Food Deserts?

[skyrider 0]

Michelle Obama's $400 Million 'Food Desert' Scam
By Terence Jeffrey (Archive) · Wednesday, October 27, 2010

First Lady Michelle Obama has called on Congress to create a $400 million-per-year program to encourage the establishment of supermarkets in places she calls "food deserts."

The situation in these "food deserts," as Mrs. Obama describes it, is quite dire indeed. American children are growing fat because their parents cannot get to a supermarket -- to buy fruits and vegetables -- without undergoing the hardship of boarding a bus or riding a taxi.

As a consequence, food-desert-dwelling children are forced to eat fast food and junk procured at chain restaurants and convenience stores.

In a March 10 speech, the first lady painted a sad picture of their plight.

"Right now, 23.5 million Americans, including 6.5 million kids, live in what we call 'food deserts' -- these are areas without a supermarket," she explained. "And as a result these families wind up buying their groceries at the local gas station or convenience store, places that offer few, if any, healthy options."

She offered a solution.

"Let's move to ensure that all families have access to healthy, affordable foods in their community," she said. "(W)e've set an ambitious goal here: to eliminate food deserts in America within seven years.

"To do that," she said, "we're creating a Healthy Food Financing Initiative that's going to invest $400 million a year -- and leverage hundreds of millions more from the private sector -- to bring grocery stores to underserved areas and help places like convenience stores carry healthier options."

Pushing this $400 million food-desert-eradication plan became a standard part of Mrs. Obama's stump speech.

In February, she promoted it in a Philadelphia neighborhood she said had just emerged from a 10-year period without a supermarket -- thanks to subsidies from the enlightened state government of Pennsylvania.

"For 10 years, folks had to buy their groceries at places like convenience stores and gas stations, where usually they don't have a whole lot of fresh food, if any, to choose from," said Mrs. Obama. "So that means if a mom wanted to buy a head of lettuce to make a salad in this community, or have some fresh fruit for their kids' lunch, that means she would have to get on a bus, navigate public transportation with the big bags of groceries, probably more than one time a week, or, worse yet, pay for a taxicab ride to get some other supermarket in another community, just to feed her kids."

Congress left town for the November election without having approved any fiscal 2011 spending bill. So, as of yet, it is uncertain whether Mrs. Obama will get her $400 million-per-year to subsidize supermarkets in "food deserts." The agricultural bill that has been working its way through Congress includes only a $40 million earmark for the program.

But does it deserve a single penny?

In the 2008 farm bill, Congress mandated that the department conduct a $500,000 study of "food deserts." The study -- "Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences" -- was published in June 2009.

The report demonstrates that Mrs. Obama's depiction of American "food deserts" is fatuous at best.

Lower-income Americans live closer to supermarkets than higher-income Americans.

"Overall, median distance to the nearest supermarket is 0.85 miles," said the Agriculture Department report. "Median distance for low-income individuals is about 0.1 of a mile less than for those with higher income, and a greater share of low-income individuals (61.8 percent) have high or medium access to supermarkets than those with higher income (56.1 percent)."

There are 23.5 million people who live in "low income" areas that are more than a mile from the nearest supermarket. But more than half of these people are not low-income, and almost everyone in these areas -- 93.3 percent -- drive their cars to the supermarket. On average, they spend 4.5 minutes more than the typical American traveling to the supermarket.

"Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of federal poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store," said the report. "However, not all of these 23.5 million people have low income.

"If estimates are restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store," it says. "Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the national average (15 minutes).

"However," says the report, "93 percent of those who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household member drove."

Only 0.1 percent -- one-tenth of one percent -- of Americans living in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket took public transit to the store, the report said.

For them, Mrs. Obama would create a new $400 million entitlement.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/terence-jeffrey/2010/10/27/michelle-obamas-400-million-food-desert-scam/

[wayneflorida 0]

Let them eat cake. Fresh lettuce cake
I have an idea Ms. Obama.
Your family is wealthy so why don't you take your
fucking money an invest in several grocery stores in the hood. You can help society and become more wealthy.
Let me keep more of my money to spend in my own hood.

[metalslug 31]

Quote

"Right now, 23.5 million Americans, including 6.5 million kids, live in what we call 'food deserts' -- these are areas without a supermarket," she explained. "And as a result these families wind up buying their groceries at the local gas station or convenience store, places that offer few, if any, healthy options."

