Banning Soda Under The Snap Program

Running head: BANNING SODA

Banning Soda under the SNAP Program:

A Policy Review

Richard Krasner

Florida Atlantic University

HSA 6152

Health Policy

Dr. Valentine

December 2, 2010

1


Table of Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................3

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008............................................................................................5

Obesity and Soda: The Science.....................................................................................................7

The Controversy..........................................................................................................................11

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................20

References.....................................................................................................................................24

2


Introduction

In October, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York asked for permission from the

federal government to conduct a two-year social and scientific experiment to fight the growing

national obesity problem. Mayor Bloomberg’s request centered on his decision to ban recipients

of food stamps under the SNAP program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) from

purchasing soda and other soft drinks containing excessive amounts of sugar. As part of the

experiment, Bloomberg promised that New York would collect data on whether individuals on

food stamps were using their benefits on healthier choices, such as fruits and vegetables, instead

of soda and snacks that contained too many calories and very little nutrition (Hartocollis, 2010).

The issue of obesity in the U.S. is a major health issue facing this nation, as evidenced by

First Lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to get more children to eat healthy foods at home and in

school. Coupled with the fact that heart disease is the number one cause of death in the US; and

given the medical model of health care prevalent in the US health care system, individual

lifestyle and behavior and environment are some of the reasons behind this surge in obesity.

Considerable research exists that one’s lifestyle and behavior has a lot to do with becoming

obese, and your environment (affluence or poverty) is more likely to have an impact on your

overall health and well-being. Figure 1 indicates which US States have the highest percentage of

obese adults, and Figure 2 shows that the best educated Americans have the lowest obesity, as

measured by income level and education level.

3


Figure 1. Figure 2.

Source: CQ Researcher (2010)

This paper will discuss the issue of whether banning the use of food stamps for the

purchase of sodas and other sugar-laden drinks is a good idea, and if it is in keeping with current

federal policy on foods eligible for purchase under the SNAP program. The issue is contentious

and as I will show in this paper, there are many sides to this issue, with many supporters of a

ban, and many opponents, some of whom make for strange bedfellows. In the end, I will offer

some recommendations as to where the policy process should go next, and what conclusions I

have reached about this issue.

4


The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008

FOOD AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2008

[As Amended Through P.L. 110-246, Effective October 1, 2008]

AN ACT

Sec. 1. SHORT TITLE

To strengthen the agricultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller and more effective use of food

abundances; to provide for improved levels of nutrition among low-income households

through a cooperative Federal-State program of food assistance to be operated through

normal channels of trade; and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

Congress assembled, [7 U.S.C. 2011 note] That this act may be cited as the “Food and

Nutrition Act of 2008”.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

Sec. 2. [7 U.S.C. 2011]It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, to

safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition

among low-income households. Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of

low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such

households. Congress further finds that increased utilization of food in establishing and

maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial

manner of the Nation’s agricultural abundance and will strengthen the Nation’s agricultural

economy, as well as result in more orderly marketing and distribution of foods. To alleviate such

hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition assistance program is herein authorized which

will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of

trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for

participation.

5


DEFINITIONS

Sec. 3. [7 U.S.C. 2012](k) “Food” means (1) any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic

beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption other

than those authorized pursuant to clauses (3), (4), (5), (7), (8), and (9) of this subsection, (2)

seeds and plants for use in gardens to produce food for the personal consumption of the eligible

household.

(p) “Retail food store” means―

(1) an establishment or house-to-house trade route that sells food for home

preparation and consumption and―

(A) offers for sale, on a continuous basis, a variety of foods in each of

the 4 categories of staple foods specified in subsection (r) (1), including perishable

foods in at least 2 of the categories; or

(B) has over 50 percent of the total sales of the establishment or route in

staple foods, as determined by visual inspection, sales records, purchase records,

counting of stockkeeping units, or other inventory or accounting recordkeeping

methods that are customary or reasonable in the retail food industry;

Sec. 3. (r)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), “staple foods” means foods in the

following categories:

(A) Meat, poultry, or fish.

(B) Bread or cereals.

(C) Vegetables or fruits.

(D) Dairy products.

(2) “Staple foods” do not include accessory food items, such as coffee, tea, cocoa,

carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, candy, condiments, and spices.

Sec. 4. [7 U.S.C. 2013] (a)…The benefits so received by such households shall be used

only to purchase food from retail food stores which have been approved for participation in the

supplemental nutrition assistance program.

