DescentBB

...are at it again.

So it seems the feds are looking into placing regulations on “convenience stores” that take food stamps, in an effort to make healthy foods available to those in food deserts.

So one has to ask…

How many stores will go out of business because they can’t meet the new regulations…causing the food deserts to get even larger, or literally creating more of them?

How many will meet the new regulations and still go out of business, because they can’t sell those products? (they will displace the products that people normally go to a corner store for)

How many stores will simply stop taking food stamps, creating a whole new set of problems? And probably go out of business as a result. (subsidies can make up a substantial part of a corner stores sales)

So of course if any of the things I mention come to pass, will the do-gooders admit to it, or simply place the blame on those damn businesses…as per usual. (that one is rhetorical)

I think you may be over-speculating, but it certainly is a change which should be followed-up upon. I'm not quite sure how best to address the food desert situation. I saw it first hand for the two years I spent living in Philly. Andorra....plenty of choices, Roxborough, likewise. Germantown, overpriced food of low quality. Sucks, ought to be addressed, but I'll gladly admit that this 'solution' isn't going to make much of a dent that I can figure.

Perhaps, but those were some of the concerns posted by the interviewer in the segment I saw.

These stores tend to stock what is in demand, I would think that is a better place to start then some top down regulations.

for my money, I'd far prefer a lot of Do-Gooders than a bunch of Do-Nothings or Do-for-myself-first's. In my experience, the first thing most do-good types ask after a proposal is enacted is 'how do we make it work better'.

Or...how do we pretend we didn't screw thing up.

I did a little reading on this topic and it's much more complicated that I expected. In this case, the "do-gooders" are the Department of Agriculture and this proposal appears to be a response to a Republican offensive to cut and/or impact SNAP benefits. The USDA is aware of the potential problems and is considering waivers for businesses in certain areas. I currently don't have an opinion on this topic, I don't know enough about it, but I'm also not hearing alarm bells either.

No alarm bells…just some simple questions.

...................

"The USDA is aware of the potential problems and is considering waivers for businesses in certain areas"

Kinda defeats the purpose, and these kinds of regulations need to be applied evenly, as not to give one business an advantage over others.

Example: You're in compliance, but the guy down the street gets a waiver.

And I know how this feels because I’m right down the street from a business that has “certified minority owned business" status and is guaranteed a certain level of government work, I get no such thing. (not that I would even take government work, but it’s the principle)

That is exactly how this kind of thing can go very wrong.

So more govt/more regs is a good thing

woodchip wrote:So more govt/more regs is a good thing

cute winkies aside, this has been proven true far more often than not. From the food we eat, the medicines and other products on our shelves, the air quality, the water quality, and virtually other aspect of one's life that insinuates a need for safety, public interest or demanding liability for risky business, regulations ARE a good thing. Once again, can ALL regulations be good? Of course not, we're human and our system of governance is slow, at times extremely slow to react or retract outdated or non-functional law. I'll take the good with the bad, though, thanks.

Yes some regulations are good but it is how those regulations are used. Just ask the people in Flint what the people think of the EPA and the DEQ...both of which failed the citizens. Or ask the citizens out west along a certain river what they think about the EPA. Remember, the screw ups will remain indelibly imprinted on peoples minds far more than the good.

Yeah, because the screw ups are uncommon enough that they make the news. These agencies are successful in actually doing good the overwhelming majority of the time if you actually bothered to pay attention.

Spidey wrote:Kinda defeats the purpose, and these kinds of regulations need to be applied evenly, as not to give one business an advantage over others.

Maybe. We don't actually know what the full purpose is, but most likely it is multi-faceted. Most headlines only focus on one part of a bill (the one that generates the most clicks with clever wording). Yes, in principal regulations need to be applied evenly, but we also don't have a one-size-fits-all government. It might be a better idea to take this plan and leave it for the states to delegate regionally (of course, some of them will screw it up for the rest of us, but then you get to say "I told you so").

woodchip wrote:Yes some regulations are good but it is how those regulations are used. Just ask the people in Flint what the people think of the EPA and the DEQ...both of which failed the citizens. Or ask the citizens out west along a certain river what they think about the EPA. Remember, the screw ups will remain indelibly imprinted on peoples minds far more than the good.

screwups are just that, and have nothing to do with having regulations. It was a case of not addressing violations of same in Flint. Likewise, the Colorado river mess is due to a mine that has been protected from Superfund clean up regulations by a certain political party. Once again, not the fault of having regulations, but not enforcing them.

And it appears Flint is not the only place the epa has screwed a town over the lead issue:


"The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has fired two employees and disciplined a third over their handling of high lead levels in drinking water in the town of Sebring, the agency announced Wednesday. "

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohi ... er-n520411

So keep telling me how more and more regs are a good thing when the employee's of those agencies are inept.

why should we keep explaining that a FAILURE TO ENFORCE regulations doesn't equate to 'regulations are a bad thing'? It's a complete logical disconnect you are trying to foist upon us. In fact, most of the 'failures' are due to ideological pressure designed to NOT enforce regulations in the interest of corporate profits and state budget restrictions.