I can see another 'west wing' movie coming out of this; "An Inconvenient Convenience Store"

[DanG 1]

How exactly is this idea a scam? I thought Republicans were in favor of tax incentives for private enterprise.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,178]

Oh come on. It benefits poor people, who are probably poor because they're lazy, and the idea came from a liberal.

Get with the program

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Abedy 0]

Quote

I can see another 'west wing' movie coming out of this; "An Inconvenient Convenience Store"

I can offer a photo of an "Inconvenience Store" at least (taken in Maryborough in Queensland): http://www.thur.de/~carsten/Urlaub/Australien_2005/ql05-qld2005_039jpg.htm

The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks

[Andy9o8 0]

It helps Negroes. End of story.

Hey, thanks for the daily dose.

Anyhow, I've worked with indigent urban populations most of my life. The "supermarket desert" problem is real: many, many poor, urban car-less people simply do not have reasonable access to a true supermarket, period - no matter how the statistics are massaged.

Turning this into yet another "code issue" is despicable, as usual. Just another reminder to the RW base to get out the vote to keep "those people" from eating our babies.

I don't see any counter-proposals from the Right for tax breaks to attract supermarkets to poor neighborhoods. That particular silence is quite deafening.

Let them eat cake, indeed.

[rhaig 0]

I don't know that I'd call it a scam, but couldn't they find something better to do in those neighborhoods with $400M? Maybe if the public transit were better boarding a bus wouldn't be such a hardship.

Infrastructure investment... that's where the big money should have gone all along.

--
Rob

[labrys 0]

Quote

Maybe if the public transit were better boarding a bus wouldn't be such a hardship.

It's very difficult carry groceries riding a crowded bus. Are you proposing using the money to make room on the buses for groceries? Or buying more buses so that they are less crowded?

Owned by Remi #?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

It's very difficult carry groceries riding a crowded bus.

No shit. I did it as a college student, and it was a ball-buster, especially in standing room only. And that was just for me. Imagine carrying groceries for a family of 4 on a bus with a couple of small children in tow. Yeah, a really viable option.

Let them ride limos.

[billvon 2,476]

>Maybe if the public transit were better boarding a bus wouldn't be such a >hardship. Infrastructure investment... that's where the big money should
>have gone all along.

$50 billion went to infrastructure stimulus.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe if the public transit were better boarding a bus wouldn't be such a hardship.

It's very difficult carry groceries riding a crowded bus. Are you proposing using the money to make room on the buses for groceries? Or buying more buses so that they are less crowded?

yes and yes. if our public transit system were better (more frequent, and better designed spaces where people could put a grocery bag or two) there might be less people on the transit in off hours. Yeah, more people might ride it, which might mean it's not as uncrowded as it might be, but that's not a bad problem to have "too many people are using our public transit system... oh noez!!"

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>Maybe if the public transit were better boarding a bus wouldn't be such a >hardship. Infrastructure investment... that's where the big money should
>have gone all along.

$50 billion went to infrastructure stimulus.

that's nice. where? who got it? was any of it spent on public transit? considering that's what we're talking about I thought you might add some pertinent details rather than just throwing out a large impressive number so that we all are quite impressed and don't bother to worry about the situation anymore.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't know that I'd call it a scam, but couldn't they find something better to do in those neighborhoods with $400M? Maybe if the public transit were better boarding a bus wouldn't be such a hardship.

The primary issue with the real problem of no grocery stores is the ability to get good perishable foods. Having a bus take you 5 miles doesn't get around that problem.

Oakland has some rather large deserts, both of grocery stores and of banks.

OTOH, in my case in the west side of SF, I have
a) a good midsized market one block away
b) a safeway 7 blocks away
c) a trader joe's about a mile away
d) an Adronico's (expensive but great for meat) 1 mile
e) and a Whole Food's opening soon half a mile away

this is after a safeway closed (at the location for E) and another regional chain closed that was 6 blocks away.

It does beg the question - are there no grocery stores there because there is no customer base, or is it merely because they think there is no customer base? You would want this money to be used to seed the placement, treating it more like low cost startup capital rather than grants.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The primary issue with the real problem of no grocery stores is the ability to get good perishable foods. Having a bus take you 5 miles doesn't get around that problem.