6


Obesity and Soda: The Science

Determining the exact cause for the obesity epidemic, as it has been sometimes referred

to, is difficult because of the many factors and variables that enter into the equation as to why

Americans are overweight and obese. One possible factor that scientists have identified is the

consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks by both children and adults. One such study with regard

to children took place in Massachusetts from October, 1995 to May, 1997. (Ludwig, Peterson, &

Gortmaker, 2001) enrolled 548 ethnically diverse schoolchildren, ages 7 - 11 from public schools

in four communities in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area. They examined the

association between the baseline and change in consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks

(independent variable), and the difference in measures of obesity with linear and logical

regression analyses that were adjusted for confounding variables and clustering of results within

the schools.

They found that for each additional serving of sugar-sweetened drinks consumed, both

body mass index (BMI) and frequency of obesity increased. They adjusted for anthropometric,

demographic, dietary and lifestyle variables. Baseline consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks,

they found was also associated with changes in BMI. Their interpretation of the results indicated

that consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with obesity in children. (Apovian,

2004) cited Ludwig et al. in an editorial for JAMA, where she said becoming obese increased 1.6

times for each additional sugar-sweetened drink consumed. She pointed to an article in the same

issue of JAMA by Schulze and colleagues that provided additional evidence that excess calories

from sugar-sweetened drinks are responsible for increased obesity in adults as well, and also

implicates such drinks as a cause of type 2 diabetes.

7


A more recent study was conducted in California by the California Center for Public

Health Advocacy in collaboration with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, using data

from the 2005 California Health Interview Survey. Entitled Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption

and Its Link to Obesity in California, (Babey, Jones, Yu, & Goldstein, 2009) determined that in

California, 62% of children, 12 – 17 and 41% of children, 2 – 11 drink at least one soda or other

sweetened beverage every day. For adults, they found that 24% of them drink at least one soda or

other sweetened beverage on an average day. Adults who drink soda occasionally were 15%

more likely to be overweight or obese; adults who drink one or more sodas per day are 27%

more likely to be overweight or obese than adults who did not drink soda, adjusting for poverty,

race and ethnicity.

They found major differences in soda consumption rates by geographic area (by city and

county), that suggested that social and environmental factors affect the consumption of soda.

Table 1 indicates where the highest percentages of children, adolescents and adults who drink

one or more sodas per day and are overweight or obese, by county are.

Table 1.

Top Ten California Counties where Percentage of Children, Adolescents and Adults Drink One or More Sodas per Day and Percentage of Adults Who Are Overweight or Obese

County

% of ChildrenAges 2 – 11

One or More Sodas

% of AdolescentsAges 12 – 17One or More

Sodas

% of Adults Drinking One or More Sodas

per Day

% of Adults Who Are Overweight or

Obese

San Joaquin 44.2 77.8 26.6 70Imperial 60.7 61.2 36.4 67.1Merced 55.4 * 32.7 66.6

Kern 55.0 67.2 36.6 66.2Tulare 44.2 71.0 36.1 66.1

Tehama, Glenn, Colusa 36.8 * 30.1 65.7San Bernardino 49.6 68.5 29.6 64.7

Yuba 50.5 62.9 30.9 64San Benito 26.4 58.9 25.6 63.9

Madera 39.9 75.3 37.4 63.8

Note: * Indicates the estimate was not statistically reliable Source: (CHIS 2005)

8


The top four largest cities in California, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and San

Francisco are shown in Table 2 with the percentages of children, adolescents and adults who

drink one or more sodas per day and the percentage of adults in those cities who are overweight

or obese.

Table 2.

Source: (CHIS 2005)

For children and adolescents, being overweight and obese is associated with increased

risk for cardiovascular disease indicators including high total cholesterol, high blood pressure,

and high fasting insulin, an early indicator of diabetes risk. Being overweight and obese as

children means they are more likely to be overweight and obese as adults, according to (Babey et

al., 2009). For adults, overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk for diabetes, heart

disease, stroke, some types of cancer and premature death.

