Will Changing Food ‘Ecosystem’ Make A Difference?

By Jim Prevor, Editor-in-Chief, Produce Business

The issue of food deserts has gone so far as to engage the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama. The thought is relatively simple: an important reason why people don’t eat more produce is because they live in neighborhoods in which fruits and vegetables are not widely sold, are of poor selection or quality, or available only at high prices.

If through manipulation of public policy incentives, we can get more venues selling produce in these food-desert neighborhoods, then produce consumption would increase, the health of people in these “underserved” neighborhoods would increase, and the cost of any necessary public policy incentives to make this all possible would be paid for by healthcare savings the government realizes from a healthier population.

It sounds great, but it is more a vision than a thought. There is precious little evidence that any of this actually happens.

The problem is obvious: in a free-market economy, if there is demand for something — say more fruit and vegetable purchasing opportunities — usually, retailers will move to capitalize on that opportunity. Existing venues will alter their assortment and new banners will open. The fact that this doesn’t happen implies strongly that the demand isn’t there — even if we wish it were. So simply saying we will build fruit- and veg-selling stores in these areas may not do much to increase demand. To the extent sales increase, it might be transferred from purchases that had been made near work or on weekend visits to the suburbs where supermarkets may be in more abundance.

This research by the Université de Montréal’s Department of Social and Preventive Medicine is interesting because it starts to suggest a more sophisticated course of study. The researchers suggest that the thing to look at is not just an absolute count (how many sources of healthy food are available in a given area) but, instead, a relative count (the ratio of healthy to unhealthy food options in a given area).

This idea, if true — and the research weighs in that direction — seems to imply that the whole food-desert thought process might be misguided. Though many neighborhoods may seem in absolute terms to offer plenty of options for healthy eating, these neighborhoods may not be conducive “ecosystems” for healthy eating as the ratio of healthy food retailers to fast food restaurants is disproportionate. This would imply a major redirection of public policy efforts.

The problem though is that, of course, correlation is not causality. It is not really surprising that purchasing and consumption statistics should track what is sold in a community. What is unclear is what this research tells us about people’s consumption habits.

If you were to travel the country and find communities where the local mall has upscale stores, such as Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue, you would almost certainly find that in surrounding areas people buy more expensive clothing items than in those areas where the local mall features Sears or J.C. Penney.

There is surely a bit of “push-me, pull-you” to this phenomenon. These stores identify which neighborhoods to locate in based on demographics and existing purchase patterns. Then the presence of these stores attracts people who already are predisposed to shopping in these upscale venues.

So this phenomenon — basically that people are influenced by the options available when purchasing — is not surprising. Indeed for a long time, looking at higher per capita produce consumption in other countries, analysts theorized that less availability of fast food outlets and processed snack food has led people to consume more fruits and vegetables.

The question is what to do with this insight? To some whose only interest is improving diet, the answer is obvious: Use the power of the state to reduce the availability of less healthy options and to encourage more healthy options. The question then becomes how intrusive we want the state to be.

Some would say altering welfare policies is fair game. We are giving people food stamp money because we want them to buy food — not other things. It is a small journey to say we want them to buy fruits and vegetables, not cupcakes, but this would increase demand for fruits and vegetables and thus encourage retailers to offer broader options. Yet even here, it is complicated. Many people receiving welfare are parents, and they know better than the government what their children will eat and what best serves their family. Restricting welfare recipients so as to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables is not unthinkable, but it is problematic.

When we get beyond welfare and move to restricting the options of the general populous, things become more troubling. As the contretemps over Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to restrict soda size indicated, there is something deep in the American spirit that rejects this attempt to intrude on our freedom. The offer of fast foods is part of the cornucopia of food choices Americans have on hand. The evidence that most Americans want their choices restricted is sparse indeed.