Futurity

New stores in ‘food deserts’ don’t change what people eat

Putting a new grocery store in a food desert doesn't really change how people eat or what they buy at the store, an expert explains.
A shopping cart points down a grocery store aisle lined with canned and jarred foods

Opening supermarkets in “food deserts” doesn’t change the types of groceries people buy, research suggests.

Research has shown that income is increasingly linked to health: Not only are today’s richer Americans healthier than poorer ones, but the gap is wider than it was in the early 1990s. Studies have attributed this to food consumption, with better dietary quality associated with higher socioeconomic status—in other words, the more money you have, the easier it is to afford nutritious foods.

Some have concluded that a key part of the problem is “food deserts”—neighborhoods without supermarkets, mostly in low-income areas. A widely held theory maintains that those who live in food deserts are forced to shop at local convenience stores, where it’s hard to find healthy groceries. A proposed solution is to advocate for the opening of supermarkets in these neighborhoods, which are thought to encourage better eating.

This idea has gathered a lot of steam. Over the past decade, federal and local governments in the United States have spent hundreds of millions of dollars encouraging grocery stores to open in food deserts. The federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative has leveraged over $1 billion in financing for grocers in under-served areas. The Healthy Food Access for All Americans Act, which is currently under consideration in Congress, would extend these efforts with large tax credits. Meanwhile, cities such as Houston and Denver have sought to institute related measures at the local level.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama articulated this proposed remedy quite clearly: “It’s not that people don’t know or don’t want to do the right thing; they just have to have access to the foods that they know will make their families healthier.”

However, recent research in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which Hunt Allcott, an associate professor in the economics department at New York University, co-wrote, raises questions about the efficacy of this approach. Additional researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Northwestern University, the Stanford School of Business, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, and Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service also contributed to the work.

Here, Allcott explains food deserts and how they may—or may not—affect nutrition:

The post New stores in ‘food deserts’ don’t change what people eat appeared first on Futurity.

More from Futurity

Futurity3 min read
Quantum Physics Could Make Measuring Time More Precise
Superradiant atoms could push the boundaries of how precisely time can be measured, researchers report. The second is the most precisely-defined unit of measurement, compared to other base units such as the kilogram, meter, and degree Kelvin. Time is
Futurity2 min read
New Portable Fentanyl Sensor Is Super Sensitive
A new fentanyl sensor is six orders of magnitude more sensitive than any electrochemical sensor for the drug reported in the past five years. The portable sensor can also tell the difference between fentanyl and other opioids. Fentanyl is a synthetic
Futurity3 min readIntelligence (AI) & Semantics
People Rate AI As More Moral Than Other Humans
When people are presented with two answers to an ethical question, most will think the answer from artificial intelligence is better than the response from another person. The explosion of ChatGPT and similar AI large language models (LLMs) which cam

Related Books & Audiobooks