My Medpage feed offered up this headline: "Let's Stop Subsidizing Obesity." I thought I would find an argument over the continued financial support for sugar and corn. Then, I caught the subhead, “Government benefits should only be spent on nutritious foods.” Let’s consider their argument.
We shouldn't let politics, on either side of the aisle, distract us from talking about food distribution and how to help small, rather than large, American business.
A new proposal for changing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has riled up people for several reasons — some of which are likely sound. But one complaint certainly isn't: The idea that SNAP participants would be shabbily treated because their food boxes would include canned items. That's because there's nothing wrong with them.
Does getting food assistance from the federal SNAP program mean that people improve their diets? Not so much — at least according to recent nutritional research. Is it even reasonable to expect it to do so?
The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. or SNAP, has successfully addressed food security – but it hasn't helped improve the diets of at-risk consumers. But now, the availability of online sales provides an opportunity where data and consumer feedback can be used to improve food choices for those facing significant health problems.
How do we get people to make better food choices — to decrease the amounts of calories, fat and sugar in their diets? A new study examined the potential of restricting "unhealthy" food choices vs. incentivizing "healthier" choices, to influence purchasing practices of low-income Americans. The upshot: Both can work, especially in combination.