As we wrote last week, the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - or food stamps - has been criticized lately by certain groups who claim that the government program is subsidizing the obesity epidemic. In a misguided way, these critics believe restricting what low-income families can buy with SNAP benefits will lead to healthier lifestyles.

The editorial team at the Chicago Tribune today published a piece that examines the complexity of categorizing hundreds of thousands of products year after year to determine which foods and beverages qualify, posing the hypothetical question: “Would that determination be made based on what's in the item, or what's not?”  The writers also argue that while poor health, obesity and related diseases are increasing healthcare costs for everyone, “low-income people aren’t the only ones driving up those costs.”

The editorial states:

“More to the point: Why should the government dictate the dietary choices of SNAP recipients when the rest of us are free to sling Little Debbies and Mountain Dew into our carts? What we're hearing is that it's wrong to buy Fritos on the taxpayers' dime.

Moderation, people. A 2002 survey of food stamp purchases found that recipients were "no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks." A 2005 USDA analysis found that "vegetables, fruits, grain products, meat and meat alternatives account for nearly three quarters of the money value of food used by food stamp households."

So lighten up, already. We're all for reducing obesity, reining in health care costs and prudent spending of taxpayer dollars. But we don't think the government needs to micromanage the grocery shopping habits of its citizens.”

To read the full text of the editorial, click here.