Among the diverse ethnic groups found in California, Mexican-Americans are perhaps

the largest minority group in the state, and perhaps one of the poorest, as well. (Warner, Harley,

Bradman, Vargas & Eskanazi, 2006) enrolled six hundred pregnant women and followed 354

Mexican-American children during a longitudinal study by The Center for the Health

Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas. The initial study lasted from October 1999 to

9

Percentage of Children, Adolescents and Adults Drinking One or More Sodas per Day and Percentage of Adults Who Are Overweight or Obese in the Top Four California

Cities, by Population

City % of Children and Adolescents

Ages 2 – 17 Drinking One or more Sodas per

Day

% of Adults Age 18 and

Over Drinking One or More

Sodas per Day

% of Adults Who Are Overweight or Obese

Los Angeles 51.9 24.8 55.9San Diego 46.2 22.8 54.7San Jose 42.8 21.7 50

San Francisco 36.9 11.5 42.6


October 2000. The women were interviewed twice during their pregnancies (13 and 26 weeks),

shortly after delivery and when the children were 6, 12, and 24 months of age.

During each interview, data was collected about the family, work histories, maternal and

personal characteristics and habits, pregnancy and medical histories, child-based developmental

milestones and diet and behavioral data. At the 24 month follow-up, the standing height in

centimeters and weight in grams were measured. Mothers were asked about how often their

children drank sodas in the past 7 days, they asked how often their children ate fast food or

sweets in the past 7 days, they asked the mothers if they were still breast-feeding, and finally

they asked how many hours their children played outside or watched television or videos.

Overweight was determined at ≥95th percentile of the sex-specific BMI for each child’s

age. At risk for overweight was determined as at or above the 85th percentile, but less than the

95th percentile of sex-specific BMI for age. Their results showed that fifty-five of the children

were overweight (15.5%), and over half (56%) reported consuming any soda in the last week.

The prevalence of overweight children in the cohort is higher than the prevalence reported

(11.1%) for 259 Mexican-American children 2- 5 years of age in the U.S. National Health and

Nutrition Examination Study. These results are higher than those reported for other ethnic groups

(non-Hispanic whites, 10.1%; non-Hispanic blacks, 8.4%). The odds of being overweight

increased more than 3-fold among children who drank at least 1 soda per day. Their findings are

consistent with other similar studies that found an association between sweetened beverages and

being overweight.

This brief examination of the science behind obesity and soda and other sweetened drink

consumption is just the tip of the iceberg. Many more studies exist that show a strong correlation

between drinking soda and sweetened drinks and obesity and being overweight. This paper can

10


only shed some light on what we already know and on what basis health advocates are basing

their calls for slowing down or reversing the national obesity trend. The next section will focus

on the controversy surround the issue of banning the use of the national food stamp program,

SNAP to purchase such drinks, especially for children, since they are most at risk of not only

being obese as children, but as adults as well.

The Controversy

In researching the topic of this paper, I discovered there are actually two controversies,

not one. The first controversy is the subject of this paper; Mayor Bloomberg’s request to conduct

an experiment banning the use of food stamps for the purchase of soda and other sweetened soft

drinks. A side piece to this controversy is the suggestion made by many health advocates and

others, that sodas and other beverages be taxed, not unlike the tax on cigarettes. This suggestion

has been rejected by big beverage and by advocates for the poor for obvious reasons, and has not

been a very popular idea with the general public, in light of the economic and political climate in

recent years. Those who are concerned about the rising rate of obesity in this country are left

with few other options but the one proposed by Mayor Bloomberg, as we shall see.

Since becoming New York’s mayor in 2001, Michael Bloomberg has conducted a

campaign to improve the health and well-being of New Yorkers. Among some of the earlier

efforts he has undertaken have been expanding the city’s ban on smoking to almost all indoor

spaces such as bars and restaurants, banning the use of trans-fats in restaurants, and requiring

restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus (Roberts, 2010). Each of his previous attempts

to improve New York’s health were met with considerable opposition, but he always succeeded

in getting the city council to go along with him.

11


His latest proposal has produced an unlikely alliance in opposition to his plan. Anti-

hunger and anti-poverty groups are working alongside the food industry to fight Bloomberg’s

plan (Hartocollis, 2010). They are taking on the nation’s health czars, including The Center for

Science in the Public Interest and NYS’ influential health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley.

One such organization, the Food Research and Action Center, which is dedicated to fighting

hunger, came out against the idea because in their words, “it would ‘perpetuate the myth’ that

people who use food stamps make bad choices at the supermarket.”

