schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

KEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle

Participants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP... Full description

Journal Title: Society 2018, Vol.55(4), pp.308-317
Main Author: Paarlberg, Robert
Other Authors: Mozaffarian, Dariush , Micha, Renata , Chelius, Carolyn
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0147-2011 ; E-ISSN: 1936-4725 ; DOI: 10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: springer_jour10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
title: KEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle
format: Article
creator:
  • Paarlberg, Robert
  • Mozaffarian, Dariush
  • Micha, Renata
  • Chelius, Carolyn
subjects:
  • SNAP
  • Sugar
  • Beverages
  • Congress
  • USDA
  • Farm bill
  • Nutrition
  • Health
ispartof: Society, 2018, Vol.55(4), pp.308-317
description: Participants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP benefits, this policy has yet to be changed. Interviews with policy participants in Washington, D.C., reveal that change is being blocked by a culture of “personal responsibility” in America, plus three specific political forces: corporate lobbying primarily by the beverage and food retail industries; a desire by liberals to defend SNAP as income support for the poor even if nutrition outcomes are sub-optimal; and institutional inertia within the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees of Congress. In the 2018 farm bill debate, this “iron triangle” of bipartisan resistance to change was strong enough to block even a pilot study of SSB restrictions in SNAP.
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0147-2011 ; E-ISSN: 1936-4725 ; DOI: 10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 1936-4725
  • 19364725
  • 0147-2011
  • 01472011
url: Link


@attributes
ID711410098
RANK0.06999999
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
sourceidspringer_jour
recordidTN_springer_jour10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
sourcesystemOther
pqid2054495513
galeid545601309
display
typearticle
titleKEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle
creatorPaarlberg, Robert ; Mozaffarian, Dariush ; Micha, Renata ; Chelius, Carolyn
ispartofSociety, 2018, Vol.55(4), pp.308-317
identifier
subjectSNAP ; Sugar ; Beverages ; Congress ; USDA ; Farm bill ; Nutrition ; Health
descriptionParticipants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP benefits, this policy has yet to be changed. Interviews with policy participants in Washington, D.C., reveal that change is being blocked by a culture of “personal responsibility” in America, plus three specific political forces: corporate lobbying primarily by the beverage and food retail industries; a desire by liberals to defend SNAP as income support for the poor even if nutrition outcomes are sub-optimal; and institutional inertia within the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees of Congress. In the 2018 farm bill debate, this “iron triangle” of bipartisan resistance to change was strong enough to block even a pilot study of SSB restrictions in SNAP.
languageeng
source
version4
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
backlink$$Uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z$$EView_full_text_in_Springer_(Subscribers_only)
search
creatorcontrib
0Paarlberg, Robert
1Mozaffarian, Dariush
2Micha, Renata
3Chelius, Carolyn
titleKEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle
descriptionParticipants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP benefits, this policy has yet to be changed. Interviews with policy participants in Washington, D.C., reveal that change is being blocked by a culture of “personal responsibility” in America, plus three specific political forces: corporate lobbying primarily by the beverage and food retail industries; a desire by liberals to defend SNAP as income support for the poor even if nutrition outcomes are sub-optimal; and institutional inertia within the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees of Congress. In the 2018 farm bill debate, this “iron triangle” of bipartisan resistance to change was strong enough to block even a pilot study of SSB restrictions in SNAP.
subject
0SNAP
1Sugar
2Beverages
3Congress
4USDA
5Farm bill
6Nutrition
7Health
general
010.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
1English
2Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
3SpringerLink
sourceidspringer_jour
recordidspringer_jour10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
issn
01936-4725
119364725
20147-2011
301472011
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2018
addtitle
0Society
1Soc
searchscopespringer_journals_complete
scopespringer_journals_complete
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pqid, pages, galeid]
sort
titleKEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle
authorPaarlberg, Robert ; Mozaffarian, Dariush ; Micha, Renata ; Chelius, Carolyn
creationdate20180800
facets
frbrgroupid7790586985737026944
frbrtype5
newrecords20180711
languageeng
creationdate2018
topic
0Snap
1Sugar
2Beverages
3Congress
4Usda
5Farm Bill
6Nutrition
7Health
collectionSpringerLink
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Paarlberg, Robert
1Mozaffarian, Dariush
2Micha, Renata
3Chelius, Carolyn
jtitleSociety
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Paarlberg
1Mozaffarian
2Micha
3Chelius
aufirst
0Robert
1Dariush
2Renata
3Carolyn
au
0Paarlberg, Robert
1Mozaffarian, Dariush
2Micha, Renata
3Chelius, Carolyn
atitleKEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle
jtitleSociety
stitleSoc
risdate201808
volume55
issue4
spage308
epage317
issn0147-2011
eissn1936-4725
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractParticipants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP benefits, this policy has yet to be changed. Interviews with policy participants in Washington, D.C., reveal that change is being blocked by a culture of “personal responsibility” in America, plus three specific political forces: corporate lobbying primarily by the beverage and food retail industries; a desire by liberals to defend SNAP as income support for the poor even if nutrition outcomes are sub-optimal; and institutional inertia within the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees of Congress. In the 2018 farm bill debate, this “iron triangle” of bipartisan resistance to change was strong enough to block even a pilot study of SSB restrictions in SNAP.
copNew York
pubSpringer US
doi10.1007/s12115-018-0260-z
pages308-317
date2018-08