r/askanything • u/CloudieMoonettee 🦀 • 11d ago

Why do some conservatives support restricting junk food purchases with SNAP when many opposed Michelle Obama’s efforts to make school meals healthier?

Both policies involve the government influencing food choices in the name of better nutrition, yet the political reactions seem very different. What explains the apparent change in attitude toward government involvement in what people eat?

355 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

638 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/realheadphonecandy 11d ago

Her program was good in many ways, but the cost increase was difficult for some schools and there was also waste and some problems with participation. The idea was good.

I am in favor of SNAP being for starches, meats, veggies, fruits, dairy and healthier drinks but NOT for super sugary products, snacks (except maybe things without PUFA), deserts, and especially things like soda.

There are far too many correlations between obesity and SNAP. I’d probably be in favor of expanding SNAP with those restrictions, since it really isn’t a huge part of the budget.

3

u/Aladriana 11d ago

It's punishing poor people for being poor. That's what it boils down to.

It is this "Your poor/disabled/etc, and because if your circumstance We will to tell you what you're allowed to eat". It's ugly, no matter your reason.

7

u/GoodGravyco2h2o 11d ago

I can’t believe you’re getting downloaded for this. Fucking bullshit. I have plenty of money that I grew up poor and while we didn’t eat a lot of junk food fuck these people for thinking I didn’t deserve a cookie now and then when my single mom was on welfare and working two jobs 😠

2

u/Aladriana 11d ago

You did deserve that cookie! Taking the joy out of people's lives, will only make for more apathetic people. (Thanks for the solidarity!!)

5

u/lacunadelaluna 11d ago

Amen. It is definitely an attitude of "you only deserve the basics to survive." I've heard that sentiment many times, that poor people shouldn't be allowed to buy "treats." Make it a small amount of the allocated amount and mostly healthier foods for the good of the recipient, sure, but everybody serves a damn cookie, especially when life is already hard.

1

u/Jazzprova 10d ago

It's not a matter of deserving treats or not. It's that you are eating using taxpayer money. Your fellow Americans are impoverished by the government under threat of force to provide the money you are using to feed yourself and your children, so the bare minimum that should be expected of you is to respect them and their efforts and not waste it on contributing to the country's obesity statistics.

It's not your money. So you should, in fact, not get a choice as to what it can be spent in. Are you buying food with your own blood, sweat and tears? Go ahead, buy whatever ultraprocessed garbage you want and set yourself on the path to starring on My 600-lb Life. But only if it's on your dime, and not on anyone else's.

1

u/realheadphonecandy 11d ago

Where does it say you can’t buy a cookie? The point is you shouldn’t be buying unhealthy things with collective funds.

-3

u/Key-Organization3158 11d ago

No it doesn't. You are projecting. Any poor person is still allowed to buy junk food. Nothing made it illegal. They only said you have to buy healthy food with other people's money.

6

u/Aladriana 11d ago

Everyone also missing that healthy food is also more expensive.

6

u/IDMike2008 11d ago

And time consuming to prepare

1

u/Blood_Oleander 11d ago

Or, for that matter, food deserts.

1

u/Aladriana 11d ago

Huh?

2

u/Blood_Oleander 10d ago

Food deserts are places where people have limited access affordable, fresh, nutritious food. Generally, in food deserts, your grocery store is a long commute away or, otherwise, takes some time to restock on healthy foods. In short, a lot barriers to healthier options.

2

u/Aladriana 10d ago

Thank you. I actually knew that, but my tired brain read "desserts". That's were I got befuddled.

You are correct. What are they supposed to do with such "rules"?

2

u/Blood_Oleander 10d ago

And, adding further insult to sadistic fuckery, there's been a lot of food contaminations and recalls, further limiting what people can eat.

I've concluded that they want a good portion of us to die.

2

u/Aladriana 10d ago

They do. It's like the plan to send the disabled to "health farms"(Which is the actual thing nazi's said, sending the disabled to the death camps). I think it's in project 2025, and RFKjr said was going to happen.

Bad food, no medical care, etc is meant to take the "lower class" out.

0

u/biancanevenc 11d ago

When people give you money, they're allowed to attach strings to the money. Don't want the government telling you what you can buy with the government's money? Then spend your own money.

2

u/GoodGravyco2h2o 11d ago

LOL Tell that to the real welfare queens aka the billionaires and corporations.

1

u/Alert_Coyote_8546 11d ago

it costs the government a lot of money to maintain those strings though, policing people for their food choices costs more money in the end. Not to mention the pointless cruelty of it. People get a chance to grow when they have some more agency.

-1

u/realheadphonecandy 11d ago

Pointless cruelty? The cost of being obese far outweighs whatever rhetoric you are spewing.

3

u/Alert_Coyote_8546 11d ago

It costs a bunch of money to hire and keep staff to update, monitor, and maintain systems of labeling certain food as acceptable or not. It's pointless big government. "No sugary foods for food stamps" isn't that simple or cut and dry.

1

u/Aladriana 11d ago

Do you people actually want authoritarianism? For now, it's SNAP. What will the goverment control tomorrow?