Missouri Wants Poor People to Lay Off the Steak

We all like to indulge in luxurious meals from time to time: a nice juicy steak, a perfectly steamed lobster dipped repeatedly into drawn butter, or, if we're feeling really indulgent, both of those bad boys on one plate. But if you live in Missouri and you're one of the more than 46 million Americans currently receiving food stamps, be warned that one Republican state lawmaker is trying to force that T-bone out of your shopping basket and back onto the supermarket shelf.

According to a recent story in the Washington Post, Representative Rick Brattin is pushing for legislation that would place strict limits on the foods that are eligible for purchase under food stamp benefits. Brattin says he doesn't want low-income folks buying unhealthy foods, which is why the proposed bill would make junk foods like cookies, chips, energy drinks, and sodas off-limits. That's a position that many prominent nutrition advocates readily agree with: in 2012, a high-profile group of health researchers urged the USDA to institute pilot programs testing the effects of banning such foods from food stamp eligibility, a call that has so far gone unheeded.

But less clear is the inclusion, on Brattin's list of banned foods, of "steak" and "seafood."

"I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards," Brattin told the Post. "When I can't afford it on my pay, I don't want people on the taxpayer's dime to afford those kinds of foods either."

The lawmaker's stance doesn't make much sense. "Steak" is a blanket term that can refer to myriad cuts of meat, some pricey and others quite affordable, and while most conventional health wisdom would have us cut red meat from our diets, there are also quite a few studies demonstrating that some types of beef, such as grass-fed, provide heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids and plenty of antioxidants.

Brattin's bias against food stamp purchasing power would appear to be a personal one, as his injunction against "seafood" makes even less sense than his moratorium on meat. Nutritionists are constantly urging us to eat more fish, which tends to be high in protein and low in saturated fat, and therefore makes a sound addition to most diets.

Mark Rank, an expert on poverty and social injustice at Washington University in St. Louis, concurred.

"I don't see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods," he told the Post. "Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?"

According to Rank, Brattin's mission to limit food stamp recipients' access to these perfectly acceptable foods is just the latest example of a long American tradition of stigmatizing food stamp and welfare programs in this country.

"More than anything else, I think this is about controlling people," he said. "We should be treating people who are in poverty the same way we treat everyone else."

As for Brattin, he admitted that the language he included in the proposed bill was perhaps a bit too broad.

"My intention wasn't to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks," he told the Post—even though fish sticks are loaded with salt, sugar, and saturated fat. It would appear that a little more research needs to be done before the proposed legislation can advance any further.