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.
Exactly, it is an economic cost rather than price issue. It may be cheaper to bake bread, steam fresh veggies and cook fresh meats but time wise they cannot.
Since this time issue keeps getting brought up and one poster keeps claiming that people on Snap are working 2 jobs, I'm going to provide some facts to correct the record.
According to the CBO, 70% of households on Snap have no earned income. So the vast majority of Snap recipients have way more time than the rest of us to cook, shop, etc.
No, you didn't. It's still true that the poor who get food stamps have a higher rate of obesity than the poor who don't.
Quote:
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture looked at data from 2007 through 2010, then compared average weights of those on food stamps — officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — to those who weren't.
The findings, released on Tuesday, are striking. Food stamp recipients are far more likely to be obese than poor people who are eligible but don't take the help. And they're even more likely to be obese than those with higher incomes.
Fully 40% of food stamp recipients are obese, the study found, compared with just over 30% of those who don't participate in the program.
Children of families on food stamps were also more likely to be obese than children in the other two groups, as were older adults."
No, you didn't. It's still true that the poor who get food stamps have a higher rate of obesity than the poor who don't.
I did, I've explained the outcome in about 10 different ways. I've tried to be educational in my posts, to demonstrate that the Huffington Post article, the NHANES survey, or the analysis conducted by Mathematica, (as well as other academics I have linked to), cannot link causality, cannot generalize to the entire food stamp population as a whole.
You're generalizing with your statement. You cannot do that with this type of general survey. It's going against the grain of the design.
All the data illustrates is that within the limited sample involved in the CDC-based NHANES survey, (a self-selected sample, that is subject to selection bias, meaning, not every SNAP recipient, nor non-receipient was mandated to participate), the individuals who reported using food stamps (without confirming SNAP USDA recipient data), for a timeframe we do not know based upon the study, had a slightly higher BMI than non-participants.
It does not assign cause that states food stamp receipt causes obesity, or higher rates of obesity. That cannot be inferred based upon the design and limited data. It also cannot be generalized to the millions of individuals (the elderly, children, the poor, groups broken down based upon race), because the study design prevents the USDA, the researchers, anyone analyzing to generalize to the entire SNAP-receiving public.
Update: Link me to a research article, the USDA reports themselves, the Mathmeatica research, anything but a general article. It's the same with the Huffington Post. The author meant well, but, it's not written by someone who conducted the research or understands the design. I've linked you to peer-reviewed, academic, medical journals. Reports from the USDA itself. Let's stay on the same page in terms of credibility of sources and data.
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? .
"SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
Since this time issue keeps getting brought up and one poster keeps claiming that people on Snap are working 2 jobs, I'm going to provide some facts to correct the record.
According to the CBO, 70% of households on Snap have no earned income. So the vast majority of Snap recipients have way more time than the rest of us to cook, shop, etc.
Yes if economic costs only included time and money, but economic costs also include resources such as transportation, cooking utensils (pots, pans, spatulas, etc.) and cooking fixtures (stove, microwave, toaster, etc.) which not everyone who would be on SNAP would indeed have. Then you also consider that the time would also include interviews, applying for work, follow-up calls, etc. If you go by those who claim you need to look for work 40 hours a week, isn't that about the same time as most of us work too.
Yes, the USDA that utilized the NHANES data, subject to bias. It even lists this bias in this linked summarized 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."
That means in simple terms, we, the USDA, cannot assign causality of SNAP participation to heath outcomes, meaning we cannot state that food stamp receipt or use causes obesity. We cannot state a causal link. We cannot even list a correlation.
All we can do is look at this limited sample, based upon the limited design, and report percentages of BMI, based upon the self-reports, the self-selected individuals that decided voluntarily to participate in this survey--and report the self-reported groups that state they are receiving food stamps, are not receiving food stamps, and, are reporting their income. It's all self report. No one is checking the USDA food stamp data, the tenure of how long they have received food stamps, their tax records, their bank accounts.
We cannot state (nor have we found), that all SNAP recipients are obese because of their participation in the program. We cannot state, all SNAP recipients overeat with this program. We cannot state that if you are given SNAP benefits, you will be obese, or become obese based upon receipt. We cannot state there is a stiasticlly significant effect of obesity rates based upon those who self-report receiving SNAP benefits in this survey, versus those who self-report not receiving benefits, and self-report their income levels as well. We cannot state that the poor who are given SNAP benefits, are "disproportionately" obese like you stated earlier in this thread.
