"Food stamp diet challenge"... possible to fashion healthy and sufficient diet?

[Rushgeekgirl]

I get 157 for a family of three, with my daughter’s income of 10 dollars an hour. The challenge is a joke to me. Yes, you may manage to make it through a week but try living on 13 dollars a week for any length of time beyond a month. There’s no way we could stay healthy on 13 dollars a week if we had to rely on just the supplement. Or 29 for that matter. I already scrimp and save and use any coupon I can get my hands on. I don’t buy prepackaged meals unless it’s a REALLY good deal, and for the most part, the little meat I eat comes from the reduced price bin. Chicken breasts are my “steak and lobster” purchases.

[FeAudrey]

@Rushgeekgirl

I get 157 for a family of three, with my daughter’s income of 10 dollars an hour.

If your daughter’s earnings are your household’s only income, and your assets (beyond a home and a car) are under $2,250, you might look into having your benefit amount re-assessed.

The maximum benefit is $511, and you sound like you’d qualify for something between that and the amount you are currently receiving.

Benefits information:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility

Screening tool (benefits estimate):

http://www.snap-step1.usda.gov/fns/

Other nutrition programs:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/programs-and-services

[Apollon]

@Mama_Zappa

Arguably, adults do not “need” milk - most milk sold in the US comes from cows, we’re not baby cows. That said, milk does have a fair bit of nutrition. 8 ounces (about 1/4 liter) of nonfat milk contains 9 grams of protein and a significant amount of calcium. A gallon of milk (16 servings) lists at 3.49 at Peapod.com (local online shopping service). That’s just over 20 cents a serving. Interestingly, dried milk does not seem to be cheaper - a package that would make 2 gallons is 7.49, slightly more than 2 gallons of real milk at 3.49 each. Might still be a better deal if you use only small quantities (e.g. in coffee!), whereas fresh milk would spoil before it could be used up.

Cheese tends to be high fat. The cheapest cheese I could find at Peapod was 4.98 a pound. 2.49 for an 8 ounce package, which serves 8, so just over 30 cents a serving. It includes 6 grams of fat and 7 grams of protein, for a reduced fat version.

Neither is horrendously expensive, but these figures suggest that in the US, at least, you’ll get more nutritional bang for your buck using milk versus cheese.

1 kilo of milk has 420 calories, 34 grams of protein and 0.12 grams of calcium. It goes for 1.5 euros per kilo, on average, in my country.
1 kilo of cheese has 3,710 calories, 180 grams of protein and 1 gram of calcium. If store brand gouda is good enough for you, you can get it for 5 euros per kilo. The more expensive ones can go for 20 euros per kilo.
Cheese wins by a large margin, provided you don’t mind the fact that cheap cheeses taste awful. Cheese is one of the only three things where price really is an indication for quality (the others are shoes and chocolate). You can get expired expensive cheeses for half the price, and - after cutting away the moldy and runny parts - they taste way better than their cheaper cousins.

[Doctor_Why_Bother]

$29.00 works out to £19.67 English. I would buy:

6 pts half-fat milk.
1 pack of oatmeal (500g).
2 bags of apples (4 to a bag).
1 loaf wholemeal bread.
1 tub of margarine (500g).
1 pot of jam.
1 packet of ham slices (10 in a pack).
1 bag brown rice (1.5kg)
1 bag frozen chicken breasts (500g).
1 bag frozen cod fillets (500g).
1 bag frozen peas (1.2kg).
1 bag frozen broccoli (1kg).
1 bag potatoes (750g).
1 bunch of bananas (8 in a bunch).
1 pack of coffee (100g).
1 bag flax seeds (100g)

Menu:

Breakfast: 70g oatmeal with 400ml milk, 1 apple (chopped up and stirred into the porridge to sweeten), 1 cup black coffee.

Mid-morning snack - 1 small handful flax seeds, equivalent to about a tablespoon.

Lunch - 2 sandwiches on wholemeal bread, one ham and one jam.

Mid-afternoon snack - 1 banana.

Dinner - Brown rice, peas, broccoli, chicken or fish. If you get bored with rice, swap for potatoes.

That comes in at just a fraction over £19.67. However, it comes in under £19.67 on average if you correct for the fact that you only really need to buy a tub of margarine once a month.

I’ve added in flaxseeds because they’re a cheap way of getting a big dose of fibre and healthy fat.

These prices were taken from the Sainsbury’s website. Sainsbury’s is a UK supermarket, and it’s not the cheapest available. If you were to buy from Aldi or Lidl you could save more. I just used Sainsbury’s because it has the best website

In conclusion, I think it should be quite easy for someone to eat comfortably and nutritiously on $29.00 per week, especially if you take into account the fact that (if the numbers in this thread are anything to go by) food is slightly cheaper in the US than the UK. My diet hits all major food groups, comes in at roughly 2,000 - 2,500 calories (depending on portion size), has sources of protein, fibre, complex carbs and healthy fats, gives you your five a day (if you double up on peas, which you will be able to afford), and is easy to make.

[handsomeharry]

@Boyo_Jim

Where is $29 per week? I was on food stamps 2 years ago and I got $200 a month just for me. That’s certainly enough for a healthy diet – not that I lived on one.

X2.

[runningdude]

@Broomstick

Right - like soup kitchens, food pantries, etc.

The point is that there are some people eating on a very limited food budget. The point is to get people to really think about this and learn to empathize a bit with the less fortunate.
Incorrect.

You claim I am incorrect, but your anecdote describes the very thing I am claiming. $29 supplements the amount available to those with income; those without income have nothing that can be supplemented.

They don’t look at what you were actually spending before you fell on hard times, because maybe you were spending $200/week per person or something. Nope, the bureaucracy has determined what a reason amount to spend on food a week is, assuming you’re buying frugally.

No government body could possibly investigate every family. There are 300 million people in this country, each with his own budget. Investigating the millions coming on or off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would drain resources.

I’m pretty sure that’s less than what most people above working poor spend on their weekly food budget. Your income at the time of evaluation is supplemented to reach that “frugal figure” more or less.

One of the privileges of having money is the ability to afford more and nicer foods. Just because people who do not need to frugal dot shop frugally, does not mean that those with limited resources should get more supplemental nutrition funds.

When I initially applied for food stamps at that time we had NO income. We were granted the maximum benefit and yes, that WAS the entirety of our food budget - and it was more than $29/week. Some months later we were re-evaluated and because I had acquired employment by then our benefit was reduced. As it should be.

But there ARE people subsisting entirely on food stamp money. Not the majority, but they do exist.

I do not dispute this, but the government cannot plan a program that supports millions based on the outliers. SNAP is a one size fits all solution. It is also not the only solution.

[Broomstick]

@runningdude

You claim I am incorrect, but your anecdote describes the very thing I am claiming. $29 supplements the amount available to those with income; those without income have nothing that can be supplemented.

You are incorrect in asserting that it is expected people will be paying as much towards foods as before they needed aid. That is untrue. The government has calculated a frugal budget, examines the family’s resources, and supplements accordingly.