I was just reading a friend's blog post about "Food Stamps" (or as we call it now, the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" [SNAP])," and apparently there is real talk of extending SNAP benefits to cover fast food restaurants (See Write On, Jana!). The logic here is that "Fast food costs less than 'real' food," an argument that I am no longer willing to swallow. There are already restrictions on what a person can buy while using government assistance, and I can see both sides of the coin. On the one hand, people should be primarily free to eat what they want in a free society. On the other hand, if they are receiving public assistance, there should be some regulations that insure that the money is being used as it was intended (not on cigarettes and beer, for example).
I humbly suggest that, if making educated and perhaps mildly inconvenient choices, people can eat nutritious, whole foods with their food stamp allowances.
Here's what I cannot wrap my head around. According to the SNAP website, my family would receive approximately $566 per month if we needed food assistance. I currently spend up to (on the high end) $200 on groceries per trip--I generally go twice a month--and then extra on an as needed basis for things needed more often, like milk and juice. The way I see it, $566 per month and we would eat like kings; and anyone who knows me knows that I have become a food snob and that I choose whole, organic foods whenever it is in the budget. So maybe what people need is not access to buy fast food with SNAP benefits, but education on how to shop more wisely.
I can see potential drawbacks. I am fortunate enough to have reliable transportation (at least for now...cross fingers) and gas money. I still have credit should I absolutely need to charge a car repair or gasoline in a pinch. So I can afford to drive 10 miles to Trader Joe's for several things, drive back toward home and stop at Target and Aldi, and trot up the street to the local healthy food place to pick up some local produce. I have access to a seasonal program called "City Fresh" here in my town where families who qualify for food assistance get organic CSA shares for half price. I can get free food once a month at the local produce distribution in my neighborhood. Not everyone has those advantages. Maybe they have fewer choices than I do.
But maybe instead of trying to come up with quick ways to pump more calories into the economically disadvantaged, we need to be asking a different question: How do we help those without regular, reliable transportation get where they need to go to feed their families in the most nutritious way possible with the least amount of expense? Or better yet, can we find a way to bring the food closer to them? I know my husband's grandmother, who lives in Toledo, Ohio, uses a service for the elderly where a van comes and picks her up and takes her shopping around town for several hours on a particular day of the week. I acknowledge that she does have to spend a couple of dollars to use this service. Is it too much to suggest offering transportation as part of the SNAP program? Perhaps even child care services for parents to make their shopping trips quicker and easier? Yeah, I know. Everything in this country is contingent on the ol' "dollars and cents" argument. I have a few radical leftist ideas about the country's budget, but that would be a digression and is best saved for another post.
And if we're going to talk about how to best appropriate taxpayer money, let's consider that unhealthy food choices lead to poor health and disease, which lead to more people needing expensive medical care. The poor have a couple of choices. They can choose not to get the medical care they need--which should not have to be ANYBODY'S choice in a country as rich as the United States--or they can choose to get said medical care and just not pay for it when the bill arrives. The latter case means higher health care and insurance costs for everyone else because those industries have to make up for their losses somewhere. So if you're against universal health care because you don't want to pay for other people's doctor bills, think again; you already are. Over the long term, helping people make healthy food purchases is more economical for everyone when we consider the high cost of being sick in this country. And really, let's just have a heart for a minute and ponder the idealistic notion that you can't put a price on the health and well-being of a fellow human.
In the end, it all comes down to choices. We can choose to keep buying Ho-Hos because they are $3.50 per box, or we can spend that $3.50 on a 3 lb bag of organic apples instead, and we'd be no worse for the wear. In fact, we'd be less hungry in the long run because most junk food contains ingredients that just make us more hungry, make our food cravings stronger, than if we were making healthier choices. Once the cycle of soda and sugary snacks is broken, the new food habits are pretty easy to maintain. Maybe this means that the family doesn't get to eat red meat very often, or that cheese becomes a luxury rather than a necessity. Eating less meat and dairy--the two most costly food expenses, in my opinion--wouldn't really hurt most people. Maybe the kids' idea of an awesome lunch does not boil down to raw almond butter on whole wheat, some carrots, and a banana, but... (1) They'll get used to it; my kids regularly beg for carrots now to the point that I can barely keep them stocked in the house (note--$2 for a 3 lb bag). And (2) If the family can't afford the luxury of letting the kids buy pizza and ice cream every day in the cafeteria (which is exactly what my kids do if I let them buy their lunches), well, kiddos, that's just life. I don't get to eat king crab legs, and you don't get to have school pizza. We all make sacrifices; Few of us die martyrs to the cause.
