Food Regulation : Is it Undermining Government Efficiency Goals? \ Newslooks \ Opinion \ One of the important questions from the last presidential election was whether the U.S. government was too big, too fat, too dysfunctional. Most Americans believe that “the government is inefficient and wasteful” and trusted in President Trump’s vision of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
When you look under the hood of government, you’re going to see an engine that spits out a lot of waste, fraud and abuse, so this new-found focus on reforming government efficiency is welcome.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will have its own ideas of reform through its “MAHA Commission Report,” which seeks to align with the concepts of driving greater accountability, while reducing regulation and bureaucracy systemwide. This purposeful effort, however, faces questions of judgment with its irregular strikes on Americans’ foods.
On one front, there has been very sudden and determined action to expel an array of ingredients that go into producing a myriad of options we find at the store. Americans have more choices at reasonable prices than anywhere else, and the elements of producing our foods are carefully backstopped on safety thanks to decades of scientific guidance from the FDA. While it makes sense to outlaw ingredients that are poisonous to human health, we don’t need government to regulate whether we can eat cookies or cake.
Another related big target has been the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which has been beneficial in helping to meet growing families’ needs across the country.
However, the uproar over the choices that people on SNAP make in the grocery store is a side show. The call to prohibit SNAP participants from purchasing snack foods and soft drinks with their benefits – in essence, policing grocery carts – won’t make anyone healthier. Despite the hype, restricting SNAP purchases will not have a meaningful impact on consumption patterns, and they are not the cure for chronic health conditions. And it’s important to remember that restrictions will not reduce the cost of the SNAP program.
With the rise of preferences for no-sugar or low-calorie options among our foods and drinks, it’s no secret that the market is shifting dramatically to meet the changing consumer demand. Where is the need to legislate this transition when it’s already happening right before our eyes?
But this idea limiting the use of SNAP has gained traction because of flawed thinking: removing choice will save the poor from themselves and ensure a healthier future. From this perspective, government surveillance of shopping carts is simply the tough love intervention needed to get benefit holders back on their feet and off of Uncle Sam’s back.
The irony is that to promote self-sufficiency and economic independence, they’re calling for the government to strip vulnerable families of their personal freedoms. How is this reform?
Real reform would be to ensure the program is operating as policymakers intended. While the federal government sets the guidelines for SNAP, states administer the program and a number of them are taking misguided steps toward pursuing their own lists of foods banned from SNAP eligibility, risking a highly inconsistent patchwork of regulation. Instead, states must do a better job ensuring that the objectives of the program are realized, and the taxpayer’s money is wisely spent.
Some states have been inaccurate in distributing this aid, accounting for a $10.7 billion overspend. This is due in part to a surge in benefit thefts, with criminal rings using skimming devices to drain accounts. State investigators and law enforcement have been slow to respond, and millions more funds were needed to pay back victims who had their benefits stolen. It’s problematic that states aren’t acting with more urgency, and still only four have begun to take the USDA’s advice to modernize their EBT cards with encrypted-chip technology.
Transforming SNAP into a new public watchdog by imposing restrictions only feeds red tape and creates a precedent that can be abused to target other foods, and likely a wider set of consumer goods. Remember, Kamala Harris admitted that she was open to changing dietary guidelines to reduce red meat consumption. Expanding government always poses some threat to personal freedom, regardless of intentions.
The functions of our health system must remain under the microscope. However, attacking FDA-approved ingredients and parents’ decisions on the family grocery list will not support America’s resurgence, but it will tarnish the values of our nation. Instead, tackle the overall dysfunction of government – not personal freedom.
Food Regulation
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Newslooks.com
You must Register or Login to post a comment.