This is a fabulous piece of work from the Michael Crichton school of journalism: mix in some incontrovertible facts and weave in some plausible theory, all designed to suspend disbelief in the reader.
Of course this type of story is always better if you disregard inconvenient truths: the overwhelming number of USCC members do not handle sewage sludge and are working every day to provide sustainable options for society; Kellogg Garden Supply does not use sewage sludge in their products; using compost in community gardens, particularly in urban "food deserts" across the country will help promote healthy eating that may even save or extend lives.
The whole premise this hit piece lies in the potential for sewage sludge to alledgedly contain a host of chemical contaminants. It would better support the author's cause to provide links to actual studies showing that these substances are actually present in the compost products, instead of other spurious articles. Maybe this Sally Brown is right.
It would be great to be able to access a detailed list of the sponsors, donors, and mentors of the ALEC network. It might make a difference in people deciding with whom they will do business. It did for us.
I see this bill as an assault on poor people, another way to scapegoat and punish them for being poor. People cannot sustain health with the kind of restrictions this bill imposes. Why should poor people tolerate having a small group of legislators dictate what their families can eat? This is un- American. Should we tell the governor and legislators what they can buy with their state paid salaries? Should we base it on job performance too? They seem to think that different standards apply to different economic brackets, when the FACT is, we are ALL dependent on the state and each other for our livelihoods.
A consumer with food stamps who chooses to pay more for the organic milk doesn't consequently get a larger allotment of food stamps. Maybe he decides to buy bulk dry beans instead of canned beans to save money elsewhere. But under this bill, he couldn't buy either one, at least with the majority of his benefit allotment. The point is, for those who value consumer choice, why should someone with less money, who needs a little assistance, not also be allowed to make rational, considered choices just like everyone else?
Personally, I can see where any food that sets a premium price should be considered to be outside the norm for SNAP (food stamp) purchases. In this case all three items mentioned are sold at premiums prices, and, in my opinion, should not qualify for SNAP recipients.
Pages