Grocery shopping (with poll!)

Two articles on food supply in urban areas highlight some issues of interest to me.  

The first appears in the Houston Chronicle, "Grocery Options Tied to Obesity, Tuesday December 7, 2004, Page B2.  The second from the Boston Globe, appears in a Marin County paper "Why the Poor Can't Afford to Eat Better"

(more below the fold)

The Chronicle's article discusses research performed by a local researcher, Rebecca Lee.  The research tests whether or not the CW among health researchers - that the urban poor do not have easy access to fresh fruits and vegetables - has empirical support.

Lee and some colleagues examined 13 urban housing developments ("UN's") and four suburban areas ("SN's") in Kansas City, KS.  Here are some of their results:

• All 13 UN's had at least one store where food could be bought within 1/2 mile.

• In three of the UN's the food stores were supermarkets; in most of the UN's the food was available at liquor stores, convenience stores, or pharmacies.  All four SN's in comparison had well-stocked supermarkets.

• You could buy green beans in only one of the UN's.  You could buy apples and oranges in eight of the UN's.  In comparison, the SN stores had more and better quality produce.

Lee concludes, with reference to the typical doctor's advice to eat a healthy diet (the quote is a bit munged, so I have in brackets what I think, from context, she meant to say):

"From a public health standpoint, it is simply unrealistic to put the burden on [of] responsiblity [on them] when there are no health choices for them in their neighborhoods."

She is continuing this line of research in Houston, where I expect she will find similar results.

From Boston,  

Dr. Paula A. Johnson and her colleagues at Brigham and Women's Hospital decided to examine what a dozen Roxbury women were eating and analyze how much it would cost them to stick to a diet designed to provide maximum protection for their hearts.

They found, for instance, that a family of four would need nearly $700 a month, while a senior would require upward of $250. For that amount, they could afford lunches that might include 3 ounces of white tuna and whole wheat bread and dinners consisting of a baked pork chop, sweet potato, and mixed greens with a tomato.

$700 per month is, based on a 40 hour week, about $4 per hour.  While not exactly apples to oranges because food in Houston is likely cheaper, housing in a 'b-minus' or 'c' area of town may be around $350 per month, or $2 per hour.  This is before utilities, transportation, etc.  If you start adding things up, it's easy to see how quickly a $8 - $10 per hour worker - and that's well above minimum wage - can struggle to make ends meet, and yet fail to provide adequate nutrition for his or her children.

The Brigham researchers, like Lee, found a paucity of stores in the urban poor neighborhoods.  They also noted that in the winter the poor experience a "heat or eat" dilemma.  They do note that cultural factors can play a role, and in Boston they are performing some educational outreach on making better food choices.  While that outreach is good and may help to stimulate additional demand for healthful food choices, I have to wonder what practical effect it would have.  In some sense, due to difficulties with transportation, many of the residents of these areas are captive customers.  I have a car and if I am not satisfied with the produce at my local store I have the means to purchase my food elsewhere.  In fact in my weekly shopping I typically drive to three separate stores, all of which are fairly close to me - probably within a 1/2 mile radius.  It's a real luxury and one that many folks do not share.  

I also wonder about the rural poor.  They were not the focus of these studies - I suspect their grocery choices are even more limited than those of the urban poor.  

I think the problem of access to affordable and adequate food will get worse because modern food production requires the input of a huge amount of petroleum products.

As liberals or democrats or progressives or whatever we want to call ourselves I think it behooves us to consider access to adequate and affordable food, and to consider how to expand that access.

•  Twice is a charm

  First diary, I wrote it all out, and soemhow erased it, then had to retype everything.  Argh.

  by sberel on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 09:01:52 PM PDT

  •  350 dollars

    for a place to live? bwhahahahaha, man. you are SHELTERED if you think you can find anywhere to live anywhere near a city for 350 a month. MAYBE in the deep south or another similarly depressed region, MAYBE, but for most places you're looking at considerably more for anything resembling housing. I'm a single male in grad school renting a room, and the cheapest I can find that's anywhere on the bus lines is 400/month. A family, even one you can cram into a studio apartment, is looking at something like 550/month.

    by Field Marshall Stack on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 09:14:14 PM PDT

    •  In the diary that I inadvertently deleted

      I relate that I used to perform agreed-upon procedures, that is a type of accounting service, at "b-minus" and "c" apartment complexes; one of the things we checked was did the leasing agents properly compute whether or not the resident qualified to rent the apartment... and yes, the monthly rentals ranged from 300-400 per month.  So, you can bawhahaha, but that is what I saw.  