Yeah and the EPA wanting to control even the rain shows how far extremists within a regulatory agency will try to go. Thankfully saner heads ruled in congress to block the attempt.

What I find most offensive here is how the government uses the fact that businesses take food stamps, as a means to control what they sell, instead of placing the requirements at the level of the person receiving the subsidies.

And since everyone avoided answering any of my original questions, here’s another one, perhaps more palatable…

Wouldn’t a program like this be more acceptable as an incentive type thing rather than a “regulation”? (you know…carry these products and get a reward)

I mean, why don’t we see if these products can even sell and become a viable profit making addition before we start forcing stores to sell them. Then you could run the incentive program for ten years or so, and make a call at that time as to whether regulations can even work, and what kinds of affects we could expect.

Let me reply to your OP. The federal govt has got to stop acting like they are peoples nanny's. Certain small corner stores are not set up to be a health food store like Whole Foods. If certain foods are bad for you then let the feds stop the manufacturers from producing and distributing such foods. Not the small stores job to try and police what people with food stamps buy. Can they buy cigarettes and alcohol with food stamps? Should we limit food stamp use to only buying from Whole Foods? Will the food stamp user get "good" food even if they go to a store where there is a choice?
Yeah lets get so many regs out there that a small corner store goes out of business. And what do you think will replace it? A bar? A topless joint? Obviously the neighborhood will be enhanced by eliminating the store /sarcasm/

Spidey wrote:What I find most offensive here is how the government uses the fact that businesses take food stamps, as a means to control what they sell, instead of placing the requirements at the level of the person receiving the subsidies.

how do you require someone to obtain something that would be either impossible within close proximity to home or require transportation costs they can't afford to obtain it? Therein lies the issue. I don't find the idea of using leverage upon beneficiaries of government programs(the businesses approved to take food stamps)to make better nutrition available in any way offensive.

Wouldn’t a program like this be more acceptable as an incentive type thing rather than a “regulation”? (you know…carry these products and get a reward)

likely yes. Now, go show us how you would propose to get the current Congress to approve the monies for those incentives;

woodchip wrote:Let me reply to your OP. The federal govt has got to stop acting like they are peoples nanny's. Certain small corner stores are not set up to be a health food store like Whole Foods. If certain foods are bad for you then let the feds stop the manufacturers from producing and distributing such foods. Not the small stores job to try and police what people with food stamps buy. Can they buy cigarettes and alcohol with food stamps? Should we limit food stamp use to only buying from Whole Foods? Will the food stamp user get "good" food even if they go to a store where there is a choice?
Yeah lets get so many regs out there that a small corner store goes out of business. And what do you think will replace it? A bar? A topless joint? Obviously the neighborhood will be enhanced by eliminating the store /sarcasm/

obviously, you are unaware about how certain store chains, among them most grocery chains(not Whole Foods, all of them), avoid certain urban and poor rural neighborhoods. This is a very real economic as well as health issue for many poor communities. I see no better way of addressing it at hand, given current political gridlock even over obviously good programs for the society as a whole. I saw the issue pretty clearly in my short time in Philly. I see it in rural eastern Virginia, when I am down that way. There, at least, most folks can have access in season to fresh produce and fish just due to the abundance of the land and waters. However, for most foods, a 10 mile drive to a Walmart or Food Lion is how one gets access to healthy foods. In the little town I live in, they haven't had a grocery store in a decade, and once had two. Apparently, there is some attempt to get a meat, deli and seafood store on the Main Square, so we'll see how that goes. You raise a valid point, about inadvertently driving out a bodega and getting something worse. This is where REGULATIONS are your friend......because both a bar or a 'topless joint' have to pass through a list of requirements, regulations and approvals to get the chance to be there. If the government(read: the People) don't wish another bar or whatever, they reject the application, and work in some fashion to achieve the goal of access to good foods.

You're all missing another "result" of the food desert in most poor or rural areas. People are what they eat, so if they only have access to high calorie, high fat, high sugar unhealthy foods, we all pay for it in high health care costs when these people get fat and come down with the typical preventable diseases obese people tend to get, diabetes and heart conditions to name a couple. If you don't think we all end up paying for these poor people's unhealthy food selections, think again. Personally, if I were living in a food desert, I would retch at having my as only choice the usual food options that most convenience stores tend to offer, but I'd also be stuck with it. I'd also be fat, diabetic and probably alcoholic and sitting on the public dole for any health care issues, of which I'd have many.

callmeslick wrote:likely yes. Now, go show us how you would propose to get the current Congress to approve the monies for those incentives;

Simple...under the guise of protecting small business.

And the magic word...tax breaks.

Phase two…the proper solution.

The proper solution to this problem can be summed up in one word…supermarkets.

