Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Turns out the providing so much "free" food to people actually makes them more likely to be obese than the rest of the population. Who would have thought?
Even "poor people" who don't get food stamps are more likely to be obese than "higher-income" people. So much for the "we can't let the children starve" argument that liberals keep parroting.
No where in the article did it state your rationale or impetus for this post. City Data threads like this just make me scratch my head--are you that angry there are people in need? Mainly children, the disabled, and elderly? In the big picture, the amount of money spent on feeding the poor via SNAP (recipients broken down 40% white, 20% Black, 10% Hispanic, 30% other races, I might add), is peanuts in relation to so many other expenditures made at the federal and state level, many of them unnecessary and for the wrong reasons.
NHANES is a self-report survey that requests respondents during an in-home interview to provide a recall of their intake of foods for the day prior. Not only are there methodological limitations of survey research, one must appreciate the limitations of self-report and self-recall. Further, one of the basic principles of statistics, is, correlation *does not* imply causation. No where in the article does it state, (based upon the research design), that if X group receives food stamps, then Y will occur, they will be obese. Your opening line, "providing food to the poor makes them obese" is incorrectly assigning causality or a causal outcome.
Also, taken from the formal report, "the descriptive analyses cannot be used to attribute an impact of SNAP participation on diet quality, individual food choices, or health outcomes because of the potential for selection bias – the possibility that decisions to participate may reflect differences in underlying circumstances." Meaning, you cannot assign cause based upon the type of individual who may or may not participate in this study (and the methodology for recruitment). This wasn't a required survey--it was optional--and, there may be important, influential differences that were not analyzed (and could not based upon design limitations) regarding who was recruited, who decided to participate, who did not.
Beyond that, all this survey provided was a cross-sectional snapshot, examining dietary intake, self-reported weight and height data (and with that, researchers can determine BMI), and income / subsidy receipt -- providing general descriptives (percentages). The formal USDA report, if you were to download it, interestingly states, that the USDA finds more *similarities* than differences between 3 groups studied.
One kicker I *loved* from the formal USDA report that this article was based upon, which works to discount some of the lovely commentary within this thread that SNAP recipients are potato chip and cake eating slobs:
"At the same time, SNAP participants were less likely than higher income nonparticipants to consume sweets and desserts, salty snacks, and added fat and oils."
There are a lot of confounding factors that can impact obesity, beyond caloric intake, and removing SNAP benefits and income entirely from the picture (receipt or non-receipt). Exercise, stress, work schedules, genetics, learned behaviors, family history, comorbid heath conditions, mental health, emotional factors, medications (many SSRIs for instance cause weight gain), lack of sleep, neighborhood safety, green space, access to full service supermarkets, lack of fresh, healthy foods at local supermarkets, residency in a food desert, access to transportation, rural versus suburban versus urban neighborhood dynamics, etc.
Further, I've worked in many urban centers, many of them food deserts and I found one thing incredibly surprising (and enlightening) when I visited several discount 'grocery' stores while conducting ethnographic research. Many major national supermarket chains do not (and will not) operate in low-income neighborhoods due to profit margins--supermarkets make their money on the weekly, return customer, not the EBT-user buying in bulk one or two times a month. Hence, the only chains that will often open in low-income neighborhoods, mainly utilize a model that will bring them profit, at the expense of the health of the local residents. I found, for instance, Save-A-Lot, a local grocer in West Baltimore, dedicated 95% of its stock to bulk, processed, sugary and salty goods (they bought these items themselves at a discount in bulk, and then increased the price to the EBT-consumer). Frozen items, packaged juices, oversized generic brands, etc. were the norm. The lone 5% in one store, I remember, was dedicated to a few milk cartons worth of old vegetables and fruit, most of it rotting. The other option residents had, if not the local discount chain, was a nearby, in-walking-distance corner store, and, those were even worse in terms of options and selection.
