People are furious after a millionaire vegan musician wrote an op-ed arguing people shouldn't be allowed to use food stamps to buy candy
- Moby, a famous musician and outspoken vegan, penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, arguing "Food Stamps Shouldn't Pay for Junk."
- There was swift backlash against the article and its author.
- Experts are divided on how best to address factors that contribute to poverty, obesity, and food insecurity in the US.
Moby, a famous musician, DJ, and avowed vegan, is under fire for an op-ed he published in The Wall Street Journal.
In the article, under the headline "Food Stamps Shouldn't Pay for Junk," Moby argues that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should cut costs by restricting offerings to emphasize less expensive, more nutritious items instead of less-healthy processed foods.
"Selling soda, candy and heavily processed meats is easy when the government picks up the tab," he writes. "Under SNAP, the big food conglomerates go to the bank while the poor end up in the emergency room."
Instead, Moby argues that the government should push for a program that focuses on "cheap, healthy foods like beans, vegetables, fruit and whole grains."
Researchers are split on how best to address the factors that contribute to poverty, obesity, and food insecurity in the US. However, Moby - who, despite his humble beginnings, is today a celebrity who has purchased and sold millions of dollars in real estate - taking on the position of an expert on poverty and nutrition rubbed many the wrong way.
"Will Moby provide refrigeration and kitchens?" Melissa Morabito, an associate professor at UMass Lowell, tweeted.
Moby isn't without his supporters. The Scaramucci Post, a media venture backed by former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, tweeted the "important" article.
Experts are split on how SNAP should be structured to best serve people living in poverty.
Studies suggest a significant portion of SNAP benefits are being spent on soda, candy, and other junk food that has been proven to have a negative impact on people's health. However, others argue that food restrictions would increase stigma, drive up costs, and fail to address deeper issues - especially if people receiving SNAP benefits are shopping in areas without high-quality, fresh food and lack the time or resources to prepare it.
"This issue has pitted anti-obesity and public health groups against the anti-hunger community," Dr. Kelly Brownell, dean of Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, told the website Civil Eats in 2017.
"On the one hand," Brownell continued, "the public health community says these beverages are contributing to ill health through obesity and diabetes. On the other hand, the hunger community says people are already stigmatized for using these benefits, and that to take something away would further stigmatize them."