Bloomberg’s proposal has also put a spotlight on an unusual relationship between anti-

hunger groups and the food industry that goes back to the 1930’s as part of an effort to help

farmers distribute surplus farm commodities, as well as helping the poor. This continued up until

the 1960’s when the food stamp program began as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.

Food stamps were designed to enlarge the choices of the poor and hungry, not to limit them to

the most nutritious items; as such alcohol and tobacco are banned.

Bloomberg and the health lobby argue that the diets afforded by food stamps have

become too appetizing. Anti-hunger groups suggest that Bloomberg’s proposal picks up on a

debate that is being thrashed out in Washington over health care and other issues; how powerful

should the federal government be in controlling human behavior? Those opposed to Bloomberg’s

proposal argue they are defending free will and the right to make reasonable adult choices. Anti-

hunger groups fear that banning “bad foods” will lead to cutting the program. Ross Fraser, a

spokesperson for Feeding America, a national network of more than 200 food banks, in an email

stated that “the group has consistently worked with a coalition of other advocacy organizations,

food manufacturers and retailers to oppose efforts to restrict SNAP (food stamp) choice”. The

12


chairman of Feeding America is an executive at Kraft Foods, and other members of the

organization work at ConAgra, Mars, Kroger and Wal-Mart.

In a side note to the on-going discussion over Mayor Bloomberg’s plan, he recently

appointed Cathleen P. Black as his choice for NYC’s schools chancellor (Barbaro & Hartocollis,

2010). Ms. Black sat on the board of directors of Coca-Cola for 18 years, while at the same time;

Coke was one of the biggest and more aggressive opponents of scientists, lawmakers and

educators who tried to sound the alarm on the national obesity trend. Coke unleashed a flurry of

lobbyists, donations and advertising to fight the efforts, and local officials described it as

“bullying” and “unconscionable”.

She also sat on a committee that focused on policy issues that included obesity and

selling soda to children. She was aware of internal debates about Coke’s combative strategy, and

there was no evidence she challenged it. According to Donald McHenry, another member of the

board, “I don’t think we’ve gone to a single meeting in the last two years where we haven’t

discussed that issue.”

Ms. Black resigned from the Coke board the week of November 15th, citing a conflict of

interest. While she was on the Coke board, pressure mounted on soda producers to limit sales in

public schools. This came as a result of the Surgeon General, David Satcher declaring obesity a

national crisis in 2001. In 2003, both California and New York City banned the sale of soft

drinks in elementary and middle schools.

Despite the opposition and criticism over his appointment of a former Coca-Cola board

member to a major position in his administration, Mayor Bloomberg has some valid reasons for

his decision to request a waiver from the USDA. More than 1.7 million people in NYC receive

food stamps. Data from the USDA show that sugary drinks account for 6% of food stamp use

13


nationwide. In NYC, that translates to $75 million or more of subsidized sugary drinks a year

(Hensley, 2010). Figure 3 shows where in the city people drink more than one sugar-sweetened

beverage per day, and where the rates of obesity are the highest.

Figure 3.

Source: (NPR, 2010)

In addition, obesity-related illness costs New York State close to $8 billion in medical costs each year

(Baltimore Sun, 2010).

In applying for the waiver from the USDA, NYC recognized one of the major criticism

leveled against the proposal that banning sodas could stigmatize people who depend on food

stamps, echoing what the anti-hunger groups had said. However, their application acknowledged

that “there are already certain items that cannot be purchased with SNAP benefits, such as

14


alcoholic beverages and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption…The extension of the

list of prohibited items would not create any stigma that does not already exist.”

But perhaps the most powerful argument against the proposal comes from the USDA’s

Food and Nutrition Service itself, whose report, Implications of Restricting the Use of Food

Stamp Benefits (USDA, 2007) listed the following reasons:

1. No Clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.

Federal dietary guidance uniformly applies to the total diet – no widely

accepted standards to judge the “healthfulness” of individual foods.

Foods contain many components that can affect health, and diets contain

many foods. It is challenging to determine whether the presence or absence of

desirable nutrients outweighs the presence of nutrients to be avoided in ruling

a food “in” or “out”.

2. Implementation of food restrictions would increase program complexity and costs.

There are more than 300,000 food products on the market, and an average of

12,000 new products introduced each year between 1990 and 2000.

Responsibility for enforcing compliance would rest in hands of employees at

check-out counters. While many have modern scanning and inventory control

systems, others do not, especially small stores and specialty markets.

