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.
No, I posted the USDA graph showing that 44% of adult food stamp participants are obese (compared to 33% of income-eligible adult nonparticipants). That strongly suggests that adults are overeating the extra food they're buying with the food stamps they get (but don't need) to provide their kids the same meals they already get for free at school.
The Office of the Inspector General also states that overlap and duplication of FNS program benefits are providing up to 158% of recommended daily nutrition instead of the 100% that's needed. I posted that link, as well.
No you keep on repeating the same old song that SNAP recipients are eating tons more food while I have to constantly repeat its actually that they live in areas where there isn't reasonable access to healthy wholesome foods. You would cut obesity in half opening government stores in ghettos that offered fresh produce and healthy food at subsidized prices but that seems to be too socialist for Americans or at least conservatives to be comfortable with.
No you keep on repeating the same old song that SNAP recipients are eating tons more food while I have to constantly repeat its actually that they live in areas where there isn't reasonable access to healthy wholesome foods. You would cut obesity in half opening government stores in ghettos that offered fresh produce and healthy food at subsidized prices but that seems to be too socialist for Americans or at least conservatives to be comfortable with.
If they're not eating the food bought with that 58% too much (the example of duplication in FNS programs given by the OIG) in public assistance free food benefits, what are they doing with all that extra in food stamps. Cite your source (s).
How many others besides you are unaware that persistant overeating results in obesity?
The OIG report never provided any confirmatory data, for the second time since maybe repeating will help.
The OIG has no way to substantiate the percentages you are adding up at whim. They cannot discern, that's why they asked the USDA in the same report if they would want to conduct a study to review this topic and provide some snapshot data into overlap. The USDA, the entity you adore, responded to the OIG that there is no substantive evidence of overlap.
You're now applying percentages from the OIG report that aren't founded, to obesity, and establishing via magic without a study that can assign causality, regarding SNAP, intake, and obesity.
So now you're a statistician and a nutritionust, and clearly must have some experience working with public health and poverty. Could you clarify your background, for us?
Any informed individual realizes obesity can stem (and often does), from a host of competing factors.
Which is more likely due to the fact that food stamp folks have the resources for food but not access to healthy food so what they are eating is causing obesity. Have you heard of the term "food desert"?
This is of course nonsense. A significant portion of EBT payments are made at Walmart. Enough where Walmart puts in it's annual report that if the laws changed, it could severely affect Walmart's bottom line.
Now every single Super Walmart out there has a large produce section. They have a large section of basic foods. Anyone shopping there can eat quite a healthy diet, IF they choose to.
Yet go to anyone of these stores and what what the EBT people are buying. It's junk. Sugar water for kids, process food loaded down with sugar, fats, refined carbohydrates. Chips, cheese, etc etc. This is why they are fat. Not because they don't have access to healthy food, because they do.
The OIG report never provided any confirmatory data.
They do in fact confirm that some food stamp recipients receive overlapping and duplicate free food public assistance benefits from at least 3 different FNS programs, which when combined, provide up to 158% of daily recommended nutritional value. And that's just the one example they gave while stating there were more.
Take a guess what happens to a person's health when they overeat and become obese...
They do in fact confirm that some food stamp recipients receive overlapping and duplicate free food public assistance benefits from at least 3 different FNS programs, which when combined, provide up to 158% of daily recommended nutritional value. And that's just the one example they gave while stating there were more.
Take a guess what happens to a person's health when they overeat and become obese...
Please post the exact excerpt bevause no where in that report is confirmatory data.
You're assuming there is overlap. You are assuming even if there is overlap that it translates to overeating. SNAP by design is supplemental. Elderly recipients at a home could recieve lunches, and SNAP, but be less likely to head to a supermarket due to mobility and not use all of the resources. Children may not make it to a morning breakfast program each day. Someone could be depressed with full resources and be undereating. They could be sharing food with others in need. They could roll over SNAP benefits to future months of unused. They could decline an item provided at a school lunch, or a milk program for the day, there's no data in the report regarding individual level receipt, how the programs are used, overlap by the what populations if any, the FNS systems outlined in the report cannot discern.
The USDA also stated it found no substantive evidence of overlap. It's in their signed letter to the OIG included in the report.
You're again assigning cause, again assuming overeating. You have no context, no data, no study.
