E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Genevra Pittman
Reuters
Children whose families are on food stamps are just as likely to be overweight and obese as other low-income youth, a new study suggests.
Researchers found poor children tend to have diets high in processed meats, saturated fat and sugary drinks and low in whole grains and fruits and vegetables - regardless of whether they receive federal nutrition assistance.
The Food Stamp Program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), places few restrictions on the type of groceries people can buy using food stamps. That has led to concern that the program isn't doing enough to encourage healthy eating, especially among young people.
One report estimated that in 2011 alone, almost $4 billion of SNAP benefits were used to purchase sodas and other soft drinks.
"The true intent of the program was to provide as much optimal nutrition as possible to the people who are in the program," said Dr. Jonathan Shenkin, a health policy researcher from Boston University and a pediatric dentist in Maine.
Shenkin, who wasn't involved in the new study, is a proponent of tighter restrictions on the types of products SNAP benefits can be used to purchase - or, at least, better education for food stamp users about healthy choices.
The new research included about 5,200 low-income kids and teens who were surveyed about their diets between 1999 and 2008 as part of a long-term national health and nutrition study.
Between one-quarter and one-third of those children were part of households currently receiving SNAP benefits. To qualify, a family must be living at 130 percent of the federal poverty level or below - equal to an income of about $2,400 per month for a family of four in 2011.
About 19 percent of kids on SNAP were overweight and another 18 percent were obese, similar to the proportion of low-income children not on federal nutrition assistance who were heavy.
Both groups of young people ate less than the recommended amount of whole grains, fruits and vegetables - just one serving per day or fewer of each - and more processed meat, sugary beverages and saturated fat, researchers led by Cindy Leung from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston found. There was no difference in their overall calorie intake.
Compared to children not on SNAP, those with the extra nutrition assistance consumed more high-fat dairy products and sugary drinks and ate fewer nuts and legumes.
More than 47 million Americans were on SNAP as of late 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"The low intake of nutritious food among children participating in SNAP represents a significant missed opportunity for the program to promote health during an important life stage," Leung and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.
Not used as intended
Shenkin told Reuters Health the study is more evidence that food stamps aren't necessarily helping families be any healthier and aren't being used as they were originally intended.
"The program itself should be paying for nutritious foods that are contributors to health," he said.
Ideally, Shenkin said, the government program would reward people who buy fresh fruits and vegetables with extra benefits, for example - but that would call for increased funding. A more cost-effective option would mean requiring people purchase non-nutritious foods and drinks with their own money and not SNAP benefits, he said.
Not everyone agrees, however, with some researchers and policymakers arguing that limiting what consumers can purchase with food stamps is paternalistic. There's also a concern about a lack of grocery stores carrying healthy options in predominately low-income areas.
One potential solution, according to Shenkin, could be to expand what's covered in SNAP-related education programs to encourage people to seek more healthy options on their own.
"In no way do we want to cut food stamps," he said. "We want to optimize the value that they provide."
Leave a Comment:
The problem is metabolism, we need to hurry and evolve a faster metabolism.
Basic healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, eggs, milk, meat, fish, etc are available in ANY grocery store. Processed 'junk' foods cost more than basic foods. Funding junk foods encourages their consumption. Diets high in sugars, lard, and additives magnify allergies, autism, ADHD, diabetes, etc. Children, teens, and young mothers should not be eating junk food and driving up their health care costs at the taxpayers expense. A simple online course in family nutrition and healthy cooking practices could easily be part of the qualifying process for food stamps. The food stamp program should not include 'junk' foods or cigarettes.
Grandma can still buy the kids cookies and send them home to mama, bouncing off the walls, as always.
So what is the issue?
Honestly, I have a real issue with tax payer dollars being spent on soda. I think that if you are eating on someone else's dime, then the government giving you that money should get to decide what you can and cannot buy. Allowing only highly nutritious food to be purchased would be a huge step forward towards improving public health. I can't understand why SNAP doesn't restrict certain foods.
I think the argument here is that limiting certain foods amounts to some sort of discrimination against poor people. Lord forbid we prevent them from doing whatever they want to do.
Bottled water is way cheaper than sodas; I don't understand why people don't buy bottled water instead.
Look who is buying and serving the food to these children.
Is it any wonder these same children have to get free breakfast and lunch at school because of incompetent parent or parents.
The fact is that there are very few grocery stores in low income areas. Most are corner stores carrying canned goods or boxed meals, etc. high in sodium and carbs but no protein. Because these poor persons don't drive due to affordability issues, they don't have access to healthier stores outside their area. They could take public transportation however, they may not be able to carry the groceries on 2 bus transfers and another train. With all that said, cigarettes and alcohol may not be purchased under SNAP and that has been the case since the inception for both. I agree it should be that way. However, it seems it would be rather unconsitutional to dictate what "legal" food or drink people may or may not purchase with the subsidy they applied for, submitted documentation for, and were proved to have a need for. If that's the case, the government (and the people) should determine how corporations spend their "subsidies" for which few submitted documentation for and for which all of them have no need for. Just sayin...
I don't think there is anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to buy whatever you want with other people's money.