In conclusion, I'm not really sure what your agenda was for posting something like this, or, what you wanted out of a thread of this nature. I'd rather see intelligent discourse regarding suggestions, ways to improve the system, experiences, ideas. Sure, there are educational programs that the entire US population could benefit from regarding healthy eating, yes, almost everyone needs more exercise than they obtain, and of course, income allows for greater variety, choice, and access. Many SNAP recipients are the working poor, and, further, SNAP was never designed to be the panacea for poverty, which is really the heart of the matter here.
I'm not misunderstanding it. You, like several others, keep reiterating the same false platitudes everyone else is about the poor being disproportionately obese because of food choice when the fact is that only the poor who are given food stamps are disproportionately obese.
Turns out the providing so much "free" food to people actually makes them more likely to be obese than the rest of the population. Who would have thought?
Even "poor people" who don't get food stamps are more likely to be obese than "higher-income" people. So much for the "we can't let the children starve" argument that liberals keep parroting.
I'm guessing you've never needed food stamps to survive? It's easy for those that don't need it to criticize it. Just like it's easy for rich people to criticize the poor. My family survived for a period because of food stamps and it's intensely condescending for someone to trivialize how valuable food is to a family with children that might not afford it otherwise.
Also the explanation you are skipping over that's far more obvious that food stamps are bad and unneeded, is the obvious truth that often the cheapest food is unhealthy and then you combine that with a modern lifestyle of little physical activity.
I'm guessing you've never needed food stamps to survive? It's easy for those that don't need it to criticize it. Just like it's easy for rich people to criticize the poor. My family survived for a period because of food stamps and it's intensely condescending for someone to trivialize how valuable food is to a family with children that might not afford it otherwise.
Being able to afford food is one thing. Double-dipping food stamps for kids while they also get free breakfast, lunch, and sometimes even dinner, too, at school, is quite another. The latter, with no corresponding reduction in food stamp benefits, could very well be causing some parents/guardians to buy too much food and for the entire family to overeat, hence food stamp recipients' propensity to be disproportionately obese compared to the poor who don't get food stamps (e.g., single childless males).
At the very least, the public assistance free food double-dipping should be investigated as a significant contributing factor to food stamp recipients' much higher propensity to be obese.
I'm guessing you've never needed food stamps to survive? It's easy for those that don't need it to criticize it. Just like it's easy for rich people to criticize the poor. My family survived for a period because of food stamps and it's intensely condescending for someone to trivialize how valuable food is to a family with children that might not afford it otherwise..
It's easy to criticize because it deserves to be criticized.
Welfare is the taking of food off the tables of working people (taxes) and handing it to people who don't or won't work. Nothing more, nothing less.
So while you may make fallacious comments at placing blame on those doing the hard work to pay for the foodstamps, it is your responsibility to provide for your family. So if you take from the public dole because you are unable to do this, then yes, expect some criticism.
If you're not motivated to work, you're not going to be motivated to eat healthy or exercise. My sister's brother in law worked in the welfare department and decided sitting on his butt collecting give aways was a better life than working. So he just sat around and watched tv, play video games etc and eats. He's now over 500 lbs and can't get around.
This wouldn't even be such the huge issue that it is if straight women weren't so attracted to deadbeats. The media is partially to blame on this one. And generic horniness I guess.
I have seen people use their SNAP cards for all kinds of junk food that isn't providing real nutrition. I am all for helping the needy eat but it really doesn't seem right to allow unlimited junk food purchases.
Seems to me we could allow " X $ " per month of the benefit for designated junk foods and the rest allocated to real food.
Anyone who has the slightest clue about the cost of good nutrition.
Agree with you there. What most people get on food stamps are foods that are very starchy. Potatoes, rice, bread...you don't get so much money on food stamps that you can afford to eat healthy, you get enough that you can afford to eat if you make that money stretch. How you make it stretch is by buying a bunch of starchy foods. I've had this discussion before on here. A bag of oranges is not going to satisfy hungry people for a week. A bag of potatoes, a loaf of bread, an eight packet of hot dogs will supply a few meals. Throw in some rice...it's all starch. Of course they are fat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
