Study: Banning Sugary Drinks ...

Discussion in 'Nutrition' started by *Andi, Jun 10, 2014.

  1. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    Study: Banning Sugary Drinks in Food Stamps Could Slash Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes

    Prohibiting federal food stamp dollars from being used to buy sodas and sugary beverages could slash obesity and Type 2 diabetes in recipients, claimed a new study in Health Affairs.

    Modeling from a sample of 19,000 Americans receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, researchers found a ban on soda and sugary beverages would be more effective in combating obesity-related diseases than giving recipients an extra 30 cents for every $1 spent on fruits and vegetables.

    The soda ban would prevent some 141,000 children and another 281,000 adults from becoming obese, said the study authors from Stanford University and the University of California. They also found it would reduce Type 2 diabetes, which typically results from obesity, by 2.3 percent in adults receiving food stamps.

    More than 46 million Americans receive SNAP benefits, according to the latest figures from the Department of Agriculture.

    Several medical groups and nutritionists have criticized that SNAP recipients can buy sodas and energy drinks with taxpayer-funded benefits, saying the drinks do not provide any substantive nutritional value. The American Beverage Association told the study’s obesity reduction rates were “insignificant,” and that the measure would do little to reduce America’s growing obesity rate or federal spending.

    From the Dailey Signal ...

    Thoughts ...
  2. cllowe

    cllowe Well-Known Member

    I hope they do ban them, but if they do the local corner market will ring it up as something else. I get so mad when I see some dirt bag throw a case of beer on the counter then the clerks rings it up as food so he can pay with his ebt card.

    Sent from my iPod touch using Survival Forum

  3. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    I would first report it to the store manager and/or owner ... then on to the state. I know Virginia (at one time ;)) would close down stores that done this...
  4. CrackbottomLouis

    CrackbottomLouis Winston Smith Sent Me

    I have no problem with them banning sodas from being bought with snap or ebt benefits. I believe those benefits should only be able to purchase grain, vegetable, meat and dairy. And necessity dry goods like toilet paper.
  5. tsrwivey

    tsrwivey Supporting Member

    IMHO, they should scrap the system they have now & go with a system similar to the one used for WIC, where they are given vouchers to buy specific foods. I think we should include YouTube videos (they probably already exist) where they teach people how to cook foods like dried beans, regular rice, various veggies, etc. & turn them into a meal their family will like. Change is hard but we have the technology in place to help ease that transition cheaply.
  6. Woody

    Woody Woodchuck

    Not picking on you Andi, picking on the 'research'.

    "Modeling from a sample of 19,000 Americans receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, researchers found a ban on soda and sugary beverages would be more effective in combating obesity-related diseases than giving recipients an extra 30 cents for every $1 spent on fruits and vegetables."

    Sounds like an impressive conclusion from a learned professor or 'university study' doesn't it!!! Banning this horrible item (butter bad margarine good, ring a bell?) will cause more of a reduction in the problem than rewarding good behavior. 'Hey kid, you want a slurpee or an apple?' 'Hey kid here is apple, there are no more slurpees.' Which one is going to be more effective in "combating obesity"? Was this the extent of the study parameters? Most likely yes.

    I was not exposed to 'university study' or 'educational institution grants' before moving to NC in 1999. As reference we have a few major universities in the area as well as many smaller ones.

    At events like crawdad berls, pig pickin's, general get together's and parties, I have met many professors and grade school teachers. The teachers all talk about how they change their teaching method to reach students. The professors all talk about the latest grant they got for a study so they can get published. If anyone has information to the contrary please let me know! This is my first hand knowledge from meeting and talking with these folks from major educational institutions. Back at the community college, they are all about teaching and reaching students. These places do not get any grants to do research though, they are there to teach.

    So, I take with a large grain of salt any study that comes out of an educational institution. They are funded to look for something, and their research goes in that direction. Come to a different conclusion you lose your funding. Come to an inconclusive conclusion, but in the right direction, you get more funding.

