
for you. But it’s defining what food is.
It’s not assistance then, as it’s named, in your view; it’s control what others can have.
Fortunately, imho, that’s not what federal law is. Now for Texas, it should be interesting how
the state manages sugar intake. Which they can’t really do.
1 Like
If you have evidence of that then post it. Don’t just make s*** up. It doesn’t lead to a decent discussion.
Is soda the only thing they’re banning?