I finally bit the bullet this week and registered over at Change.org; I encourage you to do the same (though a certain regular reader/writer got there well before me). As a result, I've been, er, exposed to a lot of new ideas, people, and discussions, now that I can comment to my little heart's content (plus, I need a new conversation place... Ezra's just not doing it like he used to).
One of Red's fellow guest posters, Greg Plotkin, has been taking up the topic of food and poverty. In a fairly provocative post, he recently suggested that, despite serious misgivings, it might be worth considering that Wal Mart's foray into the Chicago city market might not be a bad thing, given the problem with "food deserts" in an urban area like Chicago, where access to fresh groceries is very limited.
This has led to an interesting discussion of the various ways to look at Wal Mart... but it got me wondering... just what are we dealing with in this notion of food deserts? I said as much to Greg:
I also have to be honest: I'm skeptical of the "food desert" issue; while I've seen some indication of challenges finding groceries in some neighborhoods, when I lived in New York, I also find it overstated - Manhattan lacks large grocery stores all over, because of space limitations; only in the past 15 years or so did I see new building construction really adapt to the need for groceries anywhere. In Harlem, much as anywhere, there are places to get groceries. They're not all great, they're not all great on price... but they are there. And they were there.
Greg replied:
Weboy, if you want to read the whole Chicago "food desert" report you can find it here: http://www.marigallagher.com/projects/
So I went... and that led to some interesting avenues.
The idea of "food deserts" is actually fairly recent. Although the terminology dates back to the seventies, food activists didn't try to make it into a signature issue until recently, first in the United Kingdom, and more recently here. Mari Gallagher, an urban policy expert with a fairly long resume, has become something of an expert on the topic, consulting in various areas, packaging data meant to show the seriousness of "food desert" issues, so far in Detroit and Chicago. To look at her site, it seems clear that she's trying to expand the concept into other urban areas.
So what's a "food desert"? Well, in Gallagher's work it's kind of a vague way of suggesting that people, especially poor people, in urban settngs don't have adequate access to fresh food, or, more precisely, a full service grocery store or supermarket. The "research" to prove that appears mainly to be extensive observation of retail outlets in a region, and breaking down distances to different types of outlets for the average resident. Aside from imprecise criteria - there's no exact formula to define when a "food desert" exists or not, it's basically where Gallagher, and other researchers find them to be - the exercise offers little hard evidence. Different outlets are defined in percentage terms, not numbers in her "reports," and distances are averaged in a way that makes sorting out just how far away a particular shopping setting is from an actual consumer all but impossible.
Moreover, the idea of "food desert" suggests scarcity; in fact, the scarcity is limited to specific items, mainly fresh produce; the arguent is that "food deserts" force poor eating choices by making bad food outlets - convenience stores, minimarts ... and worst of all, of course, fast food chains - more prevalent than places with the food basics like meat, vegetables and such, to allow people to cook for themselves.
In all, the "food desert" case is fairly poor "science" and really not even especially rigorous social science: the data raises as many or more questions than it answers, and offers virtually no actual correlation between ease of access to particular food and actual behavior. There are a lot of fast food restaurants... indeed a lot of restaurants, period ... in this country. What that may "make" people do... we don't exactly know. We suspect, we assume... but we don't really know (what we do know... is that people seem to like fast food. Even if it isn't healthy for them). A society which has made everything fast, easy, and cheap... makes the time and expense of cooking seem onerous. Probably, that leads people to make poor choices, more towards fast food, or fast preparation food (like a microwave meal)... can we prove that? Sort of. But does a "food desert" force us into particular choices? There's really no way to know it or prove it... because "food desert" is, by itself, an unclear reference, needing more precise definition before anyone could reasonably assess impact.
Do lower income neighborhoods need more and better grocery outlets? Probably; grocery chains, like most businesses, have chased the luxury market and the higher income spender, leading to absurdities like Whole Foods, and the wide spread of "gourmet" groceries. But food is also a basic need; and grocery chains know perfectly well that there's money to made most anywhere, given the right selection of items and pricing. Part of the reason the "food desert" case is overstated - or misstated - is because it's partly a value judgment; not just do you have food... but is it the "right" food. Not just any selection of groceries... but the "good" ones.
As a report in the British Medical Journal (requires registration) suggests, this is a bad way to make policy:
A forthcoming special issue of the journal Urban Studies advocates improving research methods to achieve a more scientific approach to measuring people's access to food.21 In addition, the editorial in that special issue raises some important points about the assumptiondespite a lack of empirical evidencethat food deserts existed throughout the 1990s.22 The author notes that the term food deserts became convenient shorthand for a complex problem. He suggests that it should not be surprising therefore to find that, when research did begin to explore the issue in greater depth, government departments developed different policies. For example, the recent report on supermarkets by the Competition Commission (set up by the secretary of state for trade and industry) concluded that little evidence existed across the United Kingdom of significantly poorer access in poor urban areas to the retail outlets of the large multiple food retailers.20 This finding was in marked contrast to the findings of the Social Exclusion Unit and Acheson's report. 6 7
Which brings us back to Wal-Mart, and to the "food issue," one of a number of popular progressive topics that are moving to the foreground as we shift from conservative-driven discussions to more liberal ones. In particular, the sort of discussions - like environmental concerns and other "green" topics - which are popular among a more educated liberal elite. As Red noted, the discussion of Greg's piece devolved, quickly, into use of "they" and "them" to describe the people affected by the supposed dearth of groceries; it's often a discussion among people who "know" the right answers, and who define the problems, which leads to a disconnect between actual lives and the policies meant to "improve" them.
I've lived in bad neighborhoods in big urban centers, and yes, sometimes it's a challenge to find groceries... and magically, it gets easier when you get closer to luxury townhomes and condos. But at the same time... "food desert" feels overstated. Still. Or even more so than before I read Greg, and followed his link. Wal Mart's proposal to bring "fresh" food into distressed areas is, like so many Wal-Mart ploys, little more than a new way to dress up the same old story. The argument for Wal Mart is what it always is - it's big, it's cheap, and people seem to wind up going to it. Is that good or bad? I think it depends: for a customer, it can be good. For the bigger questions of community, labor, and local business... it's probably bad. But the decision Chicago needs to make isn't really informed, or solved, by layering on "food desert" discussions. It's solved by asking the hard questions, and making the hard choices, which are not perfect, no matter which way you go. Wal Mart could help some people find the affordable things they want and need... but at what cost?
And the larger point is... this kind of social semi-science (or "factoid driven policy making," as the BMJ article calls it), is only going to grow as an issue; the left has become too enamored, I think, of insisting that "research" of all sorts connotes a seriousness that cannot be challenged - as opposed to the conservative meltdown on science, which says none of it should be accepted, ever. Serious research should, of course, be considered when evauating poilicy. But we need to work harder, ask more questions and demand that "research" be more rigorous... or we're getting bad data, and making bad decisions to follow from it. That's the kind of thing that can make you think the answer to a desert is to build an oasis... which looks prety silly when you didn't have a desert to begin with.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.