Current Events > "Food Deserts" are only a small contributor to unhealthy food choices

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://academic.oup.com/qje/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/qje/qjz015/5492274?redirectedFrom=fulltext

We study the causes of nutritional inequality : why the wealthy eat more healthfully than the poor in the United States. Exploiting supermarket entry and household moves to healthier neighborhoods, we reject that neighborhood environments contribute meaningfully to nutritional inequality. We then estimate a structural model of grocery demand, using a new instrument exploiting the combination of grocery retail chains differing presence across geographic markets with their differing comparative advantages across product groups. Counterfactual simulations show that exposing low-income households to the same products and prices available to high-income households reduces nutritional inequality by only about 10 percent, while the remaining 90 percent is driven by differences in demand. These findings counter the argument that policies to increase the supply of healthy groceries could play an important role in reducing nutritional inequality.

only 10% of the difference between wealthy and lower income eating behaviors are explained by access to healthy food
---

This doesn't surprise me but I will say the most important behaviours in healthy eating take time to develop. Nutrition is habitual and good habits take time to learn as does cooking.

I don't agree with the 'vegetables are expensive' argument because obesity doesn't just need bad food but a lot of bad food. I suspect it's more to do with junk food being one of the few 'joys poor people can afford.

Im willing to bet that its mostly attributable to lack of education, poor rearing, and social welfare programs that are completely neutral about food choice
---

MrPeppers posted...

social welfare programs that are completely neutral about food choice

... What? How does that make sense?
---

i'd assume it's mostly a question of free time and mental load
---

the study's authors look to be arguing in the latter half of their paper that it's entirely a matter of cost and a subsidy would resolve the gap
---

Ban unhealthy food imo

Sackgurl posted...

the study's authors look to be arguing in the latter half of their paper that it's entirely a matter of cost and a subsidy would resolve the gap

yeah, but they do specify the subsidy would need to be for healthy groceries specifically

Consistent with the event study analyses, decompositions based on our structural demand model
suggest that fully equalizing supply conditions would reduce the difference in healthy eating between
low- and high-income households by no more than about ten percent. By contrast, our model suggests
that a means-tested subsidy for healthy groceries could increase low-income households healthy eating
to the level of high-income households at an additional cost of only about 15 percent of the current
SNAP budget. Before advocating for or against such a subsidy, one would need to measure the relevant
market failures and study optimal policy in a principled welfare maximization framework. However,
our results do allow us to conclude that policies aimed at eliminating food deserts likely generate little
progress toward a goal of reducing nutritional inequality
---

Romes187 posted...

Ban unhealthy food imo

taxes on sugary drinks are a good policy
---

The Trump administration botched the pre packaged meals thing, but I've always been a proponent of making food stamps more like the WIC program.
---

Desert and desserts are too close of words and now I want brownies
---

Balrog0 posted...

MrPeppers posted...

social welfare programs that are completely neutral about food choice

... What? How does that make sense?

Does that even happen?
SNAP is a bit lenient, but not very. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

Questionmarktarius posted...

Balrog0 posted...

MrPeppers posted...

social welfare programs that are completely neutral about food choice

... What? How does that make sense?

Does that even happen?
SNAP is a bit lenient, but not very. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

well, I understand how you can use things like SNAP to better address this difference

my point of contention is framing that as a cause of the disparity, because wealthier people who aren't on public assistance programs obviously can buy whatever they want
---

the only thing I was never able to buy with SNAP is food items that were already hot (like rotisserie chicken, etc)
---

Balrog0 posted...

Romes187 posted...

Ban unhealthy food imo

taxes on sugary drinks are a good policy

Oh stop it you :)

Balrog0 posted...

my point of contention is framing that as a cause of the disparity, because wealthier people who aren't on public assistance programs obviously can buy whatever they want

If SNAP were WIC-ified, Doritos and such wouldn't be an option.
Of course, that would inevitably increase the same sort of fraud that mysteriously turns food stamps into cigarettes and booze.

People pay more for groceries in low income areas. I've been to grocery stores in wealthy areas and they have more deals there. Also there are less grocery stores in low income areas.

SomeGuyUO posted...

People pay more for groceries in low income areas. I've been to grocery stores in wealthy areas and they have more deals there. Also there are less grocery stores in low income areas.

You've got your causality muddled there.
Grocers in well-off areas have sales because there's more of them, and/or the well-off having to the means to also shop a few miles away. It's just simple competition.

When there's one grocery store in the area, and the bulk of its customers get there on the bus, there's not a hell of a lot of competition.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Of course, that would inevitably increase the same sort of fraud that mysteriously turns food stamps into cigarettes and booze.

yeah, I have a friend uses SNAP to buy food and then sells it to someone else for cash
---

HylianFox posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Of course, that would inevitably increase the same sort of fraud that mysteriously turns food stamps into cigarettes and booze.

yeah, I have a friend uses SNAP to buy food and then sells it to someone else for cash

that's actually a pretty weird arrangement; it's more typical to just let someone use your SNAP benefits and pay you half of what they're worth in cash. Well, or less than half depending on who it is
---

probably because he doesn't have friends and made up that story to troll
---

Thanks for posting this
---

Ive had two jumps in lifestyle, food wise.

1) from eating whatever I want to eating whatever I want but stopping at 2000 calories a day

And

2) from eating whatever I want but stopping at 2000 calories a day to prepping most of my food at home when possible

Despite the first being the more substantial cutback on food, the second is what has truly made me feel 10x better. Were not even talking Big Macs, but healthier dining out options like Chipotle burrito bowls with no guac/sour cream. Eating more food out of a grocery store has changed my gut health dramatically and Im finally seeing some changes.
---