© 2010 Nancy Appleton PhD
The Department of Agriculture has made some interesting distinctions about what is an eligible food on the food stamp program and what isn’t. The program prohibits use of the stamps for alcohol and tobacco products along with various non-food items like pet food, cleaning and household supplies. So far so good, that a program intended to make sure poor people have enough nutritious food to eat would bar the use of food stamps to buy what are essentially recreational chemicals with known health consequences.
The list of approved foods is absurd. Soda, ice cream, candy, and cookies are all considered to be food items and can be bought on the program. These foods all have Nutrition Facts labels classifying them as eligible foods. Energy drinks, which are mostly just sugar and caffeine, are an interesting case as the program allows the ones with Nutrition Facts labels into the program, but bars the ones with Supplement Facts Labels. This distinction also means that poor people can’t use food stamps to buy a multivitamin bottle.
I have spent many years lecturing and writing about sugar and its effect on health including increased obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Now that the mainstream science has caught up with the rest of us, you’d think the government would change the law to categorize these foods with alcohol and tobacco.
Unfortunately, this is the government and changing the law requires a lot of uphill effort. Do you know how to make sure that the research that clearly shows sugar is bad for you isn’t drowned out by bogus research paid for by sugar companies? Do you know how to be heard against the millions spent promoting sugar including campaign contributions?
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a local solution by requesting the Department of Agriculture approve the city as a test site for a two-year program that food stamps can’t be used to purchase these sugar-filled foods. Mayor Bloomberg cites scary statistics about how unhealthy people get drinking soda and sugary as a reason to go beyond Federal law governing the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits. Apparently, one in eight New Yorkers has diabetes and 57-percent of adults and 40-percent of children are overweight or obese.
In San Francisco, the solution is far simpler. Mayor Gavin Newsome has ordered that vending machines on city property stop selling sodas and other sugary drinks. This is an easy solution that doesn’t require more than a signature on an order.
These are small steps that may help make people healthier, but I still want to see more effort put into public education. I want to see classes in schools about health and nutrition. Well, small steps are good for now.
Nancy Appleton Books Health Blog 
No way, I don’t agree with this idea that the government should have anything whatever to do with what we eat and drink, in terms of enforcement. That being said, I do think that the FDA should be more forthcoming with information about the dangers of “sugar abuse”.
When we start making laws that govern what people can and can’t do with their health, it invariably results in absurd inequalities. For instance many states have laws that prevent people from smoking in their vehicle with their children present. Yet the same parent can, and often does, fill their two-year-old’s bottle with anything from Coca-Cola to Strawberry Quick! Childhood obesity and diabetes are at epidemic levels in America, and we’re concerned with criminalizing side-stream smoke?! Ridiculous!! And all because people are ignorant of the dangers of sugar.
I live in a state where there are NO laws preventing parents from smoking in their cars or their homes with their children present. Yet, due to the hard work of various organizations like the American Lung Association, none of the parents I know that smoke do so in their homes or their cars. Still, these same parents ignorantly load up their kids with sugar on a daily basis. I am outspoken about the dangers of sugar, but I am just the guy next door, so my argument only goes so far.
Rather than passing laws that they cannot possibly enforce, and criminalizing good people, the government should focus on educating people.
As for food stamps, the fact that those who receive them can regularly spend them on nonessential items, is a testament in favor of the argument that we spend too much on them.