Now you say, of course that’s just brain dead obvious, but what you may fail to realize and the do-gooders certainly do is the fact that supermarkets once existed in these places, and the only reason they don’t now is because it’s no longer profitable to run a supermarket in some communities.

Supermarkets run on a different business model than convenience stores, they have much smaller profit margins and rely on volume to make money, where a smaller store has a higher markup, and doesn’t rely completely on volume, and small stores also sell a higher percentage of lucrative products.

So expecting small corner stores to replace supermarkets is just plain dumb, you have to figure out why supermarkets can’t operate there and solve that. Supermarkets and such have been replaced by businesses that can actually turn a profit…you know…like nail salons.

Bottom line summery:

Convenience stores can’t replace a proper grocery store. (supermarkets) And the supermarkets that do manage to survive in some places are forced to stock the same crap as the smaller stores, because that is what sells, and charge higher prices due to a litany of issues, that include but not limited to…lack of patronage…pilferage…robberies…constantly leaving perishable items near the checkout because customers realize they can’t cover everything. (yea a common problem) etc. etc.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:likely yes. Now, go show us how you would propose to get the current Congress to approve the monies for those incentives;

Simple...under the guise of protecting small business.

And the magic word...tax breaks.

thus further depleting an unbalanced budget. I'm sure the GOP will endorse the idea wholeheartedly. It seems to be what they are running on this year.

Yea, you're right, the burden should be placed on small businesses already struggling to survive in a slum.

How silly of me.

Spidey wrote:Yea, you're right, the burden should be placed on small businesses already struggling to survive in a slum.

How silly of me.

no, I think the goals are important, and wish we had a Congress responsible enough to make for a tax plan that provides adequate revenue to balance spending.

I'm seeing a whole lot of over-simplification here, especially from Spidey. And the continued use of the term "do-gooders" sounds strangely childish in this case.

Convenience stores who currently accept SNAP can only do so after meeting certain requirements. The proposed policy simply extends them in a reasonable manner.

If these businesses can't comply then they have the choice to not accept SNAP benefits. This is not the government running them out of business. If a business is receiving aid from the government in any form, then they are beholden to the government for that aid. If their business model depends on the government, then ★■◆● man, I don't know what to tell you. I can't see how any complaints are valid. Maybe run your business without the government's help?

Now that I've looked into it this looks like a non-issue.

But it’s not technically “government help” the aid is actually going to the customer.

And if you make the “chain” of help argument, then you would have to extend that to the product suppliers as well, and so on…

And accepting food stamps is not a "business model" it’s called serving the public.

Spidey wrote:And accepting food stamps is not a "business model" it’s called serving the public.

I think you have a romanticized view of the "small business under the thumb of the big-bad government."

Convenience stores apply to become SNAP retailers because it increases business. Approval comes with requirements, that being, you have to have a certain amount of healthy food available for customers. The government wants to increase the amount of healthy food available. Now, if your business model is so shitty that you can't survive without being an authorized SNAP retailer, then you deserve to be out of business. If your customers are just only buying junk food you don't need to be a SNAP retailer.

Seriously, have you looked at the pitifully small requirements to be a SNAP retailer? Most convenience stores think putting out some bananas by the register is fulfilling their obligation to healthy eating. It's pretty pathetic.

My point of this thread was to discuss the NEW requirements being proposed, not to get into the entire food stamps debate.

But I need to correct this…

“If your customers are just only buying junk food you don't need to be a SNAP retailer.”

This is dead wrong, a store needs to accept food stamps in order to serve the entire community.

I never said or implied that customers are buying ONLY junk food. Have you looked into the new proposed definition of “junk food” it’s pretty much anything processed.

Spidey wrote:My point of this thread was to discuss the NEW requirements being proposed, not to get into the entire food stamps debate.

The new requirements are not unreasonable. Consumers want choice, right?

Spidey wrote:This is dead wrong, a store needs to accept food stamps in order to serve the entire community.

You are confusing want and need. The store wants to be a SNAP retailer to increase sales. SNAP exists to bring nutrition to families in need. If the retailer is interested in health over profits the new requirements should be no problem.

And you are ignoring the realities of operating a food store in some areas. Of course they accept food stamps to get more business, duh, but it’s not like…”hey lets go set up a food store where everyone has subsidies, so we can make a killing”.

It’s basically a pre requisite to operate in some areas, and if they choose to stop taking food stamps, they would indeed have to close, and a source of many things other than just food would disappear.

“Consumers want choice, right?”

See, this is the biggest flaw in your argument, if “healthy” foods sold in some communities…the market would adjust, and there would be choice, choice created by demand.

Seriously dude…corner stores sell what people buy, and if the customers demanded “healthy” foods…a store would have no other choice.

If the community only wants junk food then losing your SNAP retail membership is no loss. You still have not demonstrated a problem. If your business model makes SNAP membership a requirement then you have to comply, or make money a different way.

Ahhh, your just trying to drag me into repeating myself now.