tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.comments2024-02-03T07:12:06.620-05:00U.S. Food Policyusfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comBlogger1963125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-85319561019726869162021-09-16T06:06:21.988-04:002021-09-16T06:06:21.988-04:00Thanks for this post. Multivitamins and minerals a...Thanks for this post. Multivitamins and minerals are essential for every age people. While choosing <a href="https://aplusbsupplements.com/" rel="nofollow">best dietary supplements</a> for the whole family I think we must read this post once.A+B Supplementshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02313460615610441162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-75956251332977566302020-02-26T08:18:30.111-05:002020-02-26T08:18:30.111-05:00ThanksThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-80289680665645185402019-10-02T22:27:19.151-04:002019-10-02T22:27:19.151-04:00If "highest scores" are given to pharmac...<br />If "highest scores" are given to pharmaceutical trial, perhaps it is these trials are administered and data is collected and analyzed with more rigor and safeguards for potential conflicts of interest than are dietary studies (of any sort). We get very exercised if we think a drug company may take advantage of the scientific process to bias results in their favor, and drug trials are designed to prevent such advantage being taken. <br /><br />We have no such safeguards in place for academic departments who may take advantage of their control over a dataset to bias studies released using that dataset in favor of the theory that they champion. Nor do we ask the groups who administer a dataset to have their results analyzed by a third, outside party (as is often the case in drug trials). <br /><br />Ideological conflicts of interest are as real and powerful as financial COIs. In the virtually theory-less land of nutritional epidemiology of chronic disease, what variables epidemiologists include or exclude from a model may be treated as “self-evident,requiring no analysis, or else simply a matter of idiosyncratic inspiration (or ideological proclivities)"(Krieger, 2011). Why shouldn't those studies receive much lower ratings than pharmaceutical trials? <br /><br />For that matter, if we agree that the "best available" evidence is nevertheless quite weak, why issue guidance on meat consumption at all? <br /><br />From Marantz, Bird & Alderman, 2008, which also called for higher standards of evidence for dietary guidance: "...when adequate evidence is not available, the best option may be to<br />issue no guideline."FYFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18427878463169469269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-31993253706898568192019-10-02T16:01:04.810-04:002019-10-02T16:01:04.810-04:00I acknowledge both of your points.
First, made a...I acknowledge both of your points. <br /><br />First, made a slight edit to the sentence about grading system (and as always noted the edit). There is more to the story than I had time to explain. Critics have said the new articles used a protocol that screened out some studies that would have scored higher, and then dinged the remaining studies for not scoring higher.<br /><br />Second, the evidence may be the best available and yet I can understand why you prefer to call it weak. I think the new articles stung more for researchers who overstate the confidence in nutrition science evidence, but it doesn't sting for me because I've long understood and bluntly explained the shortcomings.usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-65772746235226678632019-10-02T15:51:58.001-04:002019-10-02T15:51:58.001-04:00"Citing research guidelines that originally w..."Citing research guidelines that originally were designed for pharmaceutical trials, they rate most of the available evidence in any direction as weak." Please provide a reference for this statement, as it seems, at face-value, to be inaccurate according to the GRADE system itself. <br /><br />The GRADE system rates clinical trials (which is what pharmaceutical trails would be) as "high-quality evidence" to begin with, but downgrades it according to specific flaws. The GRADE system also rates observational trials (which immediately includes something other than "pharmaceutical trials") as "low-quality evidence to begin with, but upgrades it according to specific criteria. Why would the developers of the system create a system that includes how to rate observational studies, if the system was designed to *only* evaluate clinical trials? <br /><br />Some observational studies do include tracking use of pharmaceuticals, see for instance observational studies that tracked HRT use to find whether it reduced CVD in postmenopausal women. And, as the developers of GRADE note, many women might have been saved from poor health outcomes if a better system for developing guidance for individuals from weak observational data had been used in that case. <br /><br />For that matter, the Nurses