Bloomberg's Food Stamp Soda Ban Seems DOA

The raging debate about whether Mayor Bloomberg should or shouldn't try to stop poor people from using food stamps on soda seems to be missing an important point: It's quite likely this is never going to happen, because it seems the United States Department of Agriculture lacks the authority to approve such a change. Federal law is very specific about what can and cannot be bought with food stamps, and any exemption from these guidelines would require Congressional approval. And since most politicians are in the pocket of the beverage industry, it looks like poor Joe Sixpack (of Jolt) will be buying soda with food stamps for the foreseeable future.

Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, says Congress has considered adding restrictions to food stamps before, and decided against it. He tells the Times, "What you can purchase and not purchase in the food-stamp program is described in extraordinary detail by federal law." In fact, the definition of what constitutes a valid food item hasn't changed since 1977, and includes "any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption." To this day you can blow an entire stack of food stamps on Nerds and Spree and not even Mayor Bloomberg can do a damn thing to stop you.

In rejecting a proposal from the state of Minnesota to limit purchases of junk food with food stamps, the Department of Agriculture decided "that food-stamp rules would be inconsistent across state lines, and that it would perpetuate a stigma that food-stamp recipients are not capable of making buying decisions," according to the Times. But Robert Doar, the city’s human resources commissioner, argues that the New York proposal is different because Bloomberg is just seeking a two-year “waiver” to study how a ban might alter the eating habits of food-stamp recipients. Would they use the extra food stamps to buy more fruit and vegetables, or just spend it all on carbonated water, sugar, and food coloring to make their own artisanal sodas? We may never know.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on October 8, 2010 3:54 PM

Comments [rss]

John Clavis

"Don't let them eat cake."

herbgardens

Sure! Eat cake! Just make it yourself. You can save money by getting all the ingredients and making your own cake rather than buying a box mix. Sure, it seems like it is cheaper, err- less expensive, but .99 cents for a box of fake cake is nasty and a one time dessert. A bag of flour and the other few ingredients it takes to make your own cake, will taste better and you can get a ton MORE desserts out of even a 5 pound bag of flour.

Christina Berg

So its not about health then, after all fried chicken is just oil.

John L

Bloomberg doesn't seem to understand that he's only the Emperor of NYC and cannot change federal laws at will, they way he changes NYC's laws.

inoyourider

Why shouldn't government be able to stipulate what welfare can and cannot buy?

It's bad enough we have to support these losers, at least they could use some sense when spending our money.

Christina Berg

Calling 20% of all Americans losers, makes you lose credibility.

jaycjay

"Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger"

"Berg"? So even non-profit executives are now doing the one-name thing? I think he could have picked a better one, given where he works. Even if he wants to keep it at just four letters, I'd suggest "Pang".

JacqueMehoff

of course, this is all a PR stunt to gauge people's reactions and that it did. much like the "welfare Queen" with the Cadillac and fur coat buying steak and lobster.

yeah, and bloombag still hates poor people.

Christina Berg

Sort of, but not exactly, its a nutrition debate, but its arrogance, initially bloomberg wanted a soda tax.

PKMKII

If Bloomy really wants this effort to get off the ground, he should enlist the health insurance industry's help. Now that they can't save money by dropping coverage for people who actually need medical treatment, they're going to have to find another way to save money.

theboneranger

Like people have pointed out, there are other non-carbonated drinks that are just as sugary as soda that wouldn't be banned under Bloomie's proposal.

This was a PR move and its mission has been accomplished.

The people who are for this kind of thing will love Mayor Mike for trying. He might win more fans among the indifferent though this kind of thing. And those that can't stand him will hate him either way.

I like him.

bobchadwick

The difference is that milk and fruit juices have nutritional value, while soda has none.

Speaking of soda, I'm going to go grab a Dr Pepper.

Christina Berg

No, its just politics, politicians cannot imagine banning and taxing fruit juice even though its basically sugar and water. does vitamin water have nutritional value?.

