Missouri may be banning steak and seafood from Food Stamp Program

[Chocolate Cake]

What do you think? Too broad for me. What constitutes seafood? Steak? Perhaps it can be set up like WIC that only certain things can be purchased. That makes more sense than banning "steak and seafood".

Differing quotes from the article:



"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."

"I don't see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...steak-and-seafood/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

 

[POOHsie]

I think we should follow these legislators around and publish reports about all the free drinks and dining they get from well-heeled "supporters." I'm so tired of their habit of "poor shaming." Time to examine what these public-paid jerks eat and drink, who pays for it, and how it affects their voting decisions.

 

[superme80]

I am all for limiting to what can be purchased or the amount that can be purchased. Now seafood I don't think should be banned. Premade sushi? Yes it should be banned. If you want to make your own sushi, then you should be able to purchase the ingredients. With cookies and chips I am ok with them limiting to the amount that can be purchased. It is tax money that funds this program. I understand that there are many families that don't abuse the program and purchasing a few treats now and then should be allowed. The family that just purchases junk food should be limited.

 

[LJSquishy]

I am all for limiting to what can be purchased or the amount that can be purchased. Now seafood I don't think should be banned. Premade sushi? Yes it should be banned. If you want to make your own sushi, then you should be able to purchase the ingredients. With cookies and chips I am ok with them limiting to the amount that can be purchased. It is tax money that funds this program. I understand that there are many families that don't abuse the program and purchasing a few treats now and then should be allowed. The family that just purchases junk food should be limited.

I completely agree with this. The programs should be designed to encourage a well-rounded diet without necessarily excluding more expensive items or rare treats. Not all seafood is expensive (you can find cod or Mahi-mahi for under $5/lb) and not all cuts of steak are expensive either. With conventionally farmed chicken breasts running roughly $3/lb (my guess, I buy organic pastured chicken but I hardly buy meat anymore), there isn't a huge price gap between that and cod fillets. I guess ultimately if a family on assistance runs out of money because they bought T-bone steaks then that's their own problem. Hopefully they'll budget better next pay period. But, yes, I do think a structured program with quantity limitations might be beneficial on certain items...it may help teach people on assistance what a healthy diet should look like (lots of variety, limited processed foods).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I am for realistic limitations.

Buying lobster and filet Mignon should not be permitted. Buying inexpensive cuts of fish or red meat--I don't have a problem with it.

I don't see this as shaming. The support is limited and the more expensive things you buy, the less you can afford to buy. If it happens to be an issue, then it needs to be reigned in and managed better. What people do with their own paycheck, regardless of how that income is produced is legally earned, is irrelevant.

I always liked the WIC program as it ensures that appropriate food is purchased and not junk so that nutritional needs are met. I don't know if it is realistic to set food stamps up like that since WIC is essentially a voucher that slows down the check out process as items are confirmed as the correct item listed.

But it is easy enough to code product as food stamp eligible. Setting a ceiling on meat and seafood cost per pound might work. Anything over the threshold would not be payable with food stamps.

 

[teller80]

We have too many laws as it is. A recipient receives xx amount of money a month for food, if they choose to spend it unwisely that's on them.

Would we then start a whole set of bans? Look at all the foods with little or no nutritional value: hot dogs, junk food, lunchables, soda, bacon... Even foods such as plain lettuce - should that be banned in favor of green leafy lettuce? No thanks.

 

[morgan98]

I think there is a very fine line here between being too controlling vs. not making it a free reign to buy whatever you want which increases the appeal of the program. (At least that is the premise of the quote in the article about free food being awesome).

I agree that banning certain items seems ridiculous and I also believe a well balanced diet should include some beef and some seafood. However, maybe a limit of a price per pound or something like that would be better. I know someone is going to mention the difference in cost of living in different parts of the country, but I mean a limit of no meat/seafood more than $7.99/lb should do the trick.

For example, at my Publix, salmon goes on sale for under that once in awhile and there is even cheaper fish than that. You can also get decent cuts of beef for that.