Health Study was originally designed to track contraceptive use. I guess, according to your logic above, we should disregard all studies that use the NHS data regarding diet-chronic disease relationships because the original purpose of the study was not to investigate diet and chronic disease, but to follow women using a pharmaceutical intervention. <br /><br />And, for that matter, "most of the available evidence" relating diet to chronic disease *is* weak, in any direction. It is time the public knew that. FYFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18427878463169469269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-16824146043486036062018-06-15T10:52:47.079-04:002018-06-15T10:52:47.079-04:00My use of corn as an example didn't reflect as...My use of corn as an example didn't reflect as much criticism as you think. Let's break this argument into its component parts. I have a point to share about trade, and I think you were unwilling to hear it, because my choice of illustrative example foods triggered your unreasonable fury. I'm willing to explain my point about trade, using whatever example of healthy diets is persuasive with you. If you dislike "nebulous concepts and phobias" as a guide to the healthfulness of foods and diets, then do you prefer scientific summaries of the balance of evidence on these issues? That would be a sensible position for you to take. Alternatively, perhaps you are just impossible to satisfy and will dance and dodge uncomfortably about any discussion at all about healthy diets?usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-65668412702345645932018-06-12T11:27:03.961-04:002018-06-12T11:27:03.961-04:00OK, I reviewed your link and encountered a second ...OK, I reviewed your link and encountered a second heaping helping of nebulous overwrought angst over the (conspicuously unspecified) "nutritional quality" of foods, some esoteric hand-wringing over food availability with only a tangential mention of price and a rather sinister (and snobbish) reference to "desirability of food". Seems there's some underlying unwritten rule that abundant, safe, affordable modern foods produced by modern corporations commonly found in global commerce are, apart from a food safety standpoint, inherently "unhealthy". Sadly, no explanation, no examples and no defense of this all too popular notion except for the predictable misty allusion to obesity, etc.<br /><br />Obviously, Parke, you place corn in this dubious category of "unhealthy". I noted that your linked reference chose different food categories, didactically went off on meat, dairy products and "processed foods" (the most feared of all gustatory boogiemen!). Of course there was the obligatory contempt for "global food processors", naming names but neglecting to specify their failings. We must simply assume they are evil through and through, I suppose.<br /><br />I'm no fan of unregulated no-holds-barred commerce and trade. Food safety hangs in the balance. But when we're reduced to quibbling over the "desirability" of foods in trade and invoking nebulous concepts and phobias to advise trade regulators, well Parke, that's when I begin to lose my temper. And that makes me cuss. You are welcome to shrug off sincere response as "bluster", Parke, if that makes you feel better. That won't improve your prospects, however. Just ask Hillary how that worked out for her. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-30695278438593984572018-06-11T15:37:22.135-04:002018-06-11T15:37:22.135-04:00Hi Anonymous.
Let me start with your question, &...Hi Anonymous. <br /><br />Let me start with your question, "And who ever suggested that the purpose of trade barriers is to control the nutritional status of any nation?" <a href="https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1744-8603-9-46" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the commentary I discussed in the video, arguing that a leading trade agreement (the TPP) could pose risks for public health and nutrition.<br /><br />Did you find their argument persuasive? Or, like my video, do you come down somewhat more favorable to trade than that?<br /><br />If you follow-up on this thread, let me remind you the groundrules for this forum. No cussing (not even "WTF"). Your strong criticism of my work is allowed, even welcomed, but no spurious commentary on myself or my employer. If you just want to vent, all bluster and no substance, there are other forums that will offer you a mic.usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-21020696875911492202018-06-08T11:42:39.701-04:002018-06-08T11:42:39.701-04:00Uh, "healthy products and unhealthy products&...Uh, "healthy products and unhealthy products"? WTF?<br /><br />Then you slam corn?<br /><br />Is corn really so "unhealthy"? Care to elaborate on that? Just a little?<br /><br />Or is that merely your personal bias coloring the otherwise mundane reality of agriculture and global trade?