On February 17, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the federal government to approve a statewide ban on the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and candy. In its press release, DHHS representatives argued that banning such purchases would benefit public health and ease the burden on taxpayers. While many welcomed the move, it embodies the way in which conditional government welfare programs patronize and stigmatize low-income people.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the Food Stamp program, is a state-administered and federally-funded program designed to help low-income families. Maine’s move to ban candy and soda aside, SNAP is already an example of conditional welfare in that benefits can only be used to buy foodstuffs from approved vendors. Rather than providing unconditional benefits for low-income families to spend at their discretion, conditional welfare programs like SNAP undermine the autonomy of low-income people by imposing parameters on how they are allowed to use their benefits. Governments rationalize the conditions imposed on welfare recipients, but these rationalizations are often unjustified. Ultimately, conditional welfare is motivated by a cultural and institutional mistrust of low-income people.

The press release from Maine’s DHHS justified the prospective ban on the grounds that soda and candy lack nutritional value and that eliminating the option to buy soda would reduce obesity amongst SNAP recipients. However, the assumption that simply improving nutritional content of the food one eats will improve one’s weight is not that well supported by evidence. While poor nutrition can affect certain health outcomes, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases agree that caloric content, not nutritional content, of food overwhelmingly determines one’s weight.

In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Kansas made headlines when he lost 27 pounds in two months by cutting his calorie intake and restricting his diet to Twinkies, Doritos, and Oreos. Of course, being thin is not equivalent to being healthy and there are many positive health outcomes associated with improving nutritional intake. Nonetheless, simply banning the purchase of some items will do little to reduce obesity, nor ensure those on food stamps will diversify their nutritional intake.

Misguided Calculations

After drawing a tenuous prediction that the prohibition of sugary foods will cause a reduction in obesity rates, the press release notes “Over $700 million is spent in Maine on obesity related medical expenditures and more than a third of that paid for by taxpayers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This, of course, implies that low-income individuals are disproportionately responsible for Maine’s obesity problem and that they disproportionately contribute to the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

However, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the average low-income Mainer generates an effectively equal amount of “obesity related medical expenditure” as the average Mainer who is not reliant on Medicare or Medicaid. Over 269,000 of 1.33 million Mainers rely on Medicaid and over 306,400 on Medicare. When factoring in the 104,000 dual eligibilities, KFF’s data shows that nearly 35 percent of Maine’s population relies on these health aid programs.

Therefore, just under two-thirds of the Maine population that is not low-income makes up about two-thirds of Maine’s “obesity related medical expenditure.” The assertion made in this press release is likely grounded in the misguided and simplistic belief that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese. In reality, obesity is a relatively constant cause for concern across all income brackets.

Unconditional Help

Obesity is no doubt an issue in Maine and throughout the country. While the state’s move to eliminate sugary products from its food stamp program may have been well intentioned, it is but one example of how conditional welfare disproportionately blames low-income people for public problems that are largely unrelated to economic status. Such misguided rationalizations are often used to justify patronizing conditional welfare programs.

While limiting the autonomy of beneficiaries is seen as a way of ensuring government funds are spent properly, doing so not only unjustly stigmatizes welfare recipients, it often undermines the efficacy of each dollar spent on welfare. Conditional welfare assumes that because one is in need of welfare, they are unfit to have discretion over how they spend money.

Research has shown that unconditional cash transfer and welfare programs are far more effective means of improving recipients’ conditions. In 2003, Brazil introduced a program known as Bolsa Familia under which poor families were eligible to receive direct cash transfers. While Bolsa Familia did impose some conditions on families (requiring children of recipient families be vaccinated and attend school), each family was free to spend their cash transfer as they saw fit. The program was considered a huge success, helping to reduce poverty and inequality nationwide.

Maine’s effort to ban the purchase of candy and soft drink with food stamps awaits approval from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency in charge of overseeing SNAP.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Food Stamps for Sweets: Unjust Welfare Conditionality appeared first on Law Street.

