.jpg?1765420988 "Do you agree with banning sugary foods and drinks from Missouri's SNAP program?")
Asked by
ABC 17 News
Do you agree with banning sugary foods and drinks from Missouri's SNAP program?
Yes
No
I'm type 1 diabetic and I need to buy candy to keep myself from dying from hypoglycemia episodes.
Reply
So there is no other way for you to stuff your face with candy than through SNAP benefits? You have no other money available to you? You're that much of a freeloader? If you need sugar for your Diabetes, why don't you make a cup of tea and add 12 teaspoons of sugar in it? Stop being a freeloader.
Just because a person is less fortunate, doesn't mean they must live in misery at all times. The poor can enjoy life too. If they choose to buy themselves or their family a little treat, they are as entitled to do that as anyone else.
Reply
You want to enjoy luxuries, then work for them. Candy and Coca-Cola isn't that expensive. They don't need to fall under the category of SNAP. Keondre and her 8 kids (from 7 different men) don't need to feast on 7-UP and Skittles.
If you look at the cost of less processed goods, you’ll see that you get much less bang for your buck. You spend more and get less whe. You eliminated the processed goods. Rather than hurt the consumer, the focus should be on making these processed foods healthier. This makes sense to parents.
Reply
I don't have the right to decide what poor people get to eat. Just because we give poor people money for food doesn't give us the right to take away their freedom of choice. They decide what to put into their bodies, not us. It's their bodies, their choice!!!
Reply
The poor/lower middle class aren't the problem, it's the billionaires. Prior to Reagan and trickle-down (Voodoo Economics) the bottom 90% of the population held about a third of the wealth and the 0.7% about 7% .... fast forward to today and the top 0.7% have MORE wealth than the bottom 90%!
Reply
Why do we need to control people in our society? Sometimes the only way a child can get a little treat is if their parents can use a little bit of the benefits to buy something a little special.
Reply
You are right. Government should not control people. It should not afford luxuries for people as well. SNAP's purpose is to make sure people (including children) have food, and that food be nutritious. SNAP isn't for Wanda and her 8 kids to be able to buy Doritos, Skittles, and 7-UP.
Mindful what we call 'treats'! Illness producing, ultra processed 'treats' are literally a sickening way to 'treat' our kids. A handful of delicious blueberries, is a treat. Banana slices spread with peanut butter is a treat. A handful of Skittles & a diet soda is not.
No one should be banning sweets from SNAP or any other program. This is just a way of controlling people and what is available for them to eat. What is next? MILK?
Reply
FYI after we don't need milk after childhood. Calcium Sources: Leafy greens (kale, broccoli), tofu, beans, fortified orange juice, nuts, and seeds
Grapes dipped in peanut butter are a snack. So are spoonfuls of yogurt mixed with chopped fruit, plopped onto parchment paper with a popsicle stick stuck into ea & frozen. Dip in melted chocolate optional! As is chia seed pudding. All cheaper than prepackaged, ultra processed snacks & far healthier.
42 million people get an avg. of $178 per month of food that is paid for by the other 295 million Americans that work for a living.
Because it directly affects disabled and vulnerable populations, people with arfid, People who are trying to buy birthday cakes for their children, people who have disabilities who cannot easily make foods, people who have autism who have safe foods, people with diabetes. It's not right to police us
Reply
No because there are a lot of people that need those sodas those candies whatever for reasons like oh I don't know to raise their blood sugar up when it gets super low. It's such a misconception and some more false narrative bullshit by these dumbass Republicans like Mike kehoe and Donald Trump.
Reply
1. SNAP does not provide enough funds to allow them to buy healthier foods. 2. Food deserts do not have enough options for people to chose healthy foods. 3. It's no one's business what others eat. Mind your own household.
Reply
I feel the same way towards this as vegetarianism. By all means we should worry about what people eat after we feed more people. The point of the program is to eliminate its necessity not limit its accessibility
Reply
The government has no business telling people what they can and can't eat. Simple
Reply
do the 61% yes voters refrain from sugary products?? if so remove all the products they say that shouldn't be available to snap completely from the market. or only the rich deserve....?
Reply
I think these kind of things put an undue burden on grocers. They cost more than they are worth
Reply
What is this nazi germany? Whats next? Hot dogs? Cheerios? Salt? Poor kids deserve birthday cake too. People should be treated fairly snap or no snap. If sugar is so bad then have it removed from all food. Gezzzz fdt
Reply
SNAP money should (i) serve basic nutritional needs, not empty food and (ii) should help farmers, not companies making empty caloric food.
Replyif taxpayers are paying then should require healthier eating for better health in long term
ReplyOur taxes shouldn’t be paying for other people’s junk food.
ReplyThe United States has one of the highest rates of Type 1 diabetes incidences and high prevalence , around 1 in 6. Diet and being active, which most of us can do does wonders, whether on SNAP or not, most of us would benefit from consuming less sugar and taking the stairs.
ReplyThe purpose of SNAP is to provide food-purchasing assistance to low- and no-income individuals and families, helping them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It should not be used for anything else.
ReplyCurbing sugary foods & drinks significantly decreases chronic illness, which saves tax $$ on health care. The healthier our food choices, the healthier we are. Healthier = happier.
ReplySugary foods are not a necessity. The US has an obesity crisis that is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. I like the sugar tax that Europe is using to help pay for the government health care costs related to junk food consumption.
ReplySugary food is not essential. SNAP is for people who need to eat food they need not to go hungry. More healthy choices are beneficial for all.
ReplySo taxpayers are 100% funding SNAP and those benefits should be used properly. If SNAP recipients use benefits to buy soda, candy, cake, and other sugary products, we, the taxpayers will also be funding their healthcare for diabetes and other chronic ailments. Enough is enough.
ReplyPeople on SNAP may have a proclivity for unhealthy eating. Just as SNAP can't be used for cigarettes and alcohol, it shouldn't be wasted on surgery sodas and unhealthy snack foods.
ReplyI'm in favor of eliminating the entire snap program.
ReplyRestricting sugary items ensures taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits support public health goals by encouraging the purchase of more nutrient-dense foods, thereby combating diet-related diseases.
ReplyNo reason for SNAP to add to the bad eating habits. Stick to necessary nutrition.
ReplyThese types of food are not necessary and should focus on essential foods only.
ReplyNo place in a nutritious diet!
ReplyLet's have some common sense health reform and get back to the basics of making healthy and affordable food available to all.
ReplySugary foods and drink are not necessary in an healthy diet, which was the original intendent purpose of the program. You want snacks food and junk food, go work. SNAP need to resort back to the old food stamp rules. Again, don't like it, then go to work.
ReplySugary foods do not sustain a healthy body. You wind up gaining fat - yes that is a weight - , decaying teeth, addiction to sugar. Add all the salt that goes along with that and there is very little nutrition to fuel your brain and the rest of your body.
Replydiabetes is epidemic in the U$ - thanks to sugar being in everything...
Reply