Debate+FOR+Diminishing+SNAP

 Under the appropriate Debate in the Discussion Board, you will defend or reject this thesis statement:  **The growth of the private response to food insecurity clearly indicates that the American people and the American food industry have the will and the pocketbook to distribute food to those in the greatest need. Let us put the financial resources of the federal government into this Emergency Food System and diminish the bureaucratic and expensive Food Stamp Program.**    *I THINK WE NEED SOURCES TO DEFEND EACH POINT. I NOTICED OTHER GROUPS USED FOOTNOTES, NOT SURE WE HAVE TO DO THAT AS LONG AS WE SITE WHERE OUR INFO COMES FROM.

According to the website [] ====in the fiscal year 2009, the federal government spent about 44.8 billion dollars on the Food Stamp or SNAP Program. This money went directly to households to purchase food.What if the government took that same amount of money and put it into some of the privately run emergency food assistance programs and abolished the SNAP program? Group A is proposing a less bureacratic and expensive solution would reap better results for the following reasons: ====


 * 1) ====Currently, food purchased by SNAP households is often calorie dense, but nutritionally poor. If the program were privatized, nutrition of food purchased by those in need could be improved . In " Food Geography: How Food Access Affects Diet and Health." A quote from that reading, "Those with the fewest resources have the least access to the essential components of a healthy diet. A concerted effort to improve access to fresh food for the most vulnerable populations could have an important effect on public health concerns stemming from poor diet." ====

 Perhaps just portion of the SNAP money currently spent by the government could be used in each state of the country in the same manner as the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative. The initiative uses a multi-faceted approach where grocery stores and supermarkets in low income communities are built or improved upon. The amount of fresh, locally grown food available to those in need is increased substantially alleviating "food deserts." Other facets of this program such as the Reinvestment Fund and the Food Trust would also be implemented to get the best return on investment and to manage and to increase the number of farmer's markets available in all areas.

2. SNAP benefit amounts are inadequate and insufficient for food stamp recipients. In 2008, the average monthly SNAP benefit was about $101 per person and about $227 per household (SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEEDED?). At $101 per person, that is only about $25 per week. Trying to eat nutritiously on such a low amount of money is extremely difficult. In the YouTube video of the two people eating for one week on a Food Stamp budget in Pendleton, Indiana, we saw that they ended up feeling hungry most of the time and could not afford to eat healthy. According to the Project Bread site, “The Link Between Hunger and Obesity”, families may try and fend off hunger with readily available, inexpensive, high-calorie foods that have little or no nutritional value.

3. USDA's Thrifty Food plan (which is what SNAP benefits are based on) is outdated and unrealistic. The “Household Food Security in the United States, 2008” ERS Report Summary states that the median food-secure household spent 18% more per person for food each week than the cost of the Thrifty Food plan. The //maximum// allowance of SNAP benefits is based on the Thrifty Food Plan. Not only is the average SNAP benefit per person not enough, but it is not sufficient if they are trying to encourage the low-income families to buy fresher, and healthier foods. Fresh fruits and vegetables certainly cost more than snacks and "food desserts". In order to encourage healthier eating habits, more money needs to be given to try and provide these families with a more nutritious lifestyle.

4. SNAP’s current asset limits are counterproductive to the intent of the program. The emergency food system encourages people to save and to better their economic situation, moving away from poverty. In order to qualify for SNAP benefits, the applicant household must have no more than $2000 in assets. This discourages households to save because if they save too much money, they will no longer be eligible for benefits. The emergency food system does not disqualify households for their assets.