The legislation to make foods unavailable for purchase in relation to their food label values would lead to an almost impossible scrutiny of every food available for purchase. As the USDA points out, the mere definition of unhealthy would be difficult to determine. A candy bar contains less fat than a serving of cheese. A regular soft drink contains less sugar than a granola bar. Potato chips can vary in amounts of sodium, and often have less sodium than a serving of cereal. (2) Furthermore, there is no standardized definition of a serving size, and the serving sizes on food labels are usually not an accurate estimate of the amount usually consumed. (8) These determinations would not be able to define snack foods or foods as healthy or unhealthy.
…show more content…
Therefore, if one is to conserve what he has earned, he is reluctant to part with it. It becomes easier and selfish, to demonize those in need of social welfare, regardless of how temporary or necessary for survival the situation might actually become. It is logical that if snack foods, soda, etc. are eliminated from the food stamp program, the next step will be a call to reduce the dollar of food stamp benefits. The current claim is that the proposed legislation will not decrease recipient’s benefits, and that is true. The call to reduce benefits will come in the next incremental step as they point out that since snacks etc. can no longer be purchased with food stamps the government should reduce the food stamp allotment proportionately. This would certainly be the case, since the ban of these foods will have tremendous administrative costs. Opponents of the current program do not want to hear or see the plight of the food stamp recipients. Allport implies that it would be too easy to simply unfairly cluster them all under the labels of uneducated, unemployed, lazy, leeching, dirty, criminal, infinitely dependent, unsavory, and simply unmotivated. (Allport 325) We are sure to see in the coming Presidential debates that supporters of the restriction on food stamp purchases use "language that silences" such as unthankful and ungrateful. Examples of people using food stamps for gluttonous and selfish purposes have already been highlighted, implying that many, most, maybe even all are not really needy and deserving. In this way they can paint all food stamp recipients with a broad brush without using specific allegations that might later be able to be disproved. Stanley’s essay eludes to the theory that the well off have the money, and therefore the influence, to silence both the recipients and those objecting to the proposed
Therefore, if one is to conserve what he has earned, he is reluctant to part with it. It becomes easier and selfish, to demonize those in need of social welfare, regardless of how temporary or necessary for survival the situation might actually become. It is logical that if snack foods, soda, etc. are eliminated from the food stamp program, the next step will be a call to reduce the dollar of food stamp benefits. The current claim is that the proposed legislation will not decrease recipient’s benefits, and that is true. The call to reduce benefits will come in the next incremental step as they point out that since snacks etc. can no longer be purchased with food stamps the government should reduce the food stamp allotment proportionately. This would certainly be the case, since the ban of these foods will have tremendous administrative costs. Opponents of the current program do not want to hear or see the plight of the food stamp recipients. Allport implies that it would be too easy to simply unfairly cluster them all under the labels of uneducated, unemployed, lazy, leeching, dirty, criminal, infinitely dependent, unsavory, and simply unmotivated. (Allport 325) We are sure to see in the coming Presidential debates that supporters of the restriction on food stamp purchases use "language that silences" such as unthankful and ungrateful. Examples of people using food stamps for gluttonous and selfish purposes have already been highlighted, implying that many, most, maybe even all are not really needy and deserving. In this way they can paint all food stamp recipients with a broad brush without using specific allegations that might later be able to be disproved. Stanley’s essay eludes to the theory that the well off have the money, and therefore the influence, to silence both the recipients and those objecting to the proposed