<br /><br />And who ever suggested the purpose of trade barriers is to control the nutritional status of any nation? Do we sanction North Korea merely to force them to eat local (when they are fortunate enough eat at all)?<br /><br />Is this podcast what passes for research and outreach at Tufts? Seriously?<br /><br />Overall, Parke, one of the least info-infused infomercials I've ever watched. If I didn't care about owning your book before (and I didn't), I certainly have no desire to possess it now. If it's anything like your infomercial it's a jumbled pants load of emotional old wive's tales dressed up as an academic tome...with no point and no substance. I wanted that I could get it by watching an episode of Dr. Oz. And I don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-55604918654099565872018-04-10T21:00:00.723-04:002018-04-10T21:00:00.723-04:00This looks like such a great line up!This looks like such a great line up!Catrina Petershttps://politicalfoods.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-15862847276061259942017-09-14T11:06:31.241-04:002017-09-14T11:06:31.241-04:00Rebecca, why are you concerned about my identity? ...Rebecca, why are you concerned about my identity? Are you hoping, beyond hope that I am some sort of paid shill or conspirator (nope, neither)...or do you have in mind to target me in some fashion? The facts speak for themselves, and are (or should be) impervious to popularity contests. But I'm sure if I could say I was Oprah or Dr. Oz some of you would accept anything I might opine as pure gospel truth. Sorry, Rebecca, won't indulge you.<br /><br />Actually, on this blog I am "anonymous" simply because it's the only way I can figure out to enter a comment on this site. Even then, clicking away through the "I am not a robot" exercise is plenty challenging. <br /><br />So then, Rebecca, you at least learn I am not much of a computer geek (heh, and I'm not embarrassed by that one little bit). Happy now?<br /><br />Parke can silence my questions any time he chooses...and he sometimes has when I've cut too close to the quick. I only wish someone, anyone, even an anonymous shadow would take a sincere interest in addressing some of my questions and concerns here. But, no, only ducking and dodging. Oh well, that's the internet, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-15902568623422107492017-09-13T14:41:09.285-04:002017-09-13T14:41:09.285-04:00Anonymous, why do you choose to remain anonymous i...Anonymous, why do you choose to remain anonymous in these policy debates?Rebeccanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-62327229024858724652017-09-13T12:53:43.647-04:002017-09-13T12:53:43.647-04:00You probably have no experience from where you'...You probably have no experience from where you're sitting, up there in the protected and well-paid Ivory Tower, Parke, but our society out here in the real world hasn't been "prosperous" for nearly a decade, now. At this pace of recovery it will be a long, long, long time before we can afford to go back to giving away the store. If "people of good will" intended any permanent accomplishment, I believe those good, righteous folks would finagle some sort of solid means of getting everyone educated, currently trained up in job skills, inherently knowledgeable about basic human nutrition science, and respectful of thrift as means of meeting family priorities. <br /><br />Otherwise, yeah, the SNAP program will linger with us and it needs some serious revamping. Optics of the current program, alone, incriminate SNAP as a sloppy boondoggle of a program endorsed and championed by naive do-gooders who know not their elbow from their arsehole. I rather doubt Fox News, NPR or the PMS Newshour have anything constructive to add to the discussion -- it would be a first if they did.<br /><br />Anyway, I certainly don't see SNAP handouts as a partisan thing. Seems it is an example of an all-too-typical expensive government muddling that makes a convenient flogging post for folks who are motivated to politicize everything. Too superficial and argument. <br /><br />Fact is, as a cure for "food insecurity" (however one chooses to define that), the SNAP program is a farce -- it does not address causes (wonderfully nebulous, so loved by do-gooders), it provides no permanent relief (an 'evergreen' entitlement, so loved by politicians), it is vulnerable to abuse (so loved by far too many two-bit scoundrels), and it is a convenient distraction from the real issues. The SNAP program simply sucks wind. It needs replaced; there is no fix for such an obtuse program...and making it bigger only makes the inanity of it that much bigger.<br /><br />"People of good will" need to wake up and pull their heads out of their arses to recognize these give-aways do nothing but encourage dependency. Now, if only we had some brilliant tenured university professors tasked with formulating truly intelligent measurements and solutions, then we'd have something. Oh, wait, we DO have those academics, and have had for decades now. What the hell have they been doing all this time? Hmmm...sorta makes one wonder if academic tenure and endowed professorships are maybe only another example of failed entitlement programs, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-79506855380407430352017-09-12T11:57:29.434-04:002017-09-12T11:57:29.434-04:00Hi. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
