The new farm bill hurts poor, subsidizes unhealthy food

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vosem]

The "push genetically modified food at the expense of public health" line makes me skeptical of the article as a whole. GM is essentially the only realistic way food production is going to be able to keep up with world population, and FDA-approved GM is not any more or less safe than regular food.

Otherwise, interesting, and quite undercovered by the media.

[DC Al Fine]

What's the standard to qualify for food stamps in the USA?

[dead0man]

The "push genetically modified food at the expense of public health" line makes me skeptical of the article as a whole. GM is essentially the only realistic way food production is going to be able to keep up with world population, and FDA-approved GM is not any more or less safe than regular food.

Indeed.  This line

You must be logged in to read this quote.

seems a little off too.

[Dave from Michigan]

Obama should veto it just for the food stamp cuts alone.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does anyone really expect anything different from the 113th House?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It happened here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's the standard to qualify for food stamps in the USA?

Depends on which state you live in. Some states are more generous than others.  If you live in one of the least generous states the requirements are roughly as follows:  Unless you are disabled or elderly, your household gross income must be below 130% of the poverty line for your household size.   Readily accessible assets need to be miniscule, but don't include your home, your automobile or any IRAs or the like.  How low is miniscule enough is the main area the states have flexibility.  $3250 for the elderly or the disabled, $2000 for anyone else is the federal limits.  There's also a net income test for which your household income needs to be below 100% the poverty line, but given the deductions that apply, only the elderly or disabled exempted from the gross income test are likely to have to worry about it, except maybe in a state that is more generous about the gross income test than 130%.

Note that a single non-elderly person with no dependents who works full time at a minimum wage job does not qualify.

[greenforest32]

What's the standard to qualify for food stamps in the USA?

Depends on which state you live in. Some states are more generous than others.  If you live in one of the least generous states the requirements are roughly as follows:  Unless you are disabled or elderly, your household gross income must be below 130% of the poverty line for your household size.   Readily accessible assets need to be miniscule, but don't include your home, your automobile or any IRAs or the like.  How low is miniscule enough is the main area the states have flexibility.  $3250 for the elderly or the disabled, $2000 for anyone else is the federal limits.  There's also a net income test for which your household income needs to be below 100% the poverty line, but given the deductions that apply, only the elderly or disabled exempted from the gross income test are likely to have to worry about it, except maybe in a state that is more generous about the gross income test than 130%.

Note that a single non-elderly person with no dependents who works full time at a minimum wage job does not qualify.

Why does the federal government let states control the food stamp eligibility requirements when the program is 100% federally funded? That seems like a strange design and if there's a minimum federal eligibility standard, then how is there such a wide variation in state participation rates?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Breaking news: Congress considers new bill that hurts the poor, plans to subsidize an awful special interest.

[TNF]

The "push genetically modified food at the expense of public health" line makes me skeptical of the article as a whole. GM is essentially the only realistic way food production is going to be able to keep up with world population, and FDA-approved GM is not any more or less safe than regular food.

Otherwise, interesting, and quite undercovered by the media.

The anti-GM folks are cancerous blights on American democracy, up there in the same category with the anti-nuclear folks. Ugh.

[Indy Texas]

I'm getting so sick of the anti-GMO people and the "sustainable agriculture" people. Let's pass a law banning any attempt to alter crops to make them more drought resistant or better at absorbing sunlight. Let's unilaterally shut down Cargill and ADM and have all our wheat and barley grown by artisan-farmers in the window boxes of Williamsburg apartments. See how many fewer people will be able to afford to buy food under that regime.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

GM crops tend to reduce genetic diversity. There's a hard scientific reason to oppose them. We should encourage genetic diversity, like those Mexican corn crops dating back thousands of years.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm getting so sick of the anti-GMO people and the "sustainable agriculture" people. Let's pass a law banning any attempt to alter crops to make them more drought resistant or better at absorbing sunlight. Let's unilaterally shut down Cargill and ADM and have all our wheat and barley grown by artisan-farmers in the window boxes of Williamsburg apartments. See how many fewer people will be able to afford to buy food under that regime.

I think this is where the whole subjective "good ideas mixed with bad ideas" aspect comes into play.  Yes, the anti-science aspect of the GM-crowd gets irritating.  At the same time, cuts to food stamps and more help for Monsanto's monopoly is not what we need in this country right now.  Just because I'm not inherently against what Monsanto does to their seeds doesn't mean I'm very annoyed about how they go about their business and the way they screw people over without them even knowing it.  

[Indy Texas]

What's the standard to qualify for food stamps in the USA?