You never answered my two questions now. What's your fixation on this centered upon--obesity and health, or the assurance of the expenditure? Also, do you work in the field?
Please post the exact excerpt bevause no where in that report is confirmatory data.
You apparently can't read.
Quote:
"FNS officials stated that the agency’s program statutes and regulations are designed so that eligible people can generally participate in more than one program simultaneously. For example, children that are SNAP clients are also eligible to enroll in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. These children may reside in a household where the mother is also eligible to participate in WIC.
...FNS commissioned a study that detailed the extent of multiple participation in four major FNS programs—SNAP, WIC, SBP, and NSLP—for a 4-month period in 2006. The study reported that among the families that participated in at least one of the four major programs, about 41 percent participated in only one, and 59 participated in two or more programs."
There IS overlap. Unless, for example, you can cite exactly how much SNAP benefits are reduced for simultaneous participation in WIC, SBP, and/or NSLP.
There IS overlap. Unless, for example, you can cite exactly how much SNAP benefits are reduced for simultaneous participation in WIC, SBP, and/or NSLP.
And where exactly in the report does it claim this overlap is a direct link to obesity?
There IS overlap. Unless, for example, you can cite exactly how much SNAP benefits are reduced for simultaneous participation in WIC, SBP, and/or NSLP.
Data. Confirmatory data.
Eligibility does not translate to program participation or even use. That's the whole point of the NHANES categories. Remember? There's the income-eligible SNAP subset: recipients that use SNAP and non-recipients of SNAP, even though they are eligible based upon their reported income, they just didn't participate in that particular FNS program, one of fifteen available.
The latter statement is the precise point. The OIG does not have access to that data, the USDA is stating there no substantive evidence of overlap or duplication.
"As noted in this report, FNS believes that the network of nutrition assistance programs that make up the national nutritional safety net reflects Congress’ recognition of a diversity of needs, and does not present evidence of overlap and duplication. The OIG’s report does not offer any substantive evidence to refute this view." You're disagreeing with the USDA, (this quote taken straight from the same report), the entity who used the beloved NHANES data, the USDA that provided you with the obesity data you have used to fuel the fire of this thread!
If you examine the family snapshot rates noted for a four month period, it would be likely for one member of a household to participate in one program, where one may participate in another, one possibly both. That's quoted in your excerpt, that's the design of FNS, knowing the diverse needs of families particularly. S in SNAP is supplemental, it's not designed to provide an individual or family with funding to cover 100% of all meals. WIC applies if you have an infant up to five years of age--once the child begins school, they are no longer eligible, and may go off of assistance or apply or use a different program. Tiny Tim may use the free milk provided by WIC, an older child would use the fruit snack provided by the after school program at the school where hid brother Tiny Tim is too young to attend. Weekends change the dynamic, so does the summer. School lunches are provided in greater numbers too across the country, school breakfast less according to the data in raw numbers. What can be taken from the report is that there is no confirmatory data highlighting overlap that results in duplication of the same services, overlap that results in guaranteed over provision of food, snacks, milk, etc. Dependent on the program, there is no confirmatory data that even highlights something simple as use of each program and to what degree: a working mother could obtain enough SNAP to cover just 30% of her food needs based upon her income, and receive WIC for her toddler child, which is restricted to a particular set of food items. That won't cover her entire food needs for the month, nor her infants, she'll have to supplement with her own funds. Automatically you're writing off this type of participation as full blown out fat cat overeating and abusing the system. None of that is covered in the report, the USDA even stating in retort it's of non-issue.
When you apply for food assistance, Social Services factors in many items like your age, the state you reside in, your earned income, outside sources of financial support, what programs you are already enrolled within, your dependents if any, their ages, school enrollment. Same with housing assistance as well, and health care.
There is data out there, confirmatory data, on your latter statement. It's just not included in the OIG report. And, if this is all about obesity, and overeating, why are you bringing in financial cost?
Further, if the USDA in the same report is staring there's no compelling evidence and appreciates diverse needs of individuals, (particularly different individuals who make up the same family unit), this is all moot.
You never answered my questions, I give you the courtesy of addressing all your points. What's more important to you, obesity and health or the cost? And, do you have direct experience working in the fields, if so, please elaborate.
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.
