Questioning Food Deserts

This week's authors encouraged readers to be critical about assumptions concerning the food choices of low-income communities. It seems that ever since food systems became a substantial enough issue to garner research in planning fields, a lot of literature about "access" has focused on food deserts, or their more recent counterparts, food swamps. I admit that even I was guilty of characterizing most low-income communities as being food deserts, without considering whether that assumption had been proven, or even studied. Without downplaying the very real existence of legitimate food deserts in many parts of the United States and elsewhere, it is nevertheless interesting and enlightening to see how this week's authors tackled this assumption.

First, the Lewis et al. reading examined a lesser-studied aspect of food landscapes: restaurants. Coming largely from a public health standpoint, these authors argue that "Understanding the range of choices available in different communities may help public health advocates develop a strategy to reduce the adverse health effects of meals purchased away from home for groups at elevated risk within our society." The authors conducted a survey of both sit-down and "fast" restaurants in their target area, which has a high percentage of African-Americans, and in a comparison area, both in South Los Angeles. Not only did they find a higher proportion of fast food restaurants in the target area, and restaurants that served lower-quality (nutrition-wise) food, but the authors also found that diners in the target area "are confronted by a barrage of prompts that encourage unhealthy options." Examining restaurants is an important part of a CFA, or even just a broad planning evaluation, that often gets overlooked. Lewis et al. add another component to our understanding of what a food desert - or in this case, possibly a food swamp - really is. Furthermore, this article provides insight on how to connect the public health message of "eat better" with the reality of the food actually available to people and the messages about food that individuals confront.

Both the Short et al. and the Raja et al. article examine how we define sources of "food secure" food, which is food that is accessible, affordable, nutritious, culturally acceptable, and high quality. Short et al.'s exhaustive study of food sources available in several San Francisco neighborhoods showed that small full-service retail food stores can be an important source of food security for individuals, particularly (in this study) Latinos. They found that such stores actually thrive in the niche for Latino foods, and in the process provide high quality but low priced food. However, they rightfully point out that since such grocers often pay low wages to their workers, while this helps keep costs down, it also contributes to overall food insecurity (which is a result of limited incomes). Similarly, Raja et al. emphasize that "...in judging the adequacy and disparities in the food environment, planning practitioners and researchers must consider the presence of and role played by all possible food retail outlets within a food environment." They follow through in their claim by examining all possible food sources within their target area, including restaurants.

Finally, in my favorite article, Clifton focused on the mobility strategies and food shopping patterns of low-income families. Mobility strategies are described as "the various ways that households overcome the spatial constraints and travel to the various locations where they acquire food, including the considerations, tradeoffs, and social networks required to attain mobility." This is an important article because instead of simply studying what mode people use to get from point A to point B, and how long it takes them, Clifton analyzed the reasons behind the mode choice. Mode choice often happens independently of the concerns work-related travel, which is practically the only kind of travel analyzed in mode choice articles (trust me on this one!). By interviewing low-income individuals, Clifton provided nuance and detail to the mobility needs of low-income families, including how these mobility needs relate to gaining access to healthful foods. Clifton also provided insight about policy recommendations, making the well-reasoned point that low-income individuals already travel according to "New Urbanism" best practices - they walk, take transit, and may only use their cars when absolutely needed. Although we should not confine people to low mobility due to New Urbanist principles, it is important that policy interventions not only emphasize increasing access to cars, which will of course also increase all of the negative externalities that come along with car use. As Clifton aptly sums up, "Transit service that caters to the nonwork travel needs of poor households is needed."