CaptainMXC

Gallon (128oz) of Milk $2.99-3.99

59-64oz of OJ $3.99-5.00

64oz Apple Juice $1.99-3.99

etc etc

Now compare these drinks that would have been banned:

2L soda $.99-2.00

64oz SunnyD $1.00-2.50

64oz Hawaiian Punch $1.00-1.50

64oz of Tropicana Fruit Cocktails $1.25

Looks to me that Bloomberg wants to punish the poor for being poor. Do you really think that if Orange juice cost the same as soda that they would still drink soda? Hell no! I saw several people making this argument (which I consider an intelligent one) and the response to it was "Well if they can't afford to buy Milk etc, then they can drink water". GREAT! Make the poor second class citizens! If they can't afford nutritional drinks then they should just have water! Nice way to treat your fellow man aholes!!! Now they want people on foodstamps to live like the people we give aid to in Africa- rice and water right?

Some people mentioned how when they were poor all they got was government cheese etc. Guess what? I think poor people would love gov't cheese. The supermarkets in NYC abuse the foodstamp system. Borden Cheese 16 slices are 3.29 factory labeled. I accidentally grabbed an unlabeled but identical pack and it rang up $5.99. Why are we continuing to try to force a healthy lifestyle on the poor without giving them reasonably priced food options. Why is it $4/lb for poor quality chuck beef? How is that going to stretch? Can you understand why someone would buy a can of chef boyardee instead? And most food goes bad in a day around here. When i buy milk, I don't even have enough time to use it before it is stale. it's not right! I've overheard grocery employees speak about relabeling the expiration dates on food. Good grief!

I understand the people who get angry when they see people buying snacks and junk at bodegas on foodstamps. And politicians pay for hookers with government funds. People are abusing the system everywhere. You can't penalize everyone for the mistakes of few. If that's the case, then we would have to remove the system entirely.

I try to buy juice on sale. It's the best chance I have to get something. I hate soda. Besides the fact that it tastes awful, is empty calories, and very fattening...it is completely unrefreshing!

Most people now a days DO NOT know how to cook a home meal if there life depended on it. So we create a nanny state and say "You can't buy junk food"...then what? Is that going to magically teach them over night how to make a good dinner?

The US is screwed up. Family values are out the window. And I don't mean "Christian family values"...I mean sitting down and eating a well cooked meal together...know how to take care of your home and children whether you are male or female. Knowing how to shop in bulk and use coupons. Working hard and playing hard.

And to the idiot who doesn't know the difference between foodstamps and welfare...go away...please...people with full time jobs sometimes are still getting foodstamps. If you can call 48 million people losers...that makes you a bigger one.

Sorry for the rant. The government thinks they can legislate human functionality. That's BS. Why not just put chips in our heads and make us robots so we go to work, come home, make food, see 1 primetime show and then go to bed at 10pm. Sure, why not...

Christina Berg

Agree, but let's get facts straight, if family cooks shrimp scampi, fried chicken, and mac n cheese, its junk food but its all staple food, right? Juice is just as bad as soda, sugar and water, just look at the la times article (not a endorsement of the paper)
, yet politicians cannot imagine taxing it or demonizing it, coca cola probably has the same or less amount of sugar and costs less as juice.

rdayk

Wait a minute, I drink only water, and I'm not even poor. I just don't want to destroy my health. There is nothing unhealthy about water and I don't understand why people are arguing that poor people shouldn't have to resort to drinking water. It is not cruel to expect poor people to drink water (or at least, not subsidize them drinking soda). Water is what we were meant to drink! If you really want to stretch your food stamps, why buy any beverage but milk? Juice is also high in sugar - it's better to eat the whole fruit. Yes, I know fruit is expensive. But you could get a few apples or oranges for the cost of the two liters of soda, that's a more nutritious option.

As far as poor people being too helpless to learn how to cook, again, this is not the government's fault. I taught myself to cook, back when I *was* poor and had to make food money stretch. It is not rocket science. If you don't know how to do something, it's not the government's fault if you are too lazy to learn.

Before anyone replies that I am middle class and therefore it's easier for me to cope with drinking plain water or learning a new skill, that is nonsense. I wasn't always middle class and when I was poor, it was even more motivation to not waste money on soda or junk food when water and home-cooked food were healthier and cheaper options.