"It's a huge list": Iowa GOP bill would ban people on food stamps from buying fresh meat — and more

[Stevicus]

"It's a huge list": Iowa GOP bill would ban people on food stamps from buying fresh meat — and more (msn.com)

This is bizarre.

Iowa House Republicans introduced a bill that would place restrictions on the state's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, limiting who qualifies for food assistance and what foods they can buy.

The new bill, House File 3, dictates what the more than 250,000 Iowans who rely on SNAP can or cannot buy at grocery stores, Luke Elzinga, spokesperson for local food nonprofit DMARC told Axios Des Moines.

Some of the proposed restrictions mean that low-income, older, and disabled Iowans who rely on SNAP benefits would not be able to purchase items like fresh meat, white bread, or sliced cheese.

The bill dictates that people can only purchase 100% whole wheat bread, brown rice and 100% whole wheat pasta — no white grains allowed.

Also on the "do not buy list" are baked, refried or chili beans. Instead, recipients must purchase black, red, and pinto beans. Cooking oil, spices, and salt and pepper would have to be crossed off the shopping list, along with soup, and canned vegetables and fruit.

I guess what's weird about this is that this is Iowa, in the middle of America's breadbasket, and Americans always prided themselves on never having a famine or any critical food shortages. And yet, they're acting like we're running out of food and that we have resort to rationing. Can't even have salt, pepper, or soup.

Fresh meats are off the table, as Iowans would only be able to purchase canned products like canned tuna or salmon. Sliced, cubed, crumbled, and American cheese would also be eliminated from SNAP food purchases.

A House subcommittee is in the process of considering the bill, but critics say the WIC program was created for new mothers, pregnant people, and infants, and includes many outdated dietary restrictions.

"WIC is intended for new mothers, pregnant women, and they have pretty antiquated but very old restrictions," state Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell said.

Iowans on SNAP would not be able to buy meat, flour, butter, cooking oil, frozen prepared food," said Luke Elzinga, Chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition. "It's a huge list. Actually it's quicker to list what Iowans would still be able to buy with their SNAP benefits."

Elzinga cautioned that if passed, this bill would be devastating for SNAP recipients.

"I don't think the 39 co-sponsors of this bill know just how restrictive this is, and that it would ban meat," he said. "Under this bill, no ground beef, no chicken, no pork in the state of Iowa. I just can't believe that they knew that was what it was when the bill was introduced."

Another aspect of this is that it would likely cause delays at the supermarket checkout stand, as the cashiers would be required to carry out such restrictions.

 

[ChristineM]

Soilent green on the menu next?

 

[Stevicus]

Soilent green on the menu next?

Possibly, along with sawdust crackers and hardtack.

 

[PureX]

The GOP really just hates people. That's their whole platform, now. "F THE PEOPLE!" seems to be their motto. They openly want to end social security, welfare, public assistance, Medicaid, ... anything that keeps people alive in a world that's choking to death from greed, and they want it stopped.

Let the scum work for slave wages or die in the streets! That's the theme of these new econo-fascists.

 

[Revoltingest]

"It's a huge list": Iowa GOP bill would ban people on food stamps from buying fresh meat — and more (msn.com)

This is bizarre.









I guess what's weird about this is that this is Iowa, in the middle of America's breadbasket, and Americans always prided themselves on never having a famine or any critical food shortages. And yet, they're acting like we're running out of food and that we have resort to rationing. Can't even have salt, pepper, or soup.



Another aspect of this is that it would likely cause delays at the supermarket checkout stand, as the cashiers would be required to carry out such restrictions.

Let's set aside the jerking knees about
Republicans hating poor people, & wanting
them to eat Soylent Sawdust.

Restricting how people on the dole can use the
benefits they receive has some merit.
Is it that you oppose any restrictions?
Or just some of these particular restrictions?

BTW, I don't defend any particular restrictions.
Moreover, there's the question of whether this
is effective if recipients can sell/trade food stamps.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Let's set aside the jerking knees about
Republicans hating poor people, & wanting
them to eat Soylent Sawdust.

