The Weighy Issue of Defining 'Food'

From the Burlington Free Press (VT).

"As a society, we have stated that we do not believe that poverty should be one's lot in life. There is no subgroup that should remain poor from generation to generation. Food programs exist to support people who from bad luck, circumstances or poor choices, find themselves unable to afford to feed themselves or their families. These programs meet an immediate need for feeding a family but are also an investment in the future generation. By meeting the nutritional needs of children on food support, we better prepare them to learn in school and a good education is the gateway out of poverty.

There has been much debate about limiting the types of "food" available through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as well as discussion on taxing soda and other "junk foods" as a method of shaping public policy. The debate often takes us far from the central idea behind any food security program, which is the elimination of hunger and poverty.

Too much time and energy is wasted discussing "free choice" and self-image while we distract ourselves creating new campaigns to educate the public to "make healthy choices." We do this because we do not want to tackle the core issue of defining what "food" is when one is in a supermarket. This diverts us from the goal and purpose of the food support programs.

We have made great strides in reducing cigarette use with the three-pronged approach of taxation, public policy/legislation and education in schools and media. Perhaps defining smoking or cigarette use was a simpler task, but if the Child Nutrition Act could define "foods of minimal nutritional value" and disallow them as part of a reimbursable lunch, our food support programs can do at least the same if not better.

I believe we should use the same approach for soda and junk foods. We should tax, eliminate access on the public dollar (in schools as well as programs) and continue the excellent work done in schools and medical venues on how to eat healthy. This goes hand in hand with posting calories and fat content in restaurant menus which should be part of public policy. In my experience, the convenience stores, the large food conglomerates and restaurants will get creative and adapt to the demand for healthier food. That is what Vermonters and Americans do very well. And yes, I volunteer myself to be on the task force to define "food" for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

--Diane Kirson-Glitman of Jericho
a registered nurse, works as a school nurse at Essex High School."

I'm with the general sentiment, but I have to remember that Vermont is thought of as a Socialist state. I also have to remember that soda is supported by food stamps because Congress supports corn farmers and high-fructose corn syrup. If we re-aligned the food stamp and farm subsidy programs to fit into the ChooseMyPlate icon and program, it would solve both problems at once. If you're on public assistance, you should have no choice unless it's medically necessary.

What the government gives you, the government can easily take away--witness the scare we all got right before the debt ceiling got lifted. We all might get this scare again in January, because the 12-member Super Committee isn't going to get the job done either (judging by who they nominated), leaving across-the-board automatic trigger cuts to take effect.

This was rigged from the get-go. Why? Because nobody wants to be the bad man who took away your grandma's Social Security check, your welfare/food stamp benefits, or your free ride in the hospital emergency room. Politicians value their jobs, and would like very much to keep them--they couldn't find another to replace it if they suddenly became unemployed (like we can do to them with each election). They now know that Wall St. also wields tremendous force over them, just as we once did at the polls.

All politicians know we need cuts, but all politicians want to keep their jobs--that is the true stalemate we face as a nation. How else to make cuts without the potential of losing your job? Institute faceless, nameless automatic cuts with no voting record and no constituents to please.

And who's to say there will be only one round of automatic cuts? Congress only agreed to the $1.5T cuts, made by them or the trigger. Will there be another round of cuts agreed to next year, or the year after, until the $4T over 10 years is finally reached, or even beyond?

As a nation, we're 40% overdrawn when it comes to the budget deficit, so we've got about 50% worth of cuts to make. Can you live on half of what you get now? You may have to, and so may Congress.

Now are sodas, cigarettes, and junk food still on the menu?