I made it through the no-kitchen food stamp challenge week, which ended Sunday night, April 14. To recap, as a follow-up to the original food stamp challenge, for an entire week I ate only foods that could be stored and prepared in a living situation without a full kitchen, such as a person living in a motel or temporary housing might have to do. I stuck to a budget of $29.07 for the week, similar to the weekly allowance for an adult receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits in Wisconsin.
For the week, I limited myself to the use of a can opener and an electric kettle, plus plates and utensils for eating. I did not use the refrigerator, coffee maker, stove, toaster, or any other appliances. To season my food, I used only salt and pepper (previously purchased). My complete purchases and a sample daily meal plan are detailed in previous posts.
I happened to be doing this challenge the same week a measure was proposed to prevent the use of food stamp benefits to purchase "junk food." Prior to this week, I might have agreed with this measure.
When we watched part of the documentary Food Stamped at the wrap-up discussion from the food stamp challenge week at Temple Beth El, I cringed at the depiction of a food stamp recipient putting a case of Ramen noodles into his shopping cart (along with other foods, including meat and vegetables).
But after taking the challenge for a week, I see the situation in a different light. I could not have made it through the week without my coffee and chocolate chips. In all, I spent 12% of my budget on these "junk food" items. (Interestingly, the chocolate chips were the only item to which sales tax was applied.)
In fact, when I was shopping before the week began, I debated between the 12-ounce bag of chocolate chips for $2.29 and the 6-ounce bag for $1.39. Did I really need the larger bag? I decided to spring for it so I could nosh on it whenever I wanted. Indeed, the relative abundance of chocolate chips helped me keep from feeling deprived throughout the week. Perhaps this sense of "abundance" is valuable in our food purchases.
We do need treats in our diet, especially in a diet already limited by cost and convenience factors.
Update: The proposed measure was approved in committee on Tuesday. Fortunately, the bill's sponsor amended it to a reasonable percentage-based restriction, not a total ban on junk food. Specifically, it now would require two-thirds of monthly benefits to be spent on "products already approved for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], as well as beef, pork, chicken, fish, or vegetables that are not on the list," according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
If the Wisconsin Assembly approves the bill, it would still need to be approved by the US Department of Agriculture, which has rejected proposed limits in other states (the rejected requests appear to be item-based bans rather than a percentage limit, however).
Fortunately, the proposal as revised is much more reasonable than the original attempt to ban all "unhealthy" food. Personally, I spent far more than two-thirds of my weekly budget on items likely to be deemed "healthy." But on a weekly basis, the difference between what I spent on unhealthy items and what I could have spent on them is only $6.07. (I haven't cross-checked my receipt line by line against the WIC list since the latest amendment came out; it's possible even more items would not have been counted as "healthy.") That's not much room for error -- and the possibility for error in this system is high, at least at the beginning. If an item generally considered "healthy" or at least not "junk food" (spaghetti sauce, for example) is omitted from the "approved" list, it could wreak havoc with a recipient's food budget. It also greatly limits the recipient's flexibility to choose between various interpretations of "healthy"; for example, organic milk is not approved.
I also fear that manufacturers' clout will have too much influence on the "approved" food list, possibly leading to the inclusion of more processed foods on the list, while smaller producers of less highly processed foods would not have the pull to get their products approved. Though after my experience this week I would generally lean toward permitting as many foods as possible, I fear that if the line were drawn in the wrong place, it could influence recipients' perceptions of what makes a food "healthy," perhaps in unintended directions.
At the week's end, I had one can of chili beans, one can of garbanzo beans, and one can of pinto beans left unopened from my original purchases, making my total spending $27.77 for the week. Also remaining were a few tablespoons of peanut butter, about a fourth of the bag of powdered milk, about a fifth of the honey, and about 1/2 cup of oats.