Good observation. And it's not just the perishable foods - it's any kind of decent selection of decent food, at a reasonable price. We all know how much more expensive food items are in the 7-11 compared to a supermarket. Given that these customers are among society's poorest, the cruel irony is palpable.

Quote

It does beg the question - are there no grocery stores there because there is no customer base, or is it merely because they think there is no customer base?

The customer base is certainly there: the people who live there, usually in high local population density. So, I think it's partly the latter, and partly neither. And it's not just supermarkets, it's other major stores, too, like clothing and hardware stores. In the really poor neighborhoods that are supermarket deserts, you usually won't find Target, Home Depot, etc., either.

Partly it's because it takes a lot of outlay to run one of these stores, and corporate worries that the local population is too poor to generate adequate sales per man-hour. The other reason is because of fear of crime: high rates of shoplifting, employee theft, vandalism, etc. all adding to the bottom line. Combine that with fear of low gross sales in the first place, and it's a death sentence.

Of course you can't force these businesses to open in poor neighborhoods; you have to make it worth their while. The solution might be what should be a fiscal conservative's preference: substantial tax incentives. The problem with that is political: in many people's minds, tax credits targeted toward businesses in poor neighborhoods translates to "my money being used to subsidize those people." And we all know how popular that is.

[doughboyshred 0]

part of the problem is that it's very hard to eat healthy when you're poor.

1,000 calories of garbage is a lot cheaper than 1,000 healthy calories.

Another part of the problem is that lower income areas also tend to have a higher percentage of less educated people that simply do not know how to eat healthy.

Lack of education plus lack of funds creates a market place where apples and broccoli go bad, but 1.00 boxes of mac and cheese and 79c loaves of white bread fly off the shelfs.

Simply funding supermarkets won't solve the underlying problems.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Gas stations and corner stores would be well stocked with fresh produce, if that is what people wanted to purchase.

[rhaig 0]

1000 calories of fast food costs about 3 bucks (two mcdonalds double cheese burgers).

3 bucks can buy me 1 can of tomato sauce, 1/2 lb pork sausage, and 1lb pasta. Were I to invest 20min of my time, I could turn that into dinner that is much healthier and has more nutritional value for $3.

it's hard to eat healthy when you're poor and lazy.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,476]

>Gas stations and corner stores would be well stocked with fresh produce,
> if that is what people wanted to purchase.

Well, that's certainly not true; that's like claiming newspaper stands would sell gasoline if people wanted it.

However, it is certainly true that food stores/supermarkets would sell produce if there was a demand for it, which for the most part they do. If you want to solve problems caused by poor food choices, though, I'd think that you are better off spending money on education than on pushing lettuce on people.

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Gas stations and corner stores would be well stocked with fresh produce, if that is what people wanted to purchase.

It has been a long time since I've had an economics class, but isn't that like something called supply and demand.

And to general discussion. Don't these kids get three healthy squares a day in their schools now?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Gas stations and corner stores would be well stocked with fresh produce, if that is what people wanted to purchase.

It has been a long time since I've had an economics class, but isn't that like something called supply and demand.

And to general discussion. Don't these kids get three healthy squares a day in their schools now?

Breakfast, lunch, and dinner in school?

That's a new one for me.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

1000 calories of fast food costs about 3 bucks (two mcdonalds double cheese burgers).

3 bucks can buy me 1 can of tomato sauce, 1/2 lb pork sausage, and 1lb pasta. Were I to invest 20min of my time, I could turn that into dinner that is much healthier and has more nutritional value for $3.

it's hard to eat healthy when you're poor and lazy.

pork, tomatoes, and pasta is an improvement on a double cheeseburger, but it's hardly a well rounded meal. No greens, you have processed carbs, and a fatty variety of red meat. Typically sugar in that tomato sauce, too.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Gas stations and corner stores would be well stocked with fresh produce, if that is what people wanted to purchase.

Gas stations and corner liquor stores don't have the shelf space or the product turnover to make it profitable to stock produce. They can go as far as some milk and other daily products, and that's about it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

it's hard to eat healthy when you're poor and lazy.

J'accuse.

[turtlespeed 212]

Maybe then the government can take over McDonalds and socialize their menu.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun