According to the authors, some members of Congress want to ensure that SNAP benefits are used to purchase healthy food. (AP Photo/Alison Diener, File)
“Eat your peas!” Those words may be rooted in love when a mother says them, but love never comes to mind when lawmakers try to impose dietary restrictions on Americans. .
A few members of Congress believe the time is right to raid the refrigerators of the more than 40 million low-income Americans who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through a bill dubbed the Healthy SNAP Act. ing. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) said his bill would “ensure that SNAP program funds are spent on healthy, nutritious food.”
From a fiscally conservative perspective, this may seem like an ideal proposition. The idea is to encourage people to live healthier lifestyles while saving taxpayers money. As good as it sounds, giving politicians the power to set dietary and nutritional standards for everyone, including welfare recipients, is just as dangerous as expanding government power over consumer choices. There is. This restriction started with SNAP officials, but quickly spread everywhere.
The federal government’s blacklisting of foods will have ripple effects on professionals, health care organizations, state and local governments, and future legislation, and will serve as a reference point for insurance and health care providers. Companies that in the past have tried to regulate things like drink volume, salt intake and red meat intake have a new weapon to use against the public, potentially reducing consumer choice and increasing costs.
The same government that created the low-fat, high-carbohydrate food pyramid in the 1950s, coinciding with a surge in heart disease, has proven that it doesn’t need to serve as the nation’s nutrition czar. Consumers should be trusted to make the grocery store decisions that best suit their needs, even if that includes the occasional snack or treat.
The bill itself provides no relief to taxpayers, as recipients will use up their allotted allowances regardless of what foods are allowed. And the idea that you can just wave your finger in the face and people will suddenly stop consuming their favorite foods and drinks is ridiculous. If it were really that easy, the $90 billion weight loss industry would be a distant memory.
Rubio’s bill would impact more than 5 million seniors enrolled in SNAP, as well as 20,000 military families, 213,000 National Guard members, and more than 1 million veterans. I want you to be careful about what happens. What an insult to our nation’s uniformed seniors and families when the government acts like a nosy nanny and limits their food options.
Some have proposed restrictions that would lead to a ban on white bread and American cheese. Some people think soda, ice cream, and desserts should be off-limits.
Where do these restrictions stop? Can SNAP recipients buy Corn Flakes but not Frosted Flakes? Does ground meat have to be 85% lean? Whole milk is not allowed, but is 2% and skim milk acceptable?
SNAP is intended to alleviate food insecurity, not exacerbate it. Those who receive this assistance should be given the same room in the grocery store aisles as those who do not. Food purchases involve individual nutritional preferences, and people’s choices vary widely based on taste, cultural and local cuisine, and especially now affordability.
Parents have the right to beg their children to eat vegetables. But the government shouldn’t take away families’ decisions about what to put in their shopping carts.
Gerald Scimeca is an attorney and the president and co-founder of CASE (Consumer Action for a Strong Economy), a free market consumer advocacy group. /InsideSources