I did not post every day because it would have been boring: my diet hardly varied. My meals each day were basically the same as on the first day, except that some nights, I had canned tuna fish instead of beans over my couscous for dinner. And halfway through the week, I swapped the first two meals of the day to have oatmeal for breakfast and peanut butter on bread for lunch, which are perhaps more logical (that is, customary) choices for those meals anyway.
When I needed a snack, I ate some chocolate chips or a spoonful of peanut butter.
At the start of the week, I thought I would really miss vegetables. Although I did indulge in a big spinach salad the day after the challenge ended, the lack of veggies wasn't a big deal since I did have a banana and two apples every day.
At the start of the week, I thought I would really miss vegetables. Although I did indulge in a big spinach salad the day after the challenge ended, the lack of veggies wasn't a big deal since I did have a banana and two apples every day.
Though it was hard to cook for my family knowing I would not be eating the same meals, I had enough food that I did not feel hungry during the week. (I still ate at the table with them, which I believe was a good teaching moment. One evening my daughter said, unprompted, "Mommy, thank you for making us yummy mac and cheese tonight. I'm glad we don't have to do the food stamp challenge.")
Reflections
I happened to be doing this challenge the same week a measure was proposed to prevent the use of food stamp benefits to purchase "junk food." Prior to this week, I might have agreed with this measure.
When we watched part of the documentary Food Stamped at the wrap-up discussion from the food stamp challenge week at Temple Beth El, I cringed at the depiction of a food stamp recipient putting a case of Ramen noodles into his shopping cart (along with other foods, including meat and vegetables).
But after taking the challenge for a week, I see the situation in a different light. I could not have made it through the week without my coffee and chocolate chips. In all, I spent 12% of my budget on these "junk food" items. (Interestingly, the chocolate chips were the only item to which sales tax was applied.)
In fact, when I was shopping before the week began, I debated between the 12-ounce bag of chocolate chips for $2.29 and the 6-ounce bag for $1.39. Did I really need the larger bag? I decided to spring for it so I could nosh on it whenever I wanted. Indeed, the relative abundance of chocolate chips helped me keep from feeling deprived throughout the week. Perhaps this sense of "abundance" is valuable in our food purchases.
And as the week ended, I realized: What if buying Ramen noodles in large quantity gives the man in Food Stamped the same sense of abundance I felt with my chocolate chips? What if Ramen is his comfort food? Indeed, seeing how I chose to buy an abundance of chocolate even on a limited budget, who am I to say that someone whose comfort food is potato chips or who drinks soda pop instead of coffee for a pick-me-up should not be able to choose them instead?
We do need treats in our diet, especially in a diet already limited by cost and convenience factors.
Item-based Limits
If purchases were limited item by item, who would decide what items are allowed? One person might call certain choices healthy that others would call unhealthy. I personally choose to limit artificial flavors and colors, yet someone else might not be worried about those additives. There are other examples, too:
- Brown rice, a whole-grain food, is considered better than white rice by many "real food" advocates, yet white rice is a key element in the meals of many world cultures.
- Whole milk has a bad reputation lingering from the low-fat craze of the 1980s and 1990s, yet many in the "real food" movement choose only full-fat dairy products, arguing that nutrients are lost in the process of removing the fat.
- A vegan might purchase veggie burgers, while others argue that the processed soy products in the burgers are unhealthy.
Deciding which foods are acceptable, then, could become a political minefield, with the potential for subtle or not-so-subtle cultural discrimination.
Logistics are a factor, too: If the "natural" versions of peanut butter had been the only ones allowed, most of which require refrigeration after opening, I would not have been able to eat peanut butter this week. Item-by-item limits would force grocery store cashiers to police recipients' purchases and would also require them to ask at the start of the transaction whether the buyer is using SNAP benefits, which would defeat the stigma-removing aspect of the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) debit card system already in place.
And if grocers were required to check every purchased item against a master database of products (which would have to be continually updated to capture newly introduced products, no less), would the additional cost of compliance lead some stores to discontinue accepting SNAP benefits? Such a requirement could ultimately have the unintended effect of reducing, not improving, poor people's access to healthy food.
