Eat, Drink, But Don't Be Merry

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has asked the Feds for permission to forbid food stamp recipients from using the vouchers to buy soda. Mayor Bloomberg, who has previously taken aim at cigarettes and transfats acids, sees the promotion of healthy lifestyles as part of his mandate, so this attempt to reduce sugar intake among the city's poor is not a wholly surprising move.



Let us stipulate that the government does have the right to do this. After all, the Department of Agriculture already forbids the use of food stamps to purchase tobacco or alcohol. There is something of a "beggars can't be choosers" quality to the proposition: These folks are recipients of public largesse, and the public thereby enjoys the right--if not the obligation--to impose certain conditions upon the recipients. Indeed, the very fact that food aid is distributed through vouchers--as opposed to cash--is an acknowledgment that the government has always sought to maintain some control over the items purchased with food stamps. Nevertheless, we find something unsavory about the mayor's proposition.



The proposal is hypocritical on two levels: First, and most obvious, it is hypocritical for any but the most fanatically disciplined eaters to cast stones at another's dietary choices. We would wager that the billionaire Mayor Bloomberg enjoys the occasional soda--to say nothing of beluga caviar and goose liver pate. And as much as solidly middle-class folk like Your Not So Humble Correspondent acknowledge the importance of eating right, we are hardly paragons of dietary rectitude. (Yes, we WOULD like fries with that, please.) What gives us the right to tut-tut the minor pleasures of others? Don't food stamp recipients have enough to worry about? Let the kid have a Dr. Pepper!



The second level of hypocrisy is more subtle. As we mentioned above, the whole premise of giving food stamps as opposed to cash subsidies rests on the idea that the government wants to ensure that food aid is used to buy food. As a result, some restrictions are a presumably necessary evil. But where do the restrictions stop? Certainly, forbidding the use of food stamps to buy tobacco makes sense: Aside from certain omelet dishes in the deepest South, tobacco does not qualify as a "food." Similarly, alcohol, while providing some calories, is of questionable nutritional value, and the government has some logical reasons for restricting alcohol use (preventing drunk driving, for example). Now, we propose restricting soda consumption because soda contributes to obesity and dental problems.



But why stop there? If the government truly wants to encourage healthy eating, why not impose more restrictions? Why not say that food stamps must be used only to buy the leanest cuts of meat? Fresh vegetables? Juice and water? For that matter, why have a voucher system at all? Why not simply mandate the type and amount of food that program participants can have and then distribute those supplies accordingly?



The reason, we assume, is that the government does not want to be seen as overly patriarchal. Program administrators want to convey the impression that they are interested solely in the public good, but that they trust the public to make the right choices when given the opportunity. Except they don't--trust the public, that is. Maybe they shouldn't. But why not just come out and say so.


************************************************


Serendipity watch:



On the same day that the article on food stamps appeared, one of the "Most Popular" e-mailed articles was all about the latest juvenile food craze: spaghetti tacos.Maybe One and a Half Cooks can publish a recipe?

(Images: soda from Water for Life Usa; spaghetti tacos from The New York Times.)