Edited to add: Sorry poster above, I did not read the fact that the cost per pound suggestion was already made.

 

[Dawnlight]

Yes, I think there should be restrictions, just as there already are (pre-cooked lobster is not allowed, fresh is). It is in the interest of not only the recipient, but also the taxpayers, that the food dollars given via food stamps be stretched the most and used wisely.

I do think there should be a certain allowance for non-essential food items, maybe as a percentage of the total amount allotted.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Fish is healthy, and some people are told by their doctors to eat red meat because they need iron, so I don't think a blanket ban is a good idea. I would support a class, though, in order to receive the benefits. In a couple of session, it could cover how to read nutrition labels, how to compare prices on different size items, etc. (Ideally, it would include child care / a program for kids, and even help people with transportation if they could not get there otherwise.)

 

[aaarcher86]

As much as I'd like to police what people on food stamps purchase, I'd rather focus on making a work or school requirement and/or drug testing.

I really don't think most people are buying filet and lobster. It's expensive and they'd be scrimping the rest of the month. That on them. But so ermines the junk food is cheaper and I can understand why they'd buy it to stretch the funds.

 

[daughtersrus]

This makes no sense. There are deals to be had. We eat steak at least once a week. We don't receive food stamps but I consider myself a frugal shopper. There is a local store that will have either rib-eye or NY strip on sale for $3.99/lb every other week. So it would be ok to buy ground beef for $4.99/lb with food stamps but not steak?
Other types of meat are much more expensive. Duck and lamb come to mind.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I think cost per lb restriction makes more sense.

Take deli meats. Those have a pretty high cost/lb these days. Not sure how to make sure to include that and then restrict other stuff.

 

[wvjules]

The amount of money that they can spend doesn't increase with purchasing higher costs foods. So it will not cost the taxpayer any more money. I am for limits on store prepared food (fried chicken, hot food bar, etc) but the rest should be able to be spent however the recipient chooses to do so. If they buy lobster and filet then the food stamps won't go as far and they will learn to better budget it. They won't get more if they run out.

 

[daughtersrus]

I think cost per lb restriction makes more sense.

Take deli meats. Those have a pretty high cost/lb these days. Not sure how to make sure to include that and then restrict other stuff.

If it's in the interest of saving taxpayer money, why allow deli meat at all? It's hard to find anything under $7.99/lb unless it's on sale.


We allow them to use LINK at stores like 7-11 where prices are much higher than a regular store. I understand that stores like this may be the only option depending on where you live and the transportation that you have available. But, if we're going to restrict what they can buy, do we also need to restrict what type of stores they can shop at?

 

[wvjules]

If it's in the interest of saving taxpayer money, why allow deli meat at all? It's hard to find anything under $7.99/lb unless it's on sale.

How is it going to save the taxpayer money? X amount of food stamps is X amount of food stamps whether it is spent on $7.99 deli meat or on $3.99 deli meat, or steak, or seafood, or chicken, or rice, or pasta, etc....

 

[daughtersrus]

How is it going to save the taxpayer money? X amount of food stamps is X amount of food stamps whether it is spent on $7.99 deli meat or on $3.99 deli meat, or steak, or seafood, or chicken, or rice, or pasta, etc....

You're right. I should have said something like the taxpayers getting the most bang for their buck.

I don't think that restricting what can be purchased (besides liquor) is the answer.

 

[Marymom]

In my area, a few food stamp recipients have been known to peddle steaks for cash in the downtown area. I think maybe this is to curb that kind of behavior.

 

[undertheradar]

Until recently, think last 4 years, you could use your card in the casinos in California. Have to put restrictions in place due to others who have abused the system.

 

[mnrose]

I want to know what corporations are doing with my tax dollars. Thank you.

 

[wvjules]

In my area, a few food stamp recipients have been known to peddle steaks for cash in the downtown area. I think maybe this is to curb that kind of behavior.

So food stamps have created steak dealers?