It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Food Stamps and Corporate Profits

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:54 PM
I have some thoughts that I don't think I've seen discussed.

I don't mean to debate the use of Food Stamps or even what sorts of foods people should be allowed to buy.

What I'm thinking about here is Name Brands vs. "Store Brands" or "Generics".

And alot of product 'lines' are produced by the same manufacturer. They just have different names, packaging, and profit levels.

Now if the Food Stamp customer chooses the Name Brand - isn't most of the additional cost just going to additional corporate profit?

What if the Store has a sale for "Preferred Customers" and the Food Stamp customer does not have this "Preferred Card" and pays full price? Isn't this tax money then going straight to more profit for the store?

I have tried to research this idea with little headway.

Another example would be drugs and Medicare/Medicaid. If you are on these government programs it is required that you are given the generic drugs when possible.

Why not with food for the Food Stamp user? Why can they buy Name Brand Food when the Generic or Store Brand is a much better value - and is likely produced by the same manufacturer?

Am I wrong about this? I don't think I am - I assume Food Stamps are treated like cash or any other payment. I don't believe that if Food Stamps are used the end payee sees any reduction in reimbursement.

I think Food Stamp customers could either be required to buy the Generics and Store Brands - or - if they choose the Name Brand - the Name Brand producer would only be paid the cost + profit of it's lowest generic equivalent. This could be encoded into product bar codes.

I hope I'm getting my ideas across here. I do not mean to argue with or demean Food Stamp users (had them myself once.)

What I'm trying to say is - I think tax money is going to additional corporate profits via Food Stamps.

I've heard people discuss what types of foods Food Stamp users should be allowed to buy. Many people would like to see them ONLY used for nutritious foods. Others argue that "junk" food is cheaper and easier for the customer.

It also has a much higher PROFIT level.

And then on top of that - whether Junk or Nutritious - the food in the fancier package brings greater profits for the producer.

Perhaps this is why Food Stamp users are not required to buy nutritious or better value foods?

You don't hear Big Food complaining about Food Stamps; Thus, I believe they must not face any profit reduction for Food Stamp payments.

And muse about extrapolation of these ideas - more people continuously join the Food Stamp program - are we all that poor really? And food prices keep going up.

If the cost of food keeps going up, forcing more people to use Food Stamps - could somehow this whole issue be being driven by the idea of Corporate Profit?

Make the government PAY for everyone's food - then the food producers are in the best spot to dictate what we will eat (for their greatest profits). Is Soylent Green on the horizon?

There's something amiss here, I can't quite put my finger on it.

But back to my original and simple idea of allowing Food Stamps to pay for "overpriced" Name Brand items - doesn't that mean that alot of tax money is simply going to packaging, advertising, and bigger profits for the food producers?


posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:07 PM
i certainly think it's interesting, and this may very well be an underlying intention from the governments who are in bed with corporations.

But all it really does is further tick me off that people with no money can afford to buy better food than people like us who have jobs and work HARD

so it's a lose lose for those who actually pay for this stuff.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by Whiffer Nippets

well since i have worked in the industry im here to tell you this:

generic vs name brand

generic is cheaper for the simple fact it contains less nutrional value......
namebrand costs most for the simple it containes more nutrional value...........

now when it comes to profit of grocery stores its like this............the buyer(the store) purchases from the corporation(seller) then turns around and puts that product on his shelf to sell to you............

the profit on the store is just a few cents if they are lucky this is where volume makes or breaks profit and its like that for the majority of all products in the store....... same can be said for medicines.........

generic isnt always better generic is you get what you pay for and more often than naught generic is total crap..

especially when it comes to medications cheap can kill you and cheap food can kill you just as well.......

the cost of food goes up because the government has its hands in the whole deal from government subsidies that control commodity prices to the outrageous prices that lets say farmers have to put up...........

there are so many levels when it comes to this stuff its mind boggling........................the biggest player in all this is the federal reserve..................the manipulation of the dollar that intentionally devalues it to the point its worthless..................theres an old saying a dollar doesnt buy what it use to and the fed is why...............its not so much greed from the corporations and the grocery store its the damn greed and lust for power and control the government has.................
edit on 10-10-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:24 PM
Because cheaper foods are almost certainly going to be made with genetically modified organisms. No one should be forced to eat that poison.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 07:03 PM
What I hope to convey here, yes I understand that sometimes "generic" means lesser ingredients, but what I am getting at here is - that it is fairly well know that most products are exactly the same and just labeled differently.

Lesser products are one thing, same products differently labeled are another.

Budweiser and Busch as example.

