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.
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).
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.
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).