The C is for Crank
In Defense Of Bloomberg's Soda Ban
Readers of lefty and food-related blogs are aware by now that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed barring city residents from buying soda with food stamps. How you feel about this will depend on how far government policy should go to change people's bad behaviors.
Liberal bloggers, including many I admire, believe Bloomberg's proposal is condescending to poor people.
A characteristic example (from a blog I love, btw, and for which I've written)*:
If you're a foodie, you're likely to take the opposite tack: Like cigarettes, booze, and other things you can't buy with food stamps, soda isn't food, and shouldn't be subsidized by the government.
NYT food blogger Mark Bittman sums that argument up succinctly: "We all know soda isn't food. NYC, at least, is backing that up."
Where do I come down? Personally, I believe---as Bittman, Marion Nestle, and other thoughtful food bloggers do---that the government would do better to increase subsidies for fresh fruit and vegetables than to ban specific unhealthy items like soda. And I agree that conservatives look at the correlation between poverty and an unhealthy diet and call it causation, arguing that poor people eat poorly because they're dumb, not because they can't afford better food.
At the same time, though, I support the ban on using food stamps for soda. Governments put restrictions on people's behavior all the time. You can get a motorcycle license, but you can't ride without a helmet; you can get a driver's license, but you have to wear a seat belt; you can be legal drinking age, but you can't swig from a bottle of Jack in the middle of the shopping mall. Similarly, you can get food stamps, but you can't use them to buy beer (or a frozen burrito) at the corner store. A disincentive to buy certain products serves as an incentive to buy other (hopefully healthier) things instead. That's no more social engineering of poor people's lives than seat belt laws are social engineering for drivers.
Yes, we should reform our food system. Yes, government should provide incentives for farmers' markets and fully stocked grocery stores in food deserts, where people have to choose between the McDonald's and the corner store. Yes, we should have a higher minimum wage and better working conditions so they don't have to work two jobs to make ends meet, leaving them with no time or energy to cook when they get home. Yes, we should end subsidies to agribusiness that favor big companies that produce crap like high-fructose corn syrup that makes Americans sick and fat. And yes, we need to improve nutritional education in schools (what used to be called home ec) and school lunches so that kids grow up knowing how to make healthy choices.
But you know what? You can believe all that and still think tax dollars shouldn't be paying for carbonated sugar water (in New York City alone, food-stamp spending on soda amounts to a $75- to $125-million subsidy for the soda industry.) Food-system reform is going to have to happen one step at a time. And barring junk from government-subsidized programs is a small first step.
* For a post on food stamps that I totally agree with, click here.
Liberal bloggers, including many I admire, believe Bloomberg's proposal is condescending to poor people.
A characteristic example (from a blog I love, btw, and for which I've written)*:
Stigmatizing food stamp recipients by suggesting they're too stupid to make the right decisions about what food they should be purchasing is not a good idea for reasons that ought to be self-evident. [...]
In a town where Michael Bloomberg's buddy Donald Trump has become a billionaire and gone bankrupt and become a billionaire again, you'd think there'd be more support for the idea that everyone should have the right to make their own decisions, even if they're lousy ones.
And, frankly, I can think of about a metric fuckton of lousier decisions than consuming a can of soda.
If you're a foodie, you're likely to take the opposite tack: Like cigarettes, booze, and other things you can't buy with food stamps, soda isn't food, and shouldn't be subsidized by the government.
NYT food blogger Mark Bittman sums that argument up succinctly: "We all know soda isn't food. NYC, at least, is backing that up."
Where do I come down? Personally, I believe---as Bittman, Marion Nestle, and other thoughtful food bloggers do---that the government would do better to increase subsidies for fresh fruit and vegetables than to ban specific unhealthy items like soda. And I agree that conservatives look at the correlation between poverty and an unhealthy diet and call it causation, arguing that poor people eat poorly because they're dumb, not because they can't afford better food.
At the same time, though, I support the ban on using food stamps for soda. Governments put restrictions on people's behavior all the time. You can get a motorcycle license, but you can't ride without a helmet; you can get a driver's license, but you have to wear a seat belt; you can be legal drinking age, but you can't swig from a bottle of Jack in the middle of the shopping mall. Similarly, you can get food stamps, but you can't use them to buy beer (or a frozen burrito) at the corner store. A disincentive to buy certain products serves as an incentive to buy other (hopefully healthier) things instead. That's no more social engineering of poor people's lives than seat belt laws are social engineering for drivers.
Yes, we should reform our food system. Yes, government should provide incentives for farmers' markets and fully stocked grocery stores in food deserts, where people have to choose between the McDonald's and the corner store. Yes, we should have a higher minimum wage and better working conditions so they don't have to work two jobs to make ends meet, leaving them with no time or energy to cook when they get home. Yes, we should end subsidies to agribusiness that favor big companies that produce crap like high-fructose corn syrup that makes Americans sick and fat. And yes, we need to improve nutritional education in schools (what used to be called home ec) and school lunches so that kids grow up knowing how to make healthy choices.
But you know what? You can believe all that and still think tax dollars shouldn't be paying for carbonated sugar water (in New York City alone, food-stamp spending on soda amounts to a $75- to $125-million subsidy for the soda industry.) Food-system reform is going to have to happen one step at a time. And barring junk from government-subsidized programs is a small first step.
* For a post on food stamps that I totally agree with, click here.