Re-read the post from the Nygugen article that speaks to their own study's limitations, based upon the limitations of NHANES data. Just trying to help you understand that this article is not the end all for one viewpoint or the other. The design is too limited to generalize or make conclusive statements.
Limitations Blurb: "As a self-reported dietary recall data set, NHANES may be prone to overestimation of portion size and dietary intake and may not represent longer-term dietary intake patterns. In addition, *we could not establish a causal relationship* because of the cross-sectional nature of the data. Furthermore, we could not control for self-selection into SNAP, which could have been affected by such unobserved factors as personal preferences and underlying health conditions. Therefore, our identification strategy, similar to many studies in the literature, *did not permit us to identify the causal effects of SNAP participation on health behaviors and outcomes*."
Anyone who has the slightest clue about the cost of good nutrition.
It is less than poor nutrition. So, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod
It costs more to buy heathy food in many cases. Whole wheat bread is more expensive than white bread. Low fat hamburger is more expensive that regular hamburger (with higher fat content).
Fish can be pretty pricey, but fish sticks are the cheapest and the least healthy.
So if you have more money for your food budget then it's easier to choose healthy food. And, you can also afford a health club.
This isn't the case for ALL food. But in general, lots of the healthier food is more expensive.
If you are obese, you can't afford to be eating bread anyway. And, meat, ah, also not necessary and even low fat hamburger is still fat. I have been poor, not food stamp poor, but work your butt off for every dollar and spend it wisely so you don't starve poor. We still eat a lot like that since it is healthy. Rice and beans supplemented with vegetables (frozen here are about $1.00 a bag, much cheaper than chips or Little Debbies). I always buy what is on special for the week. Double all the ingredients in soup except the meat when we do eat meat. Healthier food is not more expensive. Junk food is easy thus adding to the obesity since I am hustling around the kitchen preparing the meal instead of standing in front of the microwave for 3 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I would assume they are more overweight since they eat cheaper foods, which more fattening. I agree with the suggestion that food stamps should not cover sugary drinks.
You mean like frozen vegetables, rice and beans, macaroni and cheese, salads made from scratch, not the fancy ones already made up? They need to go and some are considering it, with allowing the same items that they allow on the WIC program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why the significant difference in obesity rates between the poor who DON'T get food stamps, and the poor who DO?
Seems the poor who aren't getting food stamps are making better food purchasing choices while also spending less on food.
Because when you work for the money yourself, you spend it more wisely. I have been there. When you know you have to buy food and pay the rent, you learn how to shop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
Or you could look at the facts rather than making up nonsense.... Cheapest foods in the United States are over-processed and have little nutritional value. Poor people, in general, cannot afford to eat healthy. Those who receive food stamps are ridiculously poor compared to poor people who do not receive food stamps.
And next, we'll say they are too busy to cook. Ah, that doesn't work either. I raised two kids with a full-time job and made all our meals from scratch and by hustling, I did not become obese.
I get SO sick of hearing how expensive nutritious foods are. I cooked in an Army dining facility for two years and 40 years at my home so I think I know a few things about what is and is not nutritious.
The cause of obesity is 99% of the time due to a lack of personal responsibility when it comes to one's eating habits.
Yes, the USDA that utilized the NHANES data, subject to bias. It even lists this bias in this linked summarized report.
All studies are subject to bias. There is no perfectly bias-free study. If the USDA believed the findings were inaccurate, they wouldn't have published them.
The fact remains that the poor who receive food stamps have a significantly higher rate of obesity than the poor who don't.
I have suggested that a plausible avenue for investigation as to the reason why that is, is to study the fact that 74% of the households that receive food stamps have children. Kids get 2 (if not 3) free meals at school but the household's food stamp benefits are not correspondingly reduced. There's a significantly high rate of duplication of public assistance free food benefits, there. That could very likely result in the overconsumption and overeating of already poor food choices in those 74% of food stamp households, leading to the increased rate of obesity.
The USA is the most overfed yet undernourished nation on the face of the earth.
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.
.
