Mayors say food stamps shouldn't go for soda
NEW YORK — The mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and 15 other cities are reviving a push against letting food stamps be used to buy soda and other sugary drinks.
In a letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday, the mayors say it's “time to test and evaluate approaches limiting” the use of the subsidies for sugar-laden beverages, in the interest of fighting obesity and related diseases.
“We need to find ways to strengthen the program and promote good nutrition while limiting the use of these resources for items with no nutritional value, like sugary drinks, that are actually harming the health of participants,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose office released the letter, said in a statement. “Why should we continue supporting unhealthy purchases in the false name of nutrition assistance?”
The other cities whose mayors signed the letter are Baltimore; Boston; Louisville; Madison, Wis.; Minneapolis; Newark; Oakland; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Portland, Ore.; Providence, R.I.; Salt Lake City; San Francisco; St. Louis; and Seattle.
The Department of Agriculture, which runs the food stamp program, declined to comment on the letter; representatives for House Speaker John Boehner and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, to whom the letter was addressed, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Supreme Court will hear challenge to EPA’s power-plant rules
- Brown family blasts prosecutor; Wilson speaks
- E-cigarettes cut cravings, study finds
- Ferguson grand jury focused on fatal ‘tussle’
- United Mine Workers responds to strike complaint
- Mo. governor adds guardsmen as protests continue
- Protest in Cleveland over 12-year-old’s shooting death chokes off traffic
- Illegals protected by Obama in line for Social Security, Medicare, other benefits
- In IRS ‘rife with scandal,’ staff to receive bonuses
- Oregon recounts votes on measure to label GMO foods
- Alcohol’s role in collegiate assaults cited at University of Virginia board’s meeting