Restricting how people on the dole can use the
benefits they receive has some merit.
Is it that you oppose any restrictions?
Or just some of these particular restrictions?

BTW, I don't defend any particular restrictions.
Moreover, there's the question of whether this
is effective if recipients can sell/trade food stamps.

This is pretty bizarre, though. My read on it is that it smacks of half-thought through somewhat good intentions, to be honest.
The OP does provide links that get you to the approved foods list, but it's here more directly in case anyone is interested;

https://idph.iowa.gov/Portals/1/userfiles/104/235_20_Approved Food List 7_1_2021 Final.pdf

The list is a set of 'healthy' food options, so in that sense I can see the intent of this bill, although it feels ridiculously prescriptive, and would either be extremely problematic, or simply ignored.
But the list of healthy foods is a supplemental list (it's not supposed to represent all foods eaten) and is aimed at the following group;

Pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age five are eligible. They must meet income guidelines, a state residency requirement, and be individually determined to be at "nutritional risk" by a health professional.

Source and Further Reading : WIC - Home

To assume that a list of healthy foods prepared for supplemental purposes for pregnant and postpartum women already judged at nutritional risk is good to go as a prescriptive list of foods for a general population on benefits is...well...half-arsed, poorly thought through, and completely lacking in effective planning and communication.
However, I don't see (on initial review) any evidence that this is being done due to hatred of poor people, etc.

 

[Quintessence]

If you're from Iowa, none of this is surprising anymore. What was once a purple state is being strangled by the Death Party.

Last legislative session, they slashed unemployment benefits, making us one of the few states with such reductions. In previous sessions, they destroyed the power of unions for educators which let them at least attempt to bargain for proper salaries. Currently, they are conspiring to outright destroy the public education system by diverting taxpayer money to fund private (Christian) schools. Proposals have been put forth to reinstate the death penalty in the state. Broader immunities were granted to reckless drivers who run over protesters at rallies. And of course, they don't care about women's basic human rights either. Let's add to this a large number of our lakes had such horrific water quality last year there were widespread closures while the governor continues to stick her fingers in her ears and not bother to do anything meaningful about water quality.

The steep decline of this state since the Death Party took over is nothing short of remarkable. And not in a good way.

 

[JustGeorge]

I'm in Iowa. This doesn't really surprise me, and its not the first time I've heard of such a thing. And honestly, these sentiments are shared between GOP and the liberal crowd alike(I think the GOP is just more vocal about it). I think it has to do with a lot of misconceptions about how poor people eat.

I'll be honest, I'd like to see some restrictions. I've been saying this for years, even while I was on Food Stamps myself. I think the ones suggested here are... ridiculous. But, there's no reason why SNAP should cover soda, candy, energy drinks, etc. (Yes, all those things are covered here, though energy drinks depends on the store). Things that are clearly not contributing to nutrition should be bought using personal cash.

Nothing wrong with chili beans, though. Use 'em to make chili, which can be a very healthy dish(if you choose to make it so). And many kids won't touch brown bread. Or brown rice. To restrict to that extent is burdensome.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is pretty bizarre, though. My read on it is that it smacks of half-thought through somewhat good intentions, to be honest.

It's like we share one brain!

 

[JustGeorge]

The list is a set of 'healthy' food options, so in that sense I can see the intent of this bill, although it feels ridiculously prescriptive, and would either be extremely problematic, or simply ignored.
But the list of healthy foods is a supplemental list (it's not supposed to represent all foods eaten) and is aimed at the following group;

Pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age five are eligible. They must meet income guidelines, a state residency requirement, and be individually determined to be at "nutritional risk" by a health professional.

Source and Further Reading : WIC - Home

To assume that a list of healthy foods prepared for supplemental purposes for pregnant and postpartum women already judged at nutritional risk is good to go as a prescriptive list of foods for a general population on benefits is...well...half-arsed, poorly thought through, and completely lacking in effective planning and communication.
However, I don't see (on initial review) any evidence that this is being done due to hatred of poor people, etc.