I und...Hi. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.<br /><br />I understand you disagreed with Jim Ziliak's proposal for a benefit increase. <br /><br />So, setting that aside, may I ask, what did you think of the report from the bipartisan commission on hunger? It included several themes that also show up in your comments: using SNAP as employment support, protecting against fraud, perhaps being open to changing what can be bought with benefits, and more. That report recognizes, as you say in your comments, "thousands of truly deserving families benefit from SNAP handouts."<br /><br />You're right that my own personal views favor a more energetically and magnanimously generous social safety net as a point of pride for a prosperous society. But I'm really not pushing my personal views on you, or on the public at large in our politically divided country. Above all, from this conversation, I'm curious about what SNAP policy could ever be a vehicle for productive conversation between folks like yourself and myself. Watching the news -- first Fox News one day and listening to NPR the next -- I feel quite sure that the conversation could be less poisonous if people of good will made the attempt.<br /><br />usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-1182041837014569372017-09-12T11:07:40.898-04:002017-09-12T11:07:40.898-04:00Well Parke, resolving issues of food insecurity an...Well Parke, resolving issues of food insecurity and food policy in general is a task somewhat above my pay grade.<br /><br />Maybe begin with the definition of "food insecurity". it's a little too broad and a little too vague, wouldn't you agree, to guide development of focused policy approaches. Lumping many issues into one big "problem", then reaching for a single simple silver bullet solution is the classic boondoggle.<br /><br />I'd have to say WIC and some of the school meal programs (particularly in needy school districts) are at least focused enough to allow effective and efficient implementation, although that may require more discipline and effort than program managers care to exercise. But, when we handout EBT cards more or less on the honor system to interested folks who qualify (and indirectly but ultimately, in too many cases, to their friends and acquaintances who do not qualify), well Parke, then we're just begging for abuse to undermine the good intent of the program. As just one example, when nearly $1 million in EBT subsidies handed out in Maine routinely turn up in Orlando, Florida we can safely assume the program is troubled. Sure, someone somewhere is ultimately redeeming the gift cards for meals and munchies, and their appetites are satiated for the moment. Definitely a shotgun approach, though, wouldn't you agree Parke?<br /><br />Of course the other thing about SNAP that cries out for reform or repeal is the obvious EBT abuses we all encounter for ourselves in the grocery checkout of ordinary grocery chains out here where us common people shop -- about a third of the time, I'd estimate, the person ahead of you in the line will use an EBT card to pay for at least some of the purchase. Thing is, about half of those food insecure folks are doing a pretty amazing job of keeping up appearances -- they have smartphones, stylish garb and jewelry, and pretty often they load their grocery haul into a newer, more expensive and much nicer vehicle than I'm driving...and I'm one of the taxpayers who make EBT handouts possible. Is it really food insecurity if the cell phone bill and the new car lease and the charge account at Macy's are all current. You'll even occasionally see someone blowing EBT taxpayer bucks on overpriced organic stuff and on really expensive cuts of meat (unfortunately that's most cuts of meat these days, BTW).<br /><br />No doubt thousands of truly deserving families benefit from SNAP handouts. It's a reasonable humanitarian gesture to tide them over until they can sort themselves out and get back on their feet. As employment rates continue to recover and our economy continues to grow, opportunities open up...and food insecurity declines. <br /><br />You dismiss one traditional lifestyle choice; employment and thrift to keep one's head above poverty, suggesting that is not "realistic and goal-oriented", but then turn around and recommend expansion of the SNAP handout program that is merely a shotgun approach to applying currency band-aids to the boo boo. What you're advocating with expanding SNAP subsidies only encourages behaviors that allow folks to place nutritious food low on their list of personal and family priorities. <br /><br />You know, "Give a man a fish...etc, etc, blah, blah, blah" Have youz guyz over at Tufts formulated a better proverb yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-63556714821035069012017-09-10T14:53:30.818-04:002017-09-10T14:53:30.818-04:00Hi. Thanks for your comments. What, in your view, ...Hi. Thanks for your comments. What, in your view, is the underlying cause of food insecurity? And what heroic efforts to pursue justice and set those egregious wrongs aright do you most admire? <br /><br />Just for example, I always read with interest and appreciation politically conservative agendas for ambitious reductions in U.S. poverty. As I read them, I have a standard: they only count as helpful if they are realistic and goal-oriented. (There is a whole other body of conservative commentary on poverty that is merely free-market fantasy and victim-blaming, of which I've read enough to satisfy me for a lifetime.)