    Ok, back to the OP... "banning" the buying of items is not going to solve the issue. Heck, back in the 70's folks would sell a $20 'food stamp' for $15 cash and buy whatever they wanted. $20 of milk and fruit or $15 worth of "sugary beverages", not much of a choice when it is found money.

    What is going to solve the problem? Nothing as I see it. We are in the third generation of the 'Pepsi generation' where "sugary drinks" are the accepted norm and part of the lifestyle. Thirsty? Pop a can of Coke or whatever, screw the cranberry juice or water, I WANT A COKE!!! Quick, fast, cheap and easy.

    What will solve the "obesity epidemic" or the "diabetes epidemic"? Nothing with the way society has been setup now. The days of coming home from school and having chores to do are over, for the most part. Now, come home from school, pop a soda, sit at the computer and play games or chat.
  7. goshengirl

    goshengirl Supporting Member

    Seems like common sense to me.

    Some would argue that we can't limit other people's choices, but the fact is that the taxpayer doesn't have a choice in the matter, either. Public assistance should have limits, IMHO.
  8. drfacefixer

    drfacefixer Well-Known Member


    I'm a hundred percent with you on this. I used to be part of the WIC program. Prior to getting the vouchers, you would have to attend nutrition classes ( which I taught). It would be great to take it a step further and teach a little more self sufficiency and stretching the food budget instead of buying the cheap and easy. Hey, it's better than starving!
  9. Woody

    Woody Woodchuck

    I agree 100% also! But, after being laid off, due to the recovery, I have met a lot of folks in my same position. Yes, many get public assistance. I have not yet been able to collect anything yet - not even unemployment! - , I own a home, I own a car, I still have money in the bank, I am not behind on any payments, I am actively looking for work..... I am the problem to the system, I need to make myself seem destitute then I qualify.

    They all have very busy lifestyles and are always on the phone. 'What are you doing?. Where are you going?, We have to go do this first, I'll meet you there...' Me? I take the pup out swimming or at least to run, not because I want to because I have to. I then go home, check phone messages and email, do the garden thing... With busy social lifestyles, which is the norm today, no one has time to actually plan or cook a meal. Remember, we are a consumer based society now and our Uncle Obama praises it! 'Service sector jobs are fueling our recovery!!!'. IF folks stopped going to convenience stores for soda and chips, they would fold, there go all those jobs! If folks stopped buying food at restaurants and KFC, Ronnie Macs, there go all those jobs! What would be left???????
  10. drfacefixer

    drfacefixer Well-Known Member

    True true... But we've been a consumer based society for decades now. That became the norm when two income families became the norm and remained the norm when single parenting became the norm. Simple planning though with crock pot meals and the like really don't take much time once you put " a little effort" into it. Celebrity chefs have made million popularizing the 15 minute healthy meals. The problem is getting people to get back to a less processed diet. It took me all of fifteen minutes to make spaghetti squash and ground turkey with fresh basil and stewed tomatoes veggie" pasta" toss. And guess what my kids devour it because they have been raised to value healthy food over junk.
    I love the other argument that it costs too much to eat healthy. It definitely can if your shooting for vegan freshly prepared gourmet take out from whole foods. But, not if your going back to the basics and actually prepare food like we did back when. My mom recently was talking about the days where stores were where the family kept food in a refrigerated locker. I had no idea...but it made me appreciate taking 15 to 30 minutes to actually put together something fresh. At least I didn't have to think about it days ago, run up to the store to get some of my stored refrigerated meats and haul some ice back for the ice box.
  11. notyermomma

    notyermomma Well-Known Member

    Very cool. I don't know if the SNAP program itself offers cooking or nutrition info, but a lot of local food banks do. When I've gone to mine, they have volunteers offering samples of fresh food and recipes to go along with it. The recipes, conveniently, call for whatever's being offered that day. :yummy: People love it, and it's a really nice touch to be able to nosh a little while you're sitting in line for 2+ hours. Some community food banks also offer gardening classes ... which is good, because food stamps also cover seeds and seedlings for edible plants. Most people don't know that.