New effort would be needed to help participants avoid the rejection of

purchases at the check-out counter.

3. Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants.

About 70% of all food stamp participants who receive less than the maximum

benefit, are expected to purchase a portion of their food with their own

15


money. No guarantee that restricting the use of food stamps would affect food

purchases.

4. No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or

obesity.

No strong research-based evidence to support restricting food stamp benefits.

Food stamp recipients are no more likely than higher-income consumers to

choose food with little nutritional value; thus basis for singling out low-

income food stamp recipients and restricting their choices is not clear.

The report’s conclusion states there are better ways to work towards the goal of healthier

diets that do not require restrictions. The Food and Nutrition Service recommends incentives to

encourage purchases of certain foods or expanded nutrition education to enable participants to

make healthy choices.

This is echoed by a more recent report published in October 2010 entitled, Preventing

Obesity (CQ Researcher, 2010), in which Heather Hartline-Grafton, Senior Nutrition Policy

Analyst for the Food Research and Action Center, in a section called At Issue: Should soda be

excluded from foods food-stamp users can buy?, stated that there are deep flaws in a strategy that

limits consumer choice. She lists seven reasons why this is a flawed strategy:

1. No evidence that SNAP contributes to the current obesity problem.

2. Foods commonly proposed for restriction include sugar-sweetened beverages,

carbonated soft drinks, sweets and salty snacks. Research shows that consumption

of these foods and general purchasing habits are similar, if not better, among

SNAP participants compared to non-participants.

16


3. Trying to control SNAP participants’ use of tax dollars is a slippery slope:

Concerns about public dollars for certain foods could be used to justify purchases

by Social Security beneficiaries, government employees or medical providers

reimbursed by Medicaid.

4. Given the stream of new or reformulated food products, constant updates to the

list of eligible foods would create a logistical nightmare and higher costs for all

consumers.

5. Not only is it unclear how to identify foods for disallowance, doing so would drag

Congress, USDA and lobbyists into political, not scientific “food fights” over lists

of “good” and “bad” foods.

6. No evidence that food restrictions would change purchases or dietary intake.

SNAP consumers could purchase ineligible foods with their own money, since

most only receive partial benefits.

7. Purchasing restrictions would increase stigma and confusion at check-out

counters.

It is clear from the Implications report and the At Issue: section of the Preventing Obesity

report, that the Food and Nutrition Service, the agency that administers the SNAP program and

the anti-hunger groups are working closely with the food industry because every objection they

raise to restricting eligible foods under the SNAP program fits neatly into the desire of big food

and big beverage to sell their most unhealthy foods, soft drinks and snacks to the poor.

Given all we know about the overall health, or lack of it, among the poorest Americans;

shouldn’t the people responsible for ending hunger and providing supplemental food benefits be

more concerned with the overall nutrition and health of their recipients and people they advocate

17


for, rather than giving them carte blanche to eat whatever they want just so long as they are

getting something in their stomachs? Doesn’t it make sense for the federal department that

connects the nation’s farmers with the American people to stress the more healthy food choices

available, rather than acting on behalf of the corn lobby, the sugar lobby and the beverage lobby?

A disconnect exists between the concept of good health through food and nutrition, and

the idea of preventing hunger and starvation. We don’t send Cheese Doodles and Pringles to

third-world starving masses, so why should allow our own citizens to buy the same items with

tax dollars? Shouldn’t benefits be used to buy good food, not junk food?

The second controversy that I mentioned earlier in this paper has to do with the wording

found in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and the wording found on the webpage of the

SNAP program on the USDA’s website. In Section 3 (k), the term “Food” is defined as “(1) any

food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods

or hot food products ready for immediate consumption… (2) seeds and plants for use in gardens

to produce food for the personal consumption of the eligible household”. However, further down

the section, in paragraph (r) (1), the term “staple food: is defined as: Meat, poultry, and fish;

Bread and cereals; Vegetables and fruits; and Dairy products. Clause (2) states that “Staple

foods” do not include accessory food items, such as coffee, tea, cocoa, carbonated and

uncarbonated drinks, candy, condiments, and spices.

When I noticed this in the Act, I looked at the agency’s webpage and noticed that the

agency defined two types of food under the SNAP program, eligible food and ineligible food.