Students attending a suburban Chicago high school were hospitalized on Tuesday after eating gummy bears that authorities suspect to have been tainted.

The Naperville High School students hospitalized suffered varying degrees of illness, including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and dry mouth. The school encouraged parents to have an open dialogue with their children about healthy choices in a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday night.

Today at Naperville North High School, 14 students were transported to Edward Hospital for medical treatment. We can confirm 12 are being treated as a result of consuming gummy bears that may contain another substance.

This candy made those students both uncomfortable and sick, so they were taken to the nurse’s office for care. For safety precautions, the students were transported to Edward Hospital to receive medical attention. Each student had varying degrees of discomfort and subsequent treatment.

Currently, 2 students are in stable condition and are undergoing evaluation, while 11 have been treated and released. They have been experiencing symptoms that include fast heart rate, dizziness and dry mouth.

We encourage all parents to have conversations with their children about making healthy choices. Our community is fortunate to have a number of resources available through school and other community partners to support the wellbeing of students.

We continue to review the specifics of the situation and will address it appropriately. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your school’s principal.

Students told police that they thought the gummy bears were “laced with something with marijuana, like a liquid-based marijuana substance,” said Naperville Police commander Jason Arres. Authorities determined that the gummy bears were ingested voluntarily, but investigations are underway to determine how the gummy bears were distributed.

According to local news station WLS, a 17-year-old male student was taken into custody, but released without being charged.

“There are a lot of avenues that we can take with juvenile discipline,” Arres said. “Again they’re young, so we want to work through these issues in partnership and collaboration with the school district to make sure the punishment fits the crime.”

One Facebook user commented on the Naperville Police Department’s post and suggested the students might have fallen victim to the notorious Haribo sugar-free gummy bears, which online reviewers have complained made them feel ill.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

The Naperville incident appears to be the latest in a string of cases where students have sought medical attention after consuming drug-laced candy. Similar reports have appeared in a variety of states–from Pennsylvania to Florida. It seems that students are slowly realizing a “harmless treat” isn’t always as it seems.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Students Hospitalized After Consuming ‘Laced’ Gummy Bears appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone knows the shape of a KitKat bar–but can Nestle (KitKat’s parent company) legally keep people from replicating it? According to a British judge, the KitKat shape can’t be trademarked–the decision was just handed down earlier this week.

Apparently this has been a long legal saga in Europe, with Nestle bringing attempts to trademark the KitKat shape to both the British High Court and the European Court of Justice. Nestle first tried to trademark the shape back in 2010, in an attempt to keep competitors, particularly Cadbury, from making chocolate bars in similar shapes.

However, Judge Arnold of Britain’s High Court ruled that the shape of KitKat hadn’t “acquired a distinctive character” to the point where it could be trademarked. The big legal question was whether or not someone could look at a KitKat bar and know what it was, even without any distinctive markings or packaging. Judge Arnold pointed out that Nestle had never promoted the shape when marketing the KitKat bar, and the bar’s wrapping obscures the shape. He stated in his ruling that while the shape may be distinctive, it isn’t the only thing that consumers use to identify the candy bar, stating:

In these circumstances it seems likely that consumers rely only on the word mark KitKat and the other word and the pictorial marks used in relation to the goods in order to identify the trade origin of the products. They associate the shape with KitKat (and therefore with Nestlé), but no more than that.

The idea of trademarked a candy bar shape isn’t totally crazy though; some cases have been successful in the past. For example, Toblerone, which does have a distinctive mountain-like look, has been able to trademark its shape.

This case also wasn’t the first time that European candy companies have gone head-to-head over seemingly arbitrary intellectual property claims. In 2013, Nestle and Cadbury tussled in court over Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the shade of purple it uses for its chocolate wrappers. Cadbury wasn’t successful at that attempt, either.

So for now, it seems like the case of the KitKat shape is decided (at least in European courts) but Nestle is promising to appeal the suit. At this point though…”Gimme a break.“

Update: An earlier version of this post used the term “copyright” instead of “trademark.” The language has been updated.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post British Judge Rules Nestle Can’t Trademark the KitKat Shape appeared first on Law Street.

