• Aabbcc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Deciding what food people get to buy would be a bad solution to that problem anyways

      Working to have healthy options be more affordable and available seems like it’d help and it doesn’t seem disturbingly authoritarian

      • kryptonicus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you imagine living in a world where American farm subsidies went to make fresh fruit and produce affordable to all income levels, but the fuel lobby had to pay top dollar if they want to distill corn into ethanol so they can dope our gasoline?

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Food assistance is already regulated. No hot food, no pet food, no vitamins, no beer or wine, etc

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So now add ‘no sugar’ to that? Look, I don’t like that there’s an obesity epidemic, but that’s basically telling poor people they can’t enjoy food they like. I don’t think that is the right way to help people.

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying we should or that it is.

          I was just pointing out that food assistance is already regulated based on there being some things people may enjoy or want that the government has determined they can not use that assistance to purchase.

          Largely, it would seem, based on the fact that those things bad for them (alcohol), that it’s not an efficient use of funds (hot food; any food intended to be eaten on premises), or it’s not actually caloric in any way (vitamins).