And GMOs are in most products anyway.

The "Brand Names" are no better than the Generics in most instances as all must conform to standards and of course profit driven companies will work off the lowest standard applicable for whatever they label their various "brands".

Doesn't matter if you call it Super Premium Spaghetti Sauce or Joe's Plain Spaghetti sauce - its more often than not the same thing and also usually made by the same company. You aren't paying for "Premium" ingredients - you are paying for "premium" advertising and packaging.

This is what I'm getting at here.

Coke is no better than Fanta. They are made by the same company.

Ford and Lincoln are the same right? It's the same crappy car, the Lincoln just has a bit nicer of packaging, more advertising, and the price is jacked way up due to its imagined "cachet".

I do see that inferior products could be classed as 'generic' - but what I mean to point out here is - the same products are often just labeled differently for 'upscale appeal' and the price then increased.

This is what I mean, in case I wasn't clear.

And yes indeed it's quite a complex subject!

I've spent long years in manufacturing, not too familiar with the food industry, but have relatives in it and am quite familiar with "marketing" tactics.

Here's another product to contemplate - it can't be bought with Food Stamps but works as an example - all those drinks you think are "wine coolers"? They aren't anymore. Now they are chemical flavored malt liquor.
No different then a $2 six pack of Old E or Colt 45. But they cost $8 dollars. Why? Packaging and Marketing.
Meant to increase profits.

Anyway, maybe this makes my ideas more clear.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 07:48 PM

Yes your right, some are worth the higher price because they offer more, and some are the same thing with different labels, but brand names will always sell for more, even long after it's competitors have been bought out and assimilated, its all image. And it makes people have jobs, and who know's what the think tanks in all areas will come up with in the future and are coming up with right now, they sure have a lot of time and resources on there hands. Soylent green in the future, I dont know... do you think it will sell, or do they have to change the name first, so that it will sell?

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:12 PM

And GMOs are in most products anyway.

They're supposedly not in foods labeled "organic." A person can try to avoid them as best they can by buying foods with the organic label.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:47 PM
If you want to talk about Food Stamps and corporate profit then you should ask why the Morgans, under the guise of "Chase Bank" are responsible for distributing EBT cash benefits. (at least here in NY).

As far as name brand vs generics, most people who really need the food stamps will buy the cheapest stuff they can because it's a lot harder than it sounds to stretch 200 bucks across the entire month and not eat mac an cheese everyday.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Shadowflux

As far as name brand vs generics, most people who really need the food stamps will buy the cheapest stuff they can because it's a lot harder than it sounds to stretch 200 bucks across the entire month and not eat mac an cheese everyday.

Agreed! We spend $150 a week for a family of three here, and that is only having meat on the weekends.
Now I would say 25 of that is non food items, shampoo, detergents etc. We eat cheap tv dinners for supper, but lunchmeat for lunch. I could not do that on $200 a month. The ones buying expensive taste either can not manage money at all, or really do not need them in the first place.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by Shadowflux

If you want to talk about Food Stamps and corporate profit then you should ask why the Morgans, under the guise of "Chase Bank" are responsible for distributing EBT cash benefits. (at least here in NY).

Wow. That's interesting. Another thing that makes you think too. Thanks for this info. It's quite a large, messy puzzle, isn't it?

posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Whiffer Nippets

Yeah, they also take your fingerprints when you sign up for EBT (food stamps), I wonder where those get sent to. In addition, food stamps are now distributed via debit card, if you receive cash benefits you can take money out of ATMs just like a regular debit card. I think, however, if you want cash benefits you have to sign up for some kind of job training program as well.

The OP mentioned the idea that food stamps should only buy certain kinds of food, I think this is the case for WIC (Women Infants Children) benefits. There is certain formula, diapers, milk etc that are "WIC Approved".

However, with EBT there are only a few things you can't buy, like Alcohol, shampoo, soap etc. and most supermarkets and many "Bodegas" or delis in urban areas accept both EBT and WIC.

posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by amatrine

It's true, people think $200 is a lot of money but if you consider the fact that most people spend at least $10 a day on food you're already at $300 a month. I think you can get more if you have children or other dependents but $200 is the basic allocation in NY. Plus, people are forced to re-certify for their benefits every 6 months or so, I read somewhere that about 60% of people lose their benefits because the whole process is so convoluted.

Most of the time people are forced to make poor nutritional choices because of the cheaper price, foods that are high in quality and nutritional value are generally much more expensive. People wonder why there are so many poor people that are also overweight and why poor people have so many more medical problems but a lot of it is due to the lack of nutrition available to those relying on food stamps.


log in