<br />usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-79528515840329445732017-09-08T11:00:58.464-04:002017-09-08T11:00:58.464-04:00You've sort of loaded the choices there, Parke...You've sort of loaded the choices there, Parke, not exactly the ideal behavior for anyone, like yourself, employed as faculty at an academic institution if any respect for the scientific method is espoused, but what the heck, I'll play along...<br /><br />I choose '(a) deep cuts to SNAP would not harm food security', reasoning that: <br /><br />1) "deep cuts" to any entitlement never end up being very deep after all is said and done, so fat chance of "deeply cutting" the SNAP pork fat out here in the real world; <br /><br />2) I can't help noticing more and more school districts are being pressured to hand out free meals to students, increasingly we hear 3 meals a day are being fed and many schools already feed not only lunch, but breakfast routinely, making a significant purpose of the SNAP program redundant; <br /><br />3) Food insecurity is down -- go ahead and credit SNAP for this, if you must -- anyway, with food insecurity declining, logically there is reduced need for SNAP handouts, not more; <br /><br />4) Ideally funding cuts to SNAP will stimulate greater vigilance in handing out those benefits only to qualified and trustworthy recipients, and perhaps spawn an interest in enforcement actions against fraudsters and abusers of those handouts;<br /><br />http://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/31/politics/dhhs-commissioner-highlights-13-9-million-in-out-of-state-ebt-use/<br /><br />5) There's the old timeworn adage 'teach a man to fish...' Yeah, I know, that sort of thing has fallen out of style and is not in keeping with your political agenda here -- probably best to pull it down, as with other monuments to traditional American culture that you find uncomfortable or inconvenient to your cause, eh?<br /><br />6) You have done nothing to convince me, Parke, that recent successes in declining food insecurity are a direct result of recent increases in SNAP handouts, and certainly you have not demonstrated that food insecurity is caused by insufficient free food privileges in the U.S.A.<br /><br />I'm quite certain you and your Liberal Elite pals have your own motives for perpetually growing out entitlement programs like SNAP, and I'm equally certain those motives are not exclusively a Samaritan regard for the welfare of undernourished Americans. Otherwise, you would be industriously ferreting out the true underlying cause(es) of food insecurity and heroically setting those egregious wrongs aright...instead of merely throwing more and more taxpayer money at it.<br /><br />Oh, and BTW, my request that you apply some traditionally respected analytics to your argument, old fashioned as that may seem to you, still stands. Likewise, my sincere curiosity remains about how your employer, ostensibly an academic institution, comes to endorse your career descent from science to pop-science into the fringes of sociology. That you object to these legitimate questions is telling, telling indeed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-34583142800274915562017-09-07T12:01:05.605-04:002017-09-07T12:01:05.605-04:00Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your comment! Yes, good p...Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your comment! Yes, good plan. As you propose, I will continuously endeavor to pursue investigative analytics and substantive statistical evidence.<br /><br />From a regular correspondent such as yourself, I'm especially interested to hear if you think: (a) deep cuts to SNAP would not harm food security, (b) it's okay if they would harm food security (because you find the measure useless), or something else.<br /><br />Your last sentence doesn't strengthen your comment. I've always treated you with respect. Reciprocate! You'll like it.usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-66972031444764328792017-09-07T09:38:17.835-04:002017-09-07T09:38:17.835-04:00Your food insecurity index shows a reduction of so...Your food insecurity index shows a reduction of some 17%, and SNAP handouts are down during that period as well. <br /><br />https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-costs-and-caseloads-declining<br /><br />Somehow you manage to twist a social success, a rather stunning success in context of the history of the food stamp entitlement program, into a calamity...and yet another pleading harangue for more entitlement tax and spend boondoggle in the SNAP program!