We all want healthy lunches for our kids — so why the partisan food fight?
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Where’s the beef?
Foods purchased with SNAP would have to meet nutritional standards based on sugar, fat, and salt content. In structure, the bill is strikingly similar to the Obama-era reforms. The only real difference is whose name is on it.
The same people who supported Michelle Obama’s restrictions now vehemently oppose nearly identical measures from Trump. Meanwhile those who once denounced government interference now applaud the idea when framed as a conservative reform. Each side accuses the other of not caring about poor children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as “healthy” food, unless their politician is doing the dictating. Party comes first, safety second, liberty somewhere further down the list.
Some liberals now argue that children deserve a treat — that SNAP should not limit junk-food purchases at all. But SNAP has always been regulated. In most states, fast food, hot deli meals, vitamins, alcohol, and tobacco have long been prohibited. WIC is even more restrictive to ensure mothers receive high-quality, protein-rich foods.
SNAP decision
Government aid will always come with rules. Whether it should include “treats” is a matter of personal philosophy. SNAP already provides incentives to buy fresh produce at farmers markets. Families can still make simple desserts within existing guidelines.
And any parent can spend a dollar on an occasional donut or soda if that is truly important to them — while still ensuring that children have reliable access to nutritious meals funded by taxpayers, who can rest easier at night knowing we are ensuring a better future for children.
Reasonable readers at this point should be asking themselves what they, as voters, really care about when it comes to policies like this. Would any of this be a discussion if voters thought less about who was in office? We all should be asking ourselves what it is we truly value and act accordingly.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — who in March introduced a similar, and in some respects even broader, bill of his own — put it this way:
“It makes no sense that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund an epidemic of obesity and diet-related illness in low-income communities. My bill ensures that this assistance program actually supports health and wellness, not chronic disease.”
His words sound eerily interchangeable with what Michelle Obama was saying 15 years ago. It makes one wonder if perhaps we don’t need to bicker over politics as much as we do. Maybe our differences aren’t as pronounced as we think — at least when it comes to the health of American children.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.