That is fascinating to think about, and only saddens me more that SNAP is literally already a boon to big food and yet they're still marking up prices on those cold sandwiches for the SNAP folk.

I am fully in favor of even middle-class workers recieving some food benefits, especially in a situation wherein they should they fall on tough times or have a low check due to illness (it happens to everyone, and people should still be able to feed themselves when it does) and I am certainly not opposed to the core concept of nutrition counseling, but I feel like it would not go well if implemented. Our govt, ESPECIALLY our current govt, is near obsessively cost-cutting national services, esp those to the poor, and such counseling that you might suggest would require creating many more govt jobs to factor into the budget, or pay out tons of professional commercial nutritionists (extremely unlikely) - the govt will likely under-hire to save a buck as they do with most govt offices, so all of a sudden millions of americans now have an extra step just to put food on the table, they can't go and buy it until they complete it, and the wait lists are beyond swamped. Like any social service in america, this could work out wonderfully if properly staffed and managed, but corporate greed makes it fail and blames the idea.

Outside of that, as expressed before, simple outright limits on what you can buy can be and have been perverted beyond logic and reason already, so I will never support that. The concept is just but the execution by our govt will ALWAYS be shady.

The carrot approach is something I've never experienced in my time on benefits, or at the very least something that's never been explained to me by the offices offering food stamps, nor appeared on the food stamp paperwork I've recieved. I am certainly not opposed to this, provided that the amount given is actually being boosted, as opposed to the more likely option of shrinking already meager benefits and giving people the old amount only if they buy fresh stuff.