<br /><br />Seriously, do you honestly believe SNAP is the end-all-be-all answer to food insecurity? Could you please, just this once, set aside your pledge to shun conventional investigative analytics and supplement your emotional seat-of-the-pants faux-science sociology mantra with some substantive statistical evidence? <br /><br />How does Tufts justify your existence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-81683235511594987802017-06-22T10:50:22.558-04:002017-06-22T10:50:22.558-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-40716729554723141682017-06-21T20:17:33.189-04:002017-06-21T20:17:33.189-04:00Brown Swiss are brown. Some Dexters are brown. Som...Brown Swiss are brown. Some Dexters are brown. Some Canadienne cattle are brown. Buša cattle are brown. The world population of Brown Swiss is estimated to be 7 million.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10524078323932967212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-52584622256259105482017-06-20T16:34:37.162-04:002017-06-20T16:34:37.162-04:00Thanks for commenting, Anonymous!
I especially va...Thanks for commenting, Anonymous!<br /><br />I especially value your comments when you call out my blinders as a writer and share a perspective that is underrepresented at an eastern urban university.<br /><br />But this comment isn't your best. It's too heavy in personal insults, lacking in civility, obsessed with organic advocacy perspectives that you heard elsewhere (not in my blog), and wrong about brown dairy cows.<br /><br />Please continue to bring your best insight to this forum.usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-54017196770144619992017-06-20T13:04:56.449-04:002017-06-20T13:04:56.449-04:00And the inanity and insanity of this story is corr...And the inanity and insanity of this story is corroborated and amplified by an intrepid Tufts faculty member who smugly (and incorrectly) asserts: "many cows actually are brown". Ha! In fact, few cows are brown, particularly dairy cows in the U.S. that produce the preponderance of our milk supply, chocolate flavored and otherwise. Such a shame that Tufts harbors ignorami among it's staff instead of illuminati.<br /><br />That as many as 7% of Americans might assume the color of a cow matters to anyone, including another cow, is not so far-fetched. Consider the number of people who believe unpasteurized or "raw" milk has magical medicinal qualities (it doesn't), and the remarkable portion of the American consuming public that has been conned into believing organic food has nutritional, health and environmental advantages (it does not -- it is only more expensive). It seems willful stupidity is a hallmark of some self-absorbed American consumers...and of some self-important Tufts faculty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-66097202443531417272017-03-20T01:32:43.576-04:002017-03-20T01:32:43.576-04:00Yes, you will spend more money on foods generally ...Yes, you will spend more money on foods generally known to be healthy, often labeled “Organic’ or “Non-GMO”…but the amount of money saved on costs related to health related diseases seems like a fair trade off. Statistics have shown that the amount of money spent on health related diseases is an increasing problem in the United States and easily preventable with the knowledge of obtaining a nutritious diet at a low budget cost (http://stateofobesity.org/healthcare-costs-obesity/). <br /><br />I feel as if having a better quality of life is worth the extra cost compared to a life compromised by an unhealthy diet.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13752406256533743207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-55013798292771623362017-03-19T20:13:37.569-04:002017-03-19T20:13:37.569-04:00I agree that changes need to be made to SNAP. I am...I agree that changes need to be made to SNAP. I am aware that the main priority of SNAP is allowing people to have access to food. However, when SNAP users are spending all their SNAP dollars on sugar sweetened beverages and junk food, this will not result in improving the health of the population. Furthermore, with high rates of obesity among low income populations, comorbidities and diseases are likely to remain high as well. This will end up increasing tax payer dollars in health care costs. Although the issue of starvation exists among low income US populations, the issue of food insecurity and obesity among low income populations is also issue that needs to be addressed. I think it would be a good idea to restrict SNAP dollars to nutritious foods and beverages. Initially it may be a costly, time-consuming process but in the long run it would be worth it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05464444932146909159noreply@blogger.com