Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"

Wisconsin ranks 44th in the nation for new job creation. Rather than rolling up their sleeves and finding new and innovative ways to help create jobs, the Wisconsin legislature is spending its time telling people needing food assistance what they should be eating. AB 110, which will be up for a vote in the Assembly on Tuesday, May 7, is geared toward limiting "the amount of food stamp benefits that could be spent on junk food." But some of the fine print of the bill, bizarrely, would ban people from choosing more healthy and less expensive options for their families. The bill is one of many being considered that are unduly punitive of the poor.

Restricting Access to Organic and Other Whole Foods

WIC EggsAs of March 2013, 858,000 Wisconsinites receive FoodShare benefits. The bill, AB 110, would limit FoodShare, Wisconsin's food stamp program funded through the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). As the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) has reported, Governor Scott Walker has already proposed to require all "able-bodied adults" who receive food stamps (and don't have dependent children) to train or search for work in order to continue receiving those benefits. This even though Walker has failed to create the 250,000 jobs he promised when running for office in 2010.

Now Representative Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) is sponsoring another bill to further limit FoodShare. Kaufert told the Wisconsin Radio Network that the bill would make it so that a benefit recipient "can't buy six bags of nachos and four cases of soda."

Specifically, the amended program would allow only a third of an individual's FoodShare benefits to be spent on a full range of food as they currently can be. The remaining two-thirds would be subject to the same restrictions as the federal Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutritional program, with some small modifications. (Both programs, of course, bar restaurant food, cigarettes, alcohol, and pet foods.)

WIC MilkWIC is a federal program intended to supplement food stamp benefits for a particularly vulnerable population of women and young children. As such, it has strict -- and at times very odd -- guidelines to focus these supplemental food dollars on nutritionally dense staple foods.

Wisconsin's AB 110 would mandate that two-thirds of a person's FoodShare benefits could be spent only on foods on the WIC-approved list. Exemptions have been added so recipients can also purchase fish, beef, pork, chicken, and potatoes. Strangely, exemptions were not added so that the "healthy" two-thirds could also be spent on a full range of healthy Wisconsin farm products and fresh food.

The result is that the bulk of your FoodShare dollars can be spent on milk, but not organic milk; on eggs, but only on white eggs by the dozen, not on brown, free-range, or organic eggs; on 100 percent whole wheat bread, but not on gluten-free bread for those with Celiac disease; on slices of American cheese, but not sharp cheddar. FoodShare dollars can be spent on dry beans, but not if they come from a money-saving bulk bin at your local food coop. You can get juice boxes for your children, but only Juicy Juice brand juice boxes.

In order for the state Department of Health Services to implement changes to FoodShare purchasing guidelines, it would need to attain a federal waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). But when Minnesota tried to prohibit purchase of candy or soda in 2004, and New York City tried to ban purchase of certain sugary drinks in 2010, both waiver requests were denied. The USDA points out the lack of clear standards to define foods as healthy or unhealthy.

As Bill Approaches Vote, Public Input Needed

According to the Associated Press, the Assembly committee heard input from food companies, grocery stores, and food banks. They told Wisconsin lawmakers that restrictions "would shame recipients and burden businesses with enforcement." Democrats on the committee -- who voted against the measure -- said it "would stigmatize poor people who already have limited options in buying food."

In addition to Rep. Kaufert, AB 110's supporters include Representatives John Nygren (R-Marinette), Kathy Bernier (R-Chippewa Falls), Ed Brooks (R-Reedsburg), Jeff Stone (R-Greendale), Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay), Samantha Kerkman (R-Powers Lake), Scott Krug (R-Wisconsin Rapids), Pat Strachota (R-West Bend), Daniel LeMahieu (R-Cascade), Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), Mike Kuglitsch (R-New Berlin), Michael Schraa (R-Oshkosh), Alvin Ott (R-Forest Junction), Mike Endsley (R-Sheboygan), Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz), and Travis Tranel (R-Cuba City). In the Senate, the bill's supporters include Senators Robert Cowles (R-Shawano), Joe Leibham (R-Sheboygan), Frank Lasee (R-Casco), and Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend).

