The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should certain foods be restricted from SNAP?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 46204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Due to misuse of this program, and a rising incidence of obesity, some states are considering restricting SNAP recipients from buying junk foods, such as soda. I believe that no food should be banned because:
1) unfair to people who don't abuse this program
2) additional stigma to people in this program

(Side note: I'm not good at this whole debating thing, so I joined this site to practice. This is my first debate.)


I believe that they should limit amounts of such (soda, chips) depending on the family's health and wellness.
If you have a child who has obesity you should have to buy a certain amount of fruits, vegetables, and milk/dairy products. And, this is too keep the child healthy not healthy.
But, for that to happen they should be told in a contract prior to signing up for (SNAP) therefore there are no problems or new changes without people knowing. Knowing that when you sign up for (SNAP) consider you health that; that'll have an effect on what you can and cannot receive.
Only because as you said the high demand for government funding and as of this year we are at the highest cut for government survives ever in Amerindian History.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Considering how expensive the healthier foods are these days, convenience foods (aka "junk foods") are an occasional reality in the homes of most SNAP recipients. Requiring them to purchase at least a certain amount of fruits and vegetables could mean that their foodstamp dollars don't last as long. And what about special occasions? Imagine you've been out of work for several months. It's your child's fifth birthday. You had to spend your last few dollars on rent so your family wouldn't be evicted. You feel your mouth go dry and your heart start to raise as you try to think of a way to explain to him why he doesn't have a cake this year. If states ban junk food from being purchased with SNAP, scenarios like this would probably be common.


By Nikki Gaskins

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) " Doughnuts, chips, sodas: if state leaders get their way, some people can say goodbye to purchasing those foods with state-funded assistance.

On Thursday night, the Department of Health and Environmental Control sponsored a forum to allow the community to weigh in on the issue. The Department of Social Services administers the SNAP program whereas DHEC administers WIC.

The USDA administers both.

State leaders hope to eventually ask the USDA for a federal waiver in an effort to curb the state's growing obesity problem. South Carolina ranks eighth in the nation for obesity, and two out of every three people in the state are presently overweight.

"We would ask that the USDA consider using WIC instead of the SNAP program so people have better nutrition," said DHEC director Catherine Templeton.

Right now, WIC provides food stamps for only children and nursing mothers.

"WIC has an educational component. It's an inclusive list of healthy fruits, vegetables and whole grains," said Templeton.

With the exception of tobacco and alcohol, there's little regulation over what people can buy on the SNAP program. If it's junk food they want, people on the program can currently get it.

"If you want to eat Doritos and drink Coca-Cola, go for it. That's great. But not on taxpayers' money," said Templeton. "Right now the federal government is spending $2 billion in taxpayer money subsidizing obesity " that's just on sugar-added drinks."

Benita Washington, a mother previously on food stamps, spoke at Thursday's forum in support of a change to the program.

"It hurts my heart when I go in a grocery store and the fresh food vegetable area is only so big, and they got miles of potato chips and soda that people are eating. It's disgusting," she said.

Others argued that the government has no right to tell them what to eat.

"We have a lot of rules and regulations already in place," said one man who spoke.

In South Carolina, there are more than 800,000 people on the SNAP program who collectively receive $1.4 billion in cash benefits annually.

State leaders say by restricting people from purchasing foods deemed unhealthy, the state would save millions in healthcare costs and encourage people to lead healthier lifestyles.
Debate Round No. 2


skillet_fan320 forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited the last round proving he has nothing left to say.
As A conclusion I restate SNAP should restrict certain foods for families.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.