We're on WIC. It can be fairly difficult to find foods on the WIC list. Yogurt is offered, but we don't take it, because we can't find yogurt that meets WIC standards. Then there's the wonky amounts the grains are approved in... you have to sift through a bunch of products to find the right weights, so it can be divided evenly, so you're not too far under allotment.

I will say its come a long way in the years between my oldest and youngest(oldest is 16, youngest is 4). When my oldest was young, after his infant years(it buys formula), we couldn't use almost anything on WIC, because he had a dairy allergy, and soy/nut milks weren't approved. They have amended that, and people with allergies or other dietary needs can get substitutions.

They've also started yogurt, and approved a small amount of chocolate milk for picky kids who don't drink white milk(like my little guy). They're much more encompassing with cheese selection. It was damned near impossible to find a WIC approved cheese 15 years ago.

If you're from Iowa, none of this is surprising anymore. What was once a purple state is being strangled by the Death Party.

Last legislative session, they slashed unemployment benefits, making us one of the few states with such reductions. In previous sessions, they destroyed the power of unions for educators which let them at least attempt to bargain for proper salaries. Currently, they are conspiring to outright destroy the public education system by diverting taxpayer money to fund private (Christian) schools. Proposals have been put forth to reinstate the death penalty in the state. Broader immunities were granted to reckless drivers who run over protesters at rallies. And of course, they don't care about women's basic human rights either. Let's add to this a large number of our lakes had such horrific water quality last year there were widespread closures while the governor continues to stick her fingers in her ears and not bother to do anything meaningful about water quality.

The steep decline of this state since the Death Party took over is nothing short of remarkable. And not in a good way.

Ugh... that giving public funds to private schools idea really irks me. Reynolds is running this place into the ground. I hate her more than I hated Trump.

 

[Soandso]

Let's set aside the jerking knees about
Republicans hating poor people, & wanting
them to eat Soylent Sawdust.

Restricting how people on the dole can use the
benefits they receive has some merit.
Is it that you oppose any restrictions?
Or just some of these particular restrictions?

BTW, I don't defend any particular restrictions.
Moreover, there's the question of whether this
is effective if recipients can sell/trade food stamps.

Eh... I suppose there's merit, but abuse of 180$ a month on food stamps is pretty low on the scale of concerns for me - especially with the way we neglect our poorest and most vulnerable in this nation. If we are so concerned about abuse of the system, I'd like to see more positive incentives to help people out of their current circumstances rather than to try and kick them down even more

Sure it's cheaper in the short term, but it only serves to make us a weaker nation in the long run, IMO

 

[Revoltingest]

Eh... I suppose there's merit, but abuse of 180$ a month on food stamps is pretty low on the scale of concerns for me....

But it does concern others greatly, especially
those who need that $180 / month.
And we taxpayers want our money to be used
efficiently, & with good incentives.
So the issue is how to regulate the benefits.
(I prefer that regulation be the minimum needed
to accomplish the goals, & not create incentives
that are dysfunctional.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's set aside the jerking knees about
Republicans hating poor people, & wanting
them to eat Soylent Sawdust.

Restricting how people on the dole can use the
benefits they receive has some merit.
Is it that you oppose any restrictions?
Or just some of these particular restrictions?

BTW, I don't defend any particular restrictions.
Moreover, there's the question of whether this
is effective if recipients can sell/trade food stamps.

I disagree. (Of course I disagree -- I'm in Canada. )

People who require social assistance are already suffering from some loss of dignity. Now, how would you like to be checking out a the cashier, and being told -- in front of all those people in line behind you -- "no, sorry, you can't have that...or this, or these, or that..."

To tell the truth, it really does look to me like further punishing (through more belittlement) people the GOP already thinks are some sort of lower species. I think it is despicable.