Percentage-based Limits
It would be equally hard to limit purchases to a certain percentage of SNAP benefits. Since purchases can be made many different stores, requiring a percentage of weekly or monthly benefits to be spent on "healthy" items would necessitate a giant database and coordination among all the retailers in the state, which would be difficult and expensive to implement, again possibly reducing the number of retailers who accept SNAP benefits.
On the other hand, requiring a percentage of each transaction to be "healthy" would be difficult when we are talking about such small amounts. A penny or two, a sale price versus a regular price, or a choice of the wrong quantity could push a grocery list over the line from "acceptable" to "unacceptable," perhaps requiring some last-minute juggling or hassle in the checkout lane.
On the other hand, requiring a percentage of each transaction to be "healthy" would be difficult when we are talking about such small amounts. A penny or two, a sale price versus a regular price, or a choice of the wrong quantity could push a grocery list over the line from "acceptable" to "unacceptable," perhaps requiring some last-minute juggling or hassle in the checkout lane.
Transaction-based rules would also limit the recipient's flexibility. For example, in Madison we are lucky that the farmer's market accepts EBT payments, enabling recipients to spend food stamp benefits there. But in locations where this is not done, what if a recipient wanted to use food stamp benefits in a grocery store to satisfy his or her personal food vices (whether they be coffee and chocolate or chips and soda) while saving hard-earned cash for produce at the farmer's market?
Or what if recipients want to purchase a month's supply of chips and soda early in the month to take advantage of bulk savings, while saving the rest of their benefits to buy healthier, perishable items later in the week or month? Limiting such foods to smaller quantities (purchased over the course of a month) might have the unintended effect of reducing the purchase of other, healthier foods due to the higher unit cost of items purchased in small quantities.
Or what if recipients want to purchase a month's supply of chips and soda early in the month to take advantage of bulk savings, while saving the rest of their benefits to buy healthier, perishable items later in the week or month? Limiting such foods to smaller quantities (purchased over the course of a month) might have the unintended effect of reducing the purchase of other, healthier foods due to the higher unit cost of items purchased in small quantities.
What we need is not complicated, controversial, and perhaps even unworkable limits but better education and improved food access, so that each person can make informed and balanced choices from a wide range of available foods.
---------------
Update: The proposed measure was approved in committee on Tuesday. Fortunately, the bill's sponsor amended it to a reasonable percentage-based restriction, not a total ban on junk food. Specifically, it now would require two-thirds of monthly benefits to be spent on "products already approved for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], as well as beef, pork, chicken, fish, or vegetables that are not on the list," according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
If the Wisconsin Assembly approves the bill, it would still need to be approved by the US Department of Agriculture, which has rejected proposed limits in other states (the rejected requests appear to be item-based bans rather than a percentage limit, however).
Fortunately, the proposal as revised is much more reasonable than the original attempt to ban all "unhealthy" food. Personally, I spent far more than two-thirds of my weekly budget on items likely to be deemed "healthy." But on a weekly basis, the difference between what I spent on unhealthy items and what I could have spent on them is only $6.07. (I haven't cross-checked my receipt line by line against the WIC list since the latest amendment came out; it's possible even more items would not have been counted as "healthy.") That's not much room for error -- and the possibility for error in this system is high, at least at the beginning. If an item generally considered "healthy" or at least not "junk food" (spaghetti sauce, for example) is omitted from the "approved" list, it could wreak havoc with a recipient's food budget. It also greatly limits the recipient's flexibility to choose between various interpretations of "healthy"; for example, organic milk is not approved.
I also fear that manufacturers' clout will have too much influence on the "approved" food list, possibly leading to the inclusion of more processed foods on the list, while smaller producers of less highly processed foods would not have the pull to get their products approved. Though after my experience this week I would generally lean toward permitting as many foods as possible, I fear that if the line were drawn in the wrong place, it could influence recipients' perceptions of what makes a food "healthy," perhaps in unintended directions.