Depends on which state you live in. Some states are more generous than others.  If you live in one of the least generous states the requirements are roughly as follows:  Unless you are disabled or elderly, your household gross income must be below 130% of the poverty line for your household size.   Readily accessible assets need to be miniscule, but don't include your home, your automobile or any IRAs or the like.  How low is miniscule enough is the main area the states have flexibility.  $3250 for the elderly or the disabled, $2000 for anyone else is the federal limits.  There's also a net income test for which your household income needs to be below 100% the poverty line, but given the deductions that apply, only the elderly or disabled exempted from the gross income test are likely to have to worry about it, except maybe in a state that is more generous about the gross income test than 130%.

Note that a single non-elderly person with no dependents who works full time at a minimum wage job does not qualify.

Why does the federal government let states control the food stamp eligibility requirements when the program is 100% federally funded? That seems like a strange design and if there's a minimum federal eligibility standard, then how is there such a wide variation in state participation rates?

The federal government pays for the benefits themselves. The states have to pay for half of the administration costs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

GM crops tend to reduce genetic diversity. There's a hard scientific reason to oppose them. We should encourage genetic diversity, like those Mexican corn crops dating back thousands of years.

Lack of genetic diversity in commercially available seed was a problem even before GM techniques came into use.  That's not something that GM should bear the blame for.  The problem would be just as bad without GM crops.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why does the federal government let states control the food stamp eligibility requirements when the program is 100% federally funded? That seems like a strange design and if there's a minimum federal eligibility standard, then how is there such a wide variation in state participation rates?

Basically, the Federal government lets states who wish to run a more generous program to use the SNAP program as the platform to do so, provided they pick up the costs of those who don't meet the Federal eligibility standards.  The same is true of all the jointly operated social welfare programs.  For SNAP the main area of variability is in the asset limits, specifically how vehicles count towards the asset limit.  Most states don't count them at all, some will only exclude one vehicle, and a few miserly states will only exclude only the first $4650 of the asset value of one vehicle which is the current minimum Federal standard.

[King]

Obviously.

[danny]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't take this article seriously with this part in.

[Alcon]

Sometimes I feel like a lot of social progressives have a magnet set where they put together various attributes of food they don't like, and scary social outcomes.  Processed food and the biodiversity crisis!  GMOs and obesity!  Chemical additives and bedbugs!  Honestly, it is so disappointing to see so many ostensibly science-loving people fall for this tripe.  It's also frustrating, because I'm sure there are valid policy issues surrounding this sort of thing, but it's really hard to see past the ridiculousness and the anti-science rationalizations ("well, corporations just pay for those studies!")  The nearly metaphysical food 'purity' obsession stuff is strange, man.

[perdedor]

Sometimes I feel like a lot of social progressives have a magnet set where they put together various attributes of food they don't like, and scary social outcomes.  Processed food and the biodiversity crisis!  GMOs and obesity!  Chemical additives and bedbugs!  Honestly, it is so disappointing to see so many ostensibly science-loving people fall for this tripe.  It's also frustrating, because I'm sure there are valid policy issues surrounding this sort of thing, but it's really hard to see past the ridiculousness and the anti-science rationalizations ("well, corporations just pay for those studies!")  The nearly metaphysical food 'purity' obsession stuff is strange, man.

As it happens, such symptoms are indicative of a pathological malady.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not exactly absurd to be concerned about what you shove down your mouth, but whatever.

[perdedor]

It's not exactly absurd to be concerned about what you shove down your mouth, but whatever.

Of course not, but there is a line between reasonable concern and paranoid obsession. If you believe that the government is conspiring with mega-farms to interfere with your healthy diet, you have crossed that line.

[politicus]

The pro-GMO consensus seem to be extremely strong here. So do you regard all of the three main criticisms against GMO as invalid?

- Unintended harm to other organisms (ie pollen from modified corn causing high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars).   

- Reduced effectiveness of pesticides (leading to the use of even more toxic pesticides).   

- Gene transfer to non-target species (ie crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds = herbicide tolerant "superweeds").

I think at least the two last reasons are very real dangers and especially gene transfer could easily get out of control.

[dead0man]

The pro-GMO consensus seem to be extremely strong here. So do you regard all of the three main criticisms against GMO as invalid?

- Unintended harm to other organisms (ie pollen from modified corn causing high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars).   

- Reduced effectiveness of pesticides (leading to the use of even more toxic pesticides).   

- Gene transfer to non-target species (ie crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds = herbicide tolerant "superweeds").

I think at least the two last reasons are very real dangers and especially gene transfer could easily get out of control.

Is there any real science behind  any of these fears?  Plants genetically distant from each other don't often "cross breed" do they?  How would pesticides be less effective?  Because the grasshopper eats the herbicide resistant corn and now can't be killed by pesticides?  I'm confused.