 

[JustGeorge]

Eh... I suppose there's merit, but abuse of 180$ a month on food stamps is pretty low on the scale of concerns for me - especially with the way we neglect our poorest and most vulnerable in this nation. If we are so concerned about abuse of the system, I'd like to see more positive incentives to help people out of their current circumstances rather than to try and kick them down even more

Sure it's cheaper in the short term, but it only serves to make us a weaker nation in the long run, IMO

I wouldn't mind seeing some compromise... agree to a few restrictions for what can be bought, and take another look at who qualifies for Food Stamps, which hasn't been adjusted here since before Covid(and inflation).

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. (Of course I disagree -- I'm in Canada. )

People who require social assistance are already suffering from some loss of dignity. Now, how would you like to be checking out a the cashier, and being told -- in front of all those people in line behind you -- "no, sorry, you can't have that...or this, or these, or that..."

To tell the truth, it really does look to me like further punishing (through more belittlement) people the GOP already thinks are some sort of lower species. I think it is despicable.

Dignity is wonderful.
But would you pursue it by eliminating all
reasonable regulation of benefit usage?

 

[Soandso]

But it does concern others greatly, especially
those who need that $180 / month.
And we taxpayers want our money to be used
efficiently, & with good incentives.
So the issue is how to regulate the benefits.
(I prefer that regulation be the minimum needed
to accomplish the goals, & not create incentives
that are dysfunctional.)

There was a time in the past when I've had to rely on food stamps myself - it's not fun. Had I not had the support system I did when I needed it, I would probably still be using them right now like many of the friends I had at the time that still do

Efficient use of taxes are a good goal to have, but the more we not only deter people from getting out of their situations but punish them for being there, the more that the situation will fester and worsen. The "abuse" of food stamps is rarer than portrayed from what I've seen myself. That said, all of this experience is subjective and local, so I can't speak on behalf of the folks in Iowa

The issue of food stamp abuse feels like a scapegoat To me, though. Engender fear of rising taxes in people to bring them together against those who are too "lazy" to get a job and work. Given your other posts, I don't think you feel this way - I feel you care about fairness. From the ground level, though, not much feels fair about that situaton. The system is structured against the poorest of the poor, imo

 

[PureX]

It's interesting how the GOP hates big government until it's meddling in someone else's life choices. Then they're all for it! They can't get enough of it. Especially if it's punishing and humiliating poor people. The people least able to do anything about it. To fight back. The GOP just can't do enough kicking down at them!

 

[JustGeorge]

There was a time in the past when I've had to rely on food stamps myself - it's not fun. Had I not had the support system I did when I needed it, I would probably still be using them right now like many of the friends I had at the time that still do

Efficient use of taxes are a good goal to have, but the more we not only deter people from getting out of their situations but punish them for being there, the more that the situation will fester and worsen. The "abuse" of food stamps is rarer than portrayed from what I've seen myself. That said, all of this experience is subjective and local, so I can't speak on behalf of the folks in Iowa

The issue of food stamp abuse feels like a scapegoat To me, though. Engender fear of rising taxes in people to bring them together against those who are too "lazy" to get a job and work. Given your other posts, I don't think you feel this way - I feel you care about fairness. From the ground level, though, not much feels fair about that situaton. The system is structured against the poorest of the poor, imo

Being local, I'll say I've known plenty of people who were on Food Stamps. I only knew one who abused them(by selling them). To be fair, that one person couldn't make ends meet in other ways, which is why she made that choice.

 

[sun rise]

I prefer that regulation be the minimum needed
to accomplish the goals, & not create incentives
that are dysfunctional

Having worked in (for a short time) and seen how it works (your group can't help these fire survivors because they're getting help from us) bureaucracy, to me more than a tiny amount is automatically dysfunctinoal.

Dignity is wonderful.
But would you pursue it by eliminating all
reasonable regulation of benefit usage?

Yes. That's a better alternative than the current system. I could accept that people could not buy booze but otherwise the harm of regulation is greater than the harm of people making bad choices. (I realize that this makes me more libertarian that you are on this point).

 

[fantome profane]

How about we disallow all meat products altogether? And maybe all animal products as well? Force people to live on a 100% vegan diet.