    As far as why SNAP decides what they do and don't fund, there are a lot of reasons. A lot of it comes down to the fact that the food marketplace changes so rapidly that the speed of bureaucracy can't keep up. (Once I found a link to a USDA document explaining it, but it eludes me tonight. Maybe someone else can find it ...)

    Personally I could see removing sodas from the list of SNAP eligible foods, but it could potentially set a slippery slope in motion. If sugar is the issue, what about juices? What about lactose-loaded dairy products? Or the fact that every processed food is loaded with sugar ... On the flip side, what about diet sodas that don't contain sugar? Are they still covered? And if energy drinks aren't eligible, what about other foods with caffeine? Do we then cross coffee and tea off the list? And so it goes ... Disqualifying sodas for SNAP sounds great on paper, but it just isn't practical. You'll have a hard time convincing me that it's not just about scoring cheap political points by stigmatizing the poor.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2014
  12. Sentry18

    Sentry18 Well-Known Member

    I think we need a twofold approach. If you are unable to work for a valid reason then we should use the voucher program that Tsrwivey talked about. Specific foods for specific needs. That might work for people with very short-term needs as well. But if you are able to work; self-sustaining work farms and work ranches with camps. Put in a days work, get a few dollars + free food + free housing. Wouldn't be the easiest job in the world and wouldn't be the most luxurious of accommodations, but every bit of it would be earned. There would be plenty of jobs available for men, women and older children alike.
  13. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    I remember back in the late 60s or early 70 my Grandma H would get a "box" every 2 weeks ... It was basic food needs for widows, the box had only the basic of foods. A block of cheese (talk about black-market... lol), flour, sugar, pintos (dry), coffee, tea and etc. Now the Christmas box had the extras in it ... salt, pepper, spices, baking soda & etc. (Oh and the oranges ;))

    Grandma had a little money coming in along with my parents (and her other children) that would bring in garden produce or meat from the farm or wild...

    I'm not sure why the food boxes she received are still etched in my mind ...
  14. Woody

    Woody Woodchuck

    Andi! That is because that is what we considered help... way back in the olden days. I admit to not remembering much of the 60's, or early 70's for that matter. Maybe because I didn't live under a rock? (Anyone who even remotely smiles remembers that quotation!).

    "Help" used to be staples, things which you could use to COOK meals. Boy, do I remember those BIG blocks of cheese! My family never had to accept them but for lots of my friends, when we were invited over for lunch, it was what was for dinner. I remember going with my friends to churches or other collection points, almost always churches though as I recall. They were embarrassed because they were there, I knew nothing of why they were there except to get food... I went along because they were my friends and we spent the day together. What else were we going to do, sit inside and watch one of the three TV shows? We'd be outside, in his yard, trying to poke each other's eyes out with sharp sticks and his Mom would yell 'Come on boys, we have to go the church.' You would drop the sticks, hurry along and do what you were told.

    Sorry, got off track there. Maybe the system of sending money in the mail is the better system. My friends mother does not have to drop what she is doing, check the pantry, and drive somewhere to get groceries.
  15. notyermomma

    notyermomma Well-Known Member

    The contents of food boxes depend heavily on donations. Yes, there are still "government" staples, and they haven't changed much. (Although I think the cheese was pulled several years ago for some reason.) But most of the donations come from grocery stores giving their expired stuff. I've seen everything from frozen pizzas to day-old cupcakes on the shelves.

    Also, a lot of food banks prepare their own mixes and things at the state level for distribution. What with bulk food being cheaper and all that. Locally, one very popular food box item is a chili mix made from lentils and barley with a spice packet. It's high in protein, keeps family farms in business (they set it up that way intentionally,) and is agonizingly healthy.