Eligible foods corresponded to the foods listed in the Act under “staple foods”, as well as section

3 (k) (2) where it mentions seeds and plants. Further down the page, soft drinks, candy, cookies,

18


snack crackers, and ice cream were considered food items, and therefore eligible food items

under SNAP. Seafood, steak, and bakery items were also included (USDA, 2010).

I contacted the SNAP program by telephone and left a message for someone to respond

to my inquiry as to why there was a discrepancy between the wording of the Act and the wording

on the website. I received a return phone call later that afternoon from Shanta Swezy (personal

communication, November 12, 2010), a Program Analyst with the SNAP program. I pointed out

to her the differences between the Act and the website, and her response was that the website is

correct. She also told me that her agency could not discuss the matter of New York’s request for

a waiver as well as providing me with a clearer answer to my question because it was under

review. I followed up with an email in which I reiterated my confusion about the website being

correct and the Act also being correct. I told her that both could not be correct. I informed her

that such confusion would make it difficult for me to reach a definite conclusion.

I received a reply back from her on the following Monday (personal communication,

November 15, 2010) in which she pointed out that food that is eligible for purchase with SNAP

benefits [emphasis added] is defined in section 3 (k) of the Act. She also pointed out that the

benefits received by household shall be used only to purchase food [emphasis added] from retail

food stores which have been approved for participation in the SNAP program. I informed her in

my follow-up email that I would contact either my congressman’s office or that of my U.S.

Senator. I called the office of Congressman Ted Deutch and was transferred to his Washington

office and spoke with Ellen McLaren, Congressman Deutch’s Legislative Director. She told me

that this issue may end up in litigation.

19


Conclusion

At the beginning of this paper I said that the issue of banning the use of food stamps to

purchase soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks was contentious, and that is certainly true,

especially since the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service and several anti-hunger and anti-

poverty groups have come out against it. These groups have aligned themselves with the food

and beverage lobby to oppose any effort to restrict food stamp users from buying soda and other

less nutritious foods. Clearly the anti-hunger and anti-poverty groups that have joined forces with

the food and beverage industries do not believe that poor people should eat healthy foods, only

that they have something, anything in their stomachs that will alleviate hunger. When you also

factor in that the Food and Nutrition Service rejects the idea of restricting unhealthy foods for

low-income people, you get a very powerful “cabal” mobilized against anyone who wants to

improve the health and well-being of the poor.

Some of the solutions offered by the Food and Nutrition Service’s report are reasonable,

such as using incentives to encourage purchases of selected foods, however they do not elaborate

as to how that would work. Both the FNS and Hartline-Grafton recommend using food stamps at

farmers’ markets (USDA, 2007; CQ Researcher, 2010), as well as enhancing SNAP nutrition

education. Hartline-Grafton also recommends increasing access to healthy, affordable foods in

underserved communities.

These and many other recommendations are worth considering and implementing,

however, given the state of the US economy and the desire by some to cut federal spending and

eliminate waste and abuse, it may make sense from the point of overall government spending to

insure that tax money is being spent wisely. Yet still the problem remains that the Food and

Nutrition Act of 2008 still defines sodas, candy, cookies, cakes and other bakery goods, and ice

20


cream as eligible food items, while a different section of the Act defines staple foods as not

including those items. Mayor Bloomberg’s foray into this issue has opened up a debate as to

what exactly is meant by the terms “food” and “staple foods” and why there is no agreement that

you cannot have a law that says something is ok, when another part of that law says it is not ok.

That does not make sense, and the fact that it is under review, along with NYC’s request means

that I cannot make a definitive policy proposal at this time.

However, I can offer the following recommendations, that can be considered now or

when the review is completed and a final determination one way or the other has been made.

Here are my recommendations:

1. NYC should be granted a waiver from the USDA to conduct their two-year

experiment. NYC and NYS has a long history of social experiments that have

improved the lives of millions of poor, working class people and immigrants, and

their descendants living today are proof positive of their success.

2. Sec. 3. [7 U.S.C. 2012] (k) must be, not should be, amended to redefine the

definition of “food” to eliminate any confusion and discrepancies between that

subsection and subsection (r) (1) that defines the term “staple foods” as foods in

the following categories:

(A) Meat, poultry, or fish.

(B) Bread or cereals.

(C) Vegetables or fruits.

(D) Dairy products.

Sec. 3. [7 U.S.C. 2012] (k) must also be amended to include the definitions found

in subsection (r) (2).