Missed out on some of the most interesting news last week? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. From satirical gateway drugs to a city overrun by clowns, last week was certainly one for the books. Writer Anneliese Mahoney took the top two spots with her reporting on police who struck out in their drug searches but came out with a handful of okra and some frisbee equipment, as well as a look t the city of Wasco, California, which may or may not be crawling in clowns; Alexandra Badalamenti write the number three post of the week on Hershey’s lawsuit against the maker of Hashees, a curiously similarly named weed edible. ICYMI, here is Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 Frisbees and Okra: The New Gateway Drugs

The national attitude towards pot has been evolving for some time now. Marijuana has now officially been decriminalized in a number of states, and even legalized in two: Oregon and Washington. But even as our national view towards marijuana changes, our misperceptions don’t necessarily follow suit. This split has led to a couple funny stories making the national news this week. One directly relates to those aforementioned stereotypes. A video in Ankeny, Iowa has been making its rounds on the internet. In it, a police officer tries to search a driver’s car, because apparently, people who play disc golf also smoke weed. (Read full article here)

#2 What’s the Deal With the Clown Problem in Wasco, California

If you’re a member of the Wasco California Police Department, you’ve had an interesting week. Wasco, near Bakersfield, has been all over the news for an interesting problem it’s having. But is it actually a problem, or a weird hoax turned viral? Google it and you’ll see a bunch of headlines about crazy clowns terrorizing the town and stalking people. (Read full article here)

#3 Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users. The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats. (Read full article here)

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users.

The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats.

TinctureBelle is clever, I’ll give them that. Some of its product names included “Hashees,” “Ganga Joy,” and “Hashheath.” Who doesn’t enjoy a good pun? Well, Hershey. The Pennsylvania-based company wasn’t laughing when it sued the Colorado-based company for trademark infringement.

The purpose of a trademark is to avoid confusion among consumers between two products. Hershey argued that similarities in product names would do just that and expressed concern over maintaining their wholesome reputation as a company whose biggest fans are children.

“The Hershey Company’s trademarks are iconic and among our company’s most important assets,” explained Hershey’s spokesman Jeff Beckman. “They are recognized by consumers around the world, and our company has spent as many as 120 years building the trust and equity in these iconic brands. Consumers depend on our brand names to represent a level of quality and dependability. These entities have used Hershey’s trademarks, without authorization, to trade on Hershey’s goodwill and reputation, and to draw greater attention to their products; these unauthorized uses of Hershey’s trademarks also make the products more appealing to children.”

TinctureBelle must now refrain from using names that infringe on Hershey products. According to the Denver Business Journal, this includes the destruction of “all remaining specimens of each product, including without limitation cartons, containers, packaging, wrappers, labels, displays and any other material.”

TinctureBelle owner Char Mayes released a statement asserting that “the lawsuit from Hershey came as a huge surprise to us, because we changed our entire label line approximately six months ago, long before these allegations surfaced.”

With one Google search of TinctureBelle’s products, you will find that the packaging does resemble that of Hershey’s delicious treats. It’s pretty obvious.

TinctureBelle now begins the walk of shame with this settlement. It has agreed to disable an Internet site that had been designed to raise money for the legal battle against Hershey. It promised not to register trademark for the names involved in the suit and will have to pay $25,000 per trademark breach of the settlement going forward.

It seems as though Hershey’s legal department is actually quite busy lately. TinctureBelle isn’t the only company in its path of legal destruction. In June it filed a suit against Conscious Care Cooperative over a similar marijuana-based candy issue. And in September, the Hershey Company filed a lawsuit against LBB Imports LCC over trademark infringement of foreign candy.

Meanwhile, Hershey is playing defense against Mars, which accused the candy company of copying its red-colored packaging.

October’s Halloween holiday can mean many things — spookiness and fear, high candy sales, and now salty executives caught up in some sweet trademark hell.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [slgckgc via Flikr]

The post Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker appeared first on Law Street.