Scientific Case for No More Eating on EBT

The purpose of the Welfare State is to grow the poor, not to help them. Otherwise, bureaucrats would do away with Food Stamps. Dr Edward Archer makes the case at RealClearScience :

[E]nding ‘Food Stamps’ (the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SNAP) and instituting work requirements for able-bodied recipients of public support will improve the health of our poor — and the moral and economic health of our nation.

If medical researchers really want to reduce disparities as they often piously claim, they should recognize that the root disease disproportionately affecting the poor is obesity. This is cured by moving more and eating less.

[T]he prevalence of obesity in ‘Food Stamp’ recipients is ~30 percent greater than income eligible non-recipients — and almost 90 percent of people living below the Federal Poverty Level do not meet the minimum US Physical Activity Guidelines…

[T]he unwarranted provision of food to non-working (sedentary) obese adults is responsible for a significant portion of the $4.9 trillion in medical expenses engendered by obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

Federally funded obesity is a classic example of Big Government creating a problem, then spending us into an ever deeper hole while pretending to fix it.

First, our federal government destroys the health of our poor by subsidizing the sedentary lifestyles and excess calories that cause cardiometabolic diseases; then it subsidizes healthcare (Medicaid) to treat the diseases its policies created; and finally, it subsidizes the provision of pharmaceuticals to reduce the consumption of the ‘free food’ that ‘Food Stamps’ supplies. For example, in 2023, Medicaid spending on GLP-1s (drugs that reduce caloric consumption) increased from $600 million to almost $4 billion — and newer estimates suggest the costs will rise exponentially.

Not only the poor suffer, but everyone who pays taxes or tries to buy with currency inflated by excessive government spending.

Future generations will pay too, and not only by inheriting a hobbled economy:

[M]y research in nongenetic evolutionary processes (i.e., ‘maternal effects’) and the inheritance of metabolic function shows that women who are sedentary and obese before conception and during pregnancy give birth to metabolically compromised female children who in turn produce descendants predisposed to cardiometabolic diseases, independent of diet and genotype.

Consider the grotesque creatures you have probably seen at the grocery store, waddling behind carts piled with snacks and soda that they pay for with an EBT card. The War on Poverty that created them began only 62 years ago. Imagine what abominations evolution might produce in the future if generation after generation continues to subsist only to eat, vote Democrat, and breed more of its kind.

Moonbats will shriek that no more free food means starvation. However:

USDA research and systematic reviews show that when compared to income-eligible non-recipients, “caloric, macronutrient, and micronutrient intake of SNAP [Food Stamp] participants did not differ systematically” and that SNAP participation was found to have “no effect on participants’ intake of fruits, vegetables, grains, or dairy products.” … ‘Food Stamp’ recipients spend more on food, purchase less nutritious food, and have a greater prevalence of obesity and [type 2 diabetes mellitus] than non-recipients.

Food Stamps do not help the poor. They do not help those forced to pick up the tab. But they do help the Democratic Party by growing the herd of those who vote rather than work for a living. So SNAP isn’t going anywhere.

On a tip from seaoh.

The post Scientific Case for No More Eating on EBT appeared first on Moonbattery.