As Wisconsin Assemblymembers gather to vote on this bill May 7, these elected officials should expect to hear from those whose lives and food choices would be directly affected by the bill.

NOTE: AB 110 passed the Wisconsin State Assembly on May 7, 2013.


Limiting junk/unhealthy/unnecessary for survival food makes sense. Outside of that, who cares if people opt for organic? They will still have the same monthly budget to work with, and once it's gone, it's gone. Opting for value/generic brands would surely stretch the budget further every month, but let the individual/family decide. Caring about what goes into you body isn't a bad thing.

This would not save money. Foodshare costs the same for the state no matter what food people buy. It is not to stop abuse. People on foodshare do work but need the benefits to take care of their families. If you're not ignorant of these facts, you only hate poor people, or you hate organic grocery stores. All these arguments are only to delay us from calling a spade a spade: you conservatives are evil. Just show people your true colors already so that we can take your ideology to the trash heap of history and move forward. Stop pussy footing around. Go on and tell us what your plan for the endgame is: you won't stop at taking away what little freedom we have. I understand where this is going. The logical conclusion of all your efforts is concentration camps so the poor can starve out of sight. You're nothing but a bunch of fascists.

Further attempts by the right to poison the poor, then complain when folks need healthcare because their diet has made them obese and diabetic, and further the factory farming industry that is abusing animals and destroying the environment. Everyone should have access to wholesome, healthy food. I'd much prefer to see my tax dollars pay for organic cage free eggs and soy milk than pasturize juice drink and bleached flour white bread.

The big food manufacturers bought that bill. Eliminating brown eggs, whole mile organic foods come from small companies. These major manufacturers lobbied big money to eliminate healthy foods. This is not the "RIGHT" even a liberal like you should know that!

Clearly those who wrote the bill identifying these foods as junk are clueless when it comes to healthy vs. junk food; which is why they should not be making the decisions. The USDA should be the agency setting the guidelines as to what is or is not healthy. Not to mention, by not qualifying some of the alternatives those with food allergies will not be able to purchase foods such as rice or soy milk. Instead of making stupid stipulations such as this they should be focusing on the economy and jobs in Wisconsin. I'm tired of legislative wasting time on stupid stuff such as this. Focus on what's important to the people who put you in office; which many are farmers or come from farm families. This type of legislation will do nothing to create jobs or improve economics in the state.

I've read, and re-read the bill and cannot find any reference to the type of limitations that are portrayed above. I certainly oppose any such limitations, but the bill very simply requires the "food stamp program to be used only for foods, food products, and beverages that have sufficient nutritional value." The bill does not define "sufficient nutritional value." Frankly, I think this promo is merely to raise money and is a fraud. Please don't react to my opinion until you read the bill. You can click on "AB 110" above and read it for yourself.

While I agree with you that AB 110 has no language to indicate what will be deemed to have sufficient nutritional value.. I would be curious to see the guidelines for which they are making this determination.

Of course you 'didn't see it', because the link provided has been sanitized for 'their' protection. It's an edited/redacted version of the bill. Here's the more salient link:www. prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12005/walker-walks-away-johndoe-investigation-pushes-budget-deal-only-alec-could-love Also can navigate to the PR Watch website and view the article entitled "Walker Pushes Budget Deal Only ALEC Could Love." And an exerpt:"Wisconsin ranks 42 in job creation in the United States, a figure that is deeply out of synch with the Upper Midwest and most of the nation. With an ALEC-inspired agenda that will have zero impact on job creation, Wisconsinites are in for more hardship." That part comes after a section of the article where it alludes to how the Koch addicts are curtailing access to information about WI 's current 'government.' The limited details on the bill provided hint at less to be forthcoming from administration in Madison.

These look like references to other articles your organization has written.