21


3. All federal food and nutrition programs (SNAP, WIC, SBP, NSLP, etc.) must be

brought in line and all requirements for what constitutes nutritious food must be

uniform.

4. The idea of incentives as recommended in the FNS report should be considered,

once there is a clear understanding of how that would be implemented, also

expanded nutrition education should be adopted, as well as other valid

recommendations.

5. Taxpayers have a right to expect that their tax dollars are being spent wisely; they

must expect that their taxes will not be used to purchase junk food, sodas, and

other unhealthy food products that can damage the health of food stamp users, and

add additional burdens on the taxpayers in the form of higher health care

expenditures.

6. Supermarket chains must be encouraged to provide low income neighborhoods

with concept stores that will provide them with access to a variety of staple foods

and nutritious options to sugary beverages, processed foods and snacks. They

should also provide the same health items found at higher-income stores such as

Whole Foods Market that can be of benefit in improving their overall well-being.

7. There needs to be more minority-owned, minority-run, and minority-centered

supermarkets and grocery stores such as Sedano’s and Fiesta that cater to

particular ethnic groups with nutritious foods from their own culture that comply

with all federal guidelines for good nutrition.

8. The FNS must stop being a captive of the food and beverage industry, and better

and more effective regulation needs to be implemented so that industry and the

22


agency do not work hand-in-hand to undermine the health and well-being of the

poorest and most vulnerable segment of our society.

9. After the review process is completed, states, cities and local municipalities must

be allowed to experiment with any methods they deem necessary to help combat

obesity in their jurisdictions.

10. Congress must ascertain that all laws pertaining to nutrition, whether for adults,

children and infants are interpreted and carried out as intended, and not subject to

arbitrary interpretation by the USDA and its subordinate agencies charged with

the health and well-being of all Americans.

23


References

Apovian, C.M. (2004). Sugar-Sweetened Soft Drinks, Obesity, and Type 2 Diabetes, JAMA,

292(8), 978-979. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.8.978. Retrieved from

http://depts.washington.edu/epidem/Epi591/Editorial%20For%205-27-10.pdf

Babey, S.H., Jones, M., Yu, H., & Goldstein, H. (2009), Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and

Its Link to Obesity in California, UCLA Health Policy Research Brief, Retrieved from

http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/Soda%20PB%20FINAL%203-23-09.pdf

Barbaro, M., Hartocollis, A. (2010, November 16). As Bloomberg Fought Soda, Nominee Sat

On Coke Board, The New York Times, pp. A22, A24.

CQ Researcher Online. (2010). Preventing Obesity, 20(34), 813. Retrieved from

http://library.cqpress.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?

id=cqresrre2010100100&type=hitlist&num=0

Editorial: Our View: New York’s idea to cut down on obesity worth a look. [Editorial]. (2010).

The Baltimore Sun, A.14. Retrieved from chicagotribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/bs-ed-soda-food-stamps-20101011,0,7103138.story

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 – 2012 (2008) Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/PL_110-246.pdf

Hartocollis, A. (2010, October 17). Let Them Eat Broccoli, Week In Review, The New York

Times, pp. 4.

Ludwig, D.S., Peterson, K. E., & Gortmaker, S.L. (2001). Relation between consumption of

sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis, The

Lancet, 357, 505-508. Retrieved from http://www.atividadefisica.pro.br/artigos/

Relation%20between%20consumption%20of%20sugar-sweetened%20drinks%20

24


and%20childhood%20obesity%20-%20a%20prospective,%20observational

%20analysis.pdf

Roberts, S. (2010, November 9). Times Topics online article, The New York Times, Retrieved

from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/

michael_r_bloomberg/index.html

S Hensley. (2010, October 7). New York City Wants to Ban Food Stamps For Sodas [NPR’s

Health Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/10/07/

130399285/new-york-city-wants-to-ban-food-stamps-for-sodas

UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, (2009). Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its

Link to Obesity in California, Fact Sheet, Retrieved from

http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/Bubbling%20Over%20Soda

%20Consumption%20and%20Obesity%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2007). Implications of Restricting

The Use of Food Stamp Benefits. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/

ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program website, Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

Warner, M.L., Harley, K., Bradman, A., Vargas, G., & Eskanazi, B. (2006). Soda Consumption

and Overweight Status of 2-Year-Old Mexican-American Children in California, Obesity,

14(11). 1966-1974. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v14/n11/

full/oby2006230a.html

25

Documents

Banning Soda Under The Snap Program