Diet and the Dole

When you accept government money, it often comes with strings attached. If two Florida lawmakers have her way, those strings could lead all the way to certain supermarket aisles.

Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, are sponsoring legislation that would prohibit food stamps from being used to purchase junk food, such as sugary soft drinks, candy, potato chips, ice cream and cookies. They argue that public assistance should be used only on nutritional essentials, not spent on unhealthy filler. The state budget has had to go on a leaner diet in recent years, and the legislators don't want scarce tax dollars spent on empty calories.

The idea isn't new. Just in the last year, legislation seeking to restrict food stamp purchases was introduced in Illinois, Oregon, California, Vermont and Texas; none passed. One reason is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program, has been unwilling to allow further restrictions on purchases, beyond traditionally ineligible items such as alcohol and tobacco.

Nevertheless, the proposal evokes widespread popular support, often from folks who otherwise would bristle at government telling people what they can and can't consume. The rationale behind the restriction — that because government is footing the bill, it should have a say in how that money is spent — can be applied as well to socialized health care.

Proponents argue there is a "public interest" in ensuring that government health dollars are not wasted on unhealthy lifestyles that increase medical costs that must be borne by all of society.

Thus, the state is justified in intruding on what used to be private, individual decisions on diet and exercise.

One difference is that socialized medicine involves compulsory obeisance. The choice is to comply or to be penalized. Public welfare is accepted voluntarily. If you don't like diet restrictions on food stamps, then seek assistance elsewhere (although for the poorest, their choices can be quite limited).

There are practical reasons, though, to oppose expanding food stamp restrictions. In 2007, the USDA issued a report that raised concerns that implementing such a program would be unwieldy. It said there were no clear standards for defining foods as good or bad, healthy or not healthy. With more than 300,000 food products on the market, and thousands more being introduced each year, adding food restrictions would increase program complexity and compliance costs.

Furthermore, restrictions might be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants. That's because about 70 percent of them buy a portion of their food with their own money. And finally, the report noted that no evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity. Recipients are no more likely than higher-income consumers to choose foods with little nutritional value.

Rather than prohibiting certain foods, the government is experimenting with rewarding healthy choices. In December, the feds began a pilot program in Hampden County, Mass., in which participants receive a 30 percent discount on their purchases of fruits and vegetables.

The bottom line, though, is that the solution shouldn't lie in expanding government control over individual lives. It should be in increasing ways of keeping people off the dole.

 

REPRINTED FROM THE PANAMA CITY (FL) NEWS HERALD
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM