A recent study by Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity looked at purchases by WIC participants in Massachusetts and Connecticut before and after WIC rules changed in 2009 to discourage the purchase of whole-milk products, processed bread, and white rice. Researchers found participants bought significantly more whole-grain bread, brown rice, and reduced-fat milk and far less white bread, whole milk, cheese, and juice.
While half of all infants and a quarter of all children under 5 in the U.S will be on WIC at some point, it is dwarfed by SNAP, which reaches more than 47 million people. Several small projects have shown that SNAP could be used to fight obesity, but they are expensive. Changing SNAP rules to copy WIC food restrictions would be the broadest, cheapest approach, but the politics are complicated, says New York Times editorial writer Tina Rosenberg. It’s not just that SNAP participants are an enormous market for soda and junk food. Big Soda has unusual allies. “There are people in the anti-hunger community who support a soda tax in general because it affects everyone, but they oppose banning soda from SNAP because it affects only poor people,” said Marlene B. Schwartz, director of the Yale Rudd Center. “Their philosophical argument is, if it’s the right thing to do for everyone, then make it for everyone.”
Source: New York Times, 11/16/13, SNAP & Obesity I
On the other hand, “a growing body of research suggests a protective effect of SNAP participation on obesity risk," according to the Food Research and Action Center. One study, for example, found that poor people in Massachusetts receiving benefits for six months had lower body mass indexes than people receiving benefits for shorter periods of time. A study in New York City found food insecurity increased body mass only in women not receiving food assistance. And a national study found that food-insecure adults over age 54 receiving benefits were less likely to be overweight than non-beneficiaries.
Source: Huffington Post, 11/13/13, SNAP & Obesity II
Imposing SNAP restrictions means expanding costly, government bureaucracy, and meanwhile, won’t improve health and reduce obesity. We agree with the USDA’s position on this topic: ‘’incentives – rather than restrictions – that encourage purchases of certain foods or expanded nutrition education to enable participants to make healthy choices are more practical options and likely to be more effective in achieving the dietary improvements that promote good health.” Indeed, education rather than regulation, will prove to be a more effective approach to changing behaviors that lead to healthier lifestyles over the long term.
ReplyDelete