I do think however that some things can be taken of the "covered" list for foodstamps without any direct negative impact to the people reciving them. Soda, is a perfect expample of this. We eat mostly healthy but yes now and them a boxed item gets made for convenience so I do understand the need for some of these boxed things. But soda, koolaid, any type of sugary drink should be taken off immediately. I used to be a cashier at a supermarket, a full supermarket with a large fresh food section and the people on fodstamps notoriously came through with 10 lunchables for their kids lunch, sodas etc.... And I used to see a lot of expensive foods like raw shrimp, stuff I could not afford to buy. In my state, Maryland, you can not buy any cooked food with foodstamp money, so no rotisserie chicken, etc.. so they have that limit, but they can buy as much other crap food as they want. So limits are definitely able to be placed. There should be some restrictions.
I can always tell when in line at the store which parent(s) are using food stamps or are living off others work by the items in their shopping cart. Volunteering via church I have found many actually believe that a Hot Dog, Chips and a Soda is a well rounded healthy meal. Today I watched a mother and her daughter who obviously just had a new baby, searching the aisles at Krogers for items such as cans of Green beans, Corn, from a government provided list in their hand and they were having difficulty in locating the correct aisles as if it were a strange world to them..They need to put Home Economics back in to the school curriculum as well as First Aid for Parents instead of the Liberal Dribble they teach these kids today which is of little real use in the real world.
as a former cashier at a grocery store, i could ususally tell who was going to use food stamps by what was in their cart. very rarely did i see anyone with food stamps buy healthy food. it was always sodas, chips, cookies, etc. most of the kids were overweight, as were the parents (usually the mother was the only one at the store). i agree that people on food stamps should not be allowed to purchase certain items like sodas, etc. it would piss me off to see what they were buying when i could barely afford to feed myself. and after spending $200-300 on junk food, they would still have $1k left on their card. the welfare system is out of control, but this president is not going to do anything about it.
I have stood behind people in the grocery check-out line buying steaks with their SNAP cards. My husband and I both work and still cannot afford steaks. Something is wrong with this system...
"Not everyone agrees, however, with some researchers and policymakers arguing that limiting what consumers can purchase with food stamps is paternalistic" as if the very idea of the government funding groceries for people isn't the definition of paternalistic? how about we build SNAP STORES wherein you can only "purchase" healthy foods and recepients aren't allowed to use their SNAP "money" anywhere else. If you want the privilege of freedom of choice in life, you need to accept the responsibility that goes with it.
"peternalistic" huh? How about all the TV ads the government pays for that are supposedly "showing" us how to be a good dad, or that our kids needs exercise, etc.... Our governemnt is already paternalistic!!
Because folks on welfare buy garbage. When you don't WORK for you money, you don't really care how you spend it. I think if you're on welfare you should only be allowed to purchase a predetermined choice of food. No soda, no sweets, no processed meats. If you need the government to feed you, you eat what the government tells you to eat. Sort of like being a kid living with your parents.
In Michigan, there is a great program, called double up food bucks. For up to 20 food stamp dollars per week, you can recieve 40 dollars of fruits and veggies at the farmers market. In my city this is a very popular program. You can also get extra bucks for the farmers market thru prescription for health, which your doctor can sign you up for. Prescription for Health also has a weekly meeting where we discuss nutrition and recipes using the fresh fruit and veggies.
I know the double up food bucks was funded thru 2013, I am hopeful that they will fund it again. I am not sure how long they have prescripton for health funding, hopefully more years.
These programs have also had the effect of increasing sales at the farmers market, and more vendors setting up. Our market continues to grow every year.
Many poor communities do not have access to a great farmers market, or a local grocery store. Its called living in a food desert. Trying to bring groceries home on the bus, is problematic especially for handicapped people. Many many low income people do NOT have cars, and many do not have a friend or relative who can drive them to where the grocery store is.
Trying to solve the problems of poor nutrition and lack of knowlege about nutrition, cannot be solved with punative punishment. Its really surprising how easy it is to educate people on how to do better nutritionally.
I live in subsidised housing for seniors and handicapped, we are not getting our nails done, our hair done, drivinng a fancy car, eating steaks everyday, or selling our food stamps to buy drugs. I personally dont have cable tv, too expensive. Many people who live here shop at the local party stores, no way to get good nutrition there.
I can only call my rep in washington and encourage them to refund the double up food bucks program.
It is quite sad when i hear people who are not poor, condemn those who are. I wish some of you, so sure of your "facts" about the poor living high on the hog, would live a month in our shoes. You might then see us in a more realistic and humane light.
Oh and by the way I worked for 30 years before becoming disabled.
What a silly study... Why on Earth would anyone think getting free food would equal better choices? Usually people on food stamps are less educated to begin with which means they aren't going to make smart choices. Food stamps should put limits on junk food and processed foods and only allow the basics of meats, veggies, milk products and spices. If they're allowed captain crunch all day then that's what they'll eat! Most of them are selling off the food stamps anyway.
im not even shocked to read this, it makes me laugh. if you dont work for your money and your recieving it for free, you wont care how to waste it.. it ridicioulus how you see little kids overweight.. but then for dinner their parents are too lazy to cook(mind you they dont even work) so they take them to mc donals or fast food.. who suffers at the end the kids, highblood pressure, highcholesterol, diabetes.. just sad!!
Im highly offended with the lot of you. My stepdad told my mom after she was laid off at mattel she wasnt allowed to have another job. He was abusive he spent all of the money coming in on what he wanted. So my mom went on food stamps. He was getting disability he couldnt work. Oh but everyone who is on food stamps is lazy. My lord above just because they are on food stamps doesnt mean they are lazy. They had three of us to feed. He spent money on CB radios our home our utlties. They needed help. So dont judge you have no idea whats going on in a home. Also in the 90s fresh stuff wasnt allowed.