      by sberel on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 09:47:30 PM PDT

    •  Houston

      The diary clearly states "Houston" as the housing market. Someone who cannot affort food is very likely to have housing expenses close to $350 in Houston - either in a subsidized projects or thru sharing rent. The author never made any statement of general housing costs that even remotely deserves your disdaining comment. Reread the post.

      by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 09:49:38 PM PDT

    •  $350 is not an uncommon as you think

      here in d/fw, you can find a b-minus or c level housing unit (usually an apartment or townhome) for $350/mo pretty easily.  there are a lot of units designated "section 8" (federally subsidised housing) in dallas proper, fort worth, and the surrounding suburbs.

      might i suggest that perhaps your locale has something to do with your inability to find cheap housing.  for example, i wouldn't expect to find anything for $350/mo in san francisco.  
      

      by anna on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

  •  Compose elsewhere...

    Shorel, nice first diary.  Most of us have blown a posting or two, and find it's a good idea to compose in one's favorite word processor and then cut and paste into the comment window.

    by claude on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 06:06:50 AM PDT

•  great first diary

  I love this kind of research and information. My sister runs a garden in Queens to donate to local food banks. They worry about making sure the poor have access to healthy food choices -- so hence the organic garden thing. It turns out 1 in 5 people in NYC is in need of food bank provisions.

  I live in Seattle and we have access to a lot of organic food and food coops, even in the so-called "poorer" neighborhoods we have a lot of local growers providing fresh and local produce. B

  But the schools are another problem. The schools in the poorer neighborhoods have too many easy junk food choices, so that's in the news a lot.

  Like health care, good wholesome food is another thing we have to keep fighting for. The long march to democracy and truth goes on! Thanks for posting this.

  by cpwicks on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 09:15:25 PM PDT

  •  food banks, etc

    There was a piece on NPR a week or so ago about the burgeoning demand for food bank recourses, I cannot remember the locality, it was something like 5 or ten times last year.  Your sister's program sounds excellent.  Do they find that most of the food is used or is there a problem with spoilage?

    Local growers is great -- and isn't the climate in Seattle fairly temperate?  I think it is important to remember that each locality has different challenges and will have to tackle things in different ways.

    The school junk food situation is interesting.  I am on a mailing list for the "Center for Individual Freedom", which opposes restricting the amount of junk food available in schools. They recently sent out an article about their efforts in New Jersey.  Townhall.com (Heritage Foundation) also carries a few stories critical of the very idea that consumption of junk food is related to bad health and obesity, this I guess par for the course, because they also send out articles critical of evolution and of mainstream ecology (specifically global warming models).  It boggles the mind to consider the nonsense positions involved in a commitment to modern conservatism.  

    by sberel on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 05:17:23 AM PDT

•  One of the sad ironies here

  Is that the least expensive grocery stores tend to give the money to the Republicans, who make it harder on poor folks.

  -doug

  by zgw on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 09:19:59 PM PDT

•  Farmers Markets?

  I think subsidized Farmers Markets in urban districts might be a decent solution - lower cost healthy produce improves nutrition and cuts expenditures. Subsidized produce benefits both producers and consumers and would make for a easier political sell when seeking funding. Farm subsidies don't have quite the political stigma as welfare, especially in Texas.

  This is a tough issue - I used to live across the street from the Abla lowrise housing projects in Chicago and the residents got funding to plant gardens with the goal of growing vegetables to cut food costs and improve the diet of residents. The residents used the money to plant flowers and stated the odd pepper or tomato would not be much help but that flowers made their neighborhood a better place to live. I can't say I disagreed with the residents' logic. The papers played it as a minor scandal inside the paper but it demonstrates   the problems of poverty are not easily understood at a distance.

  by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 10:02:30 PM PDT

  •  Farmers market

    I think that is a good thought, particularly if it involves supporting local producers and those who use organic farming techniques.  It is astounding how dependent we are on petroleum for our food supply and I think it is harmful & in the long-term this is unsustainable.

    As for the housing project, I don't see why it would be a scandal.  Were they planting annuals?

    Seriously, I think that it doesn't make sense to ask them to grow vegetables without planning also for flowers.  People like flowers and it's a good way to get them into the habit of tending a garden.  There is too much focus on quick results in our culture.  Also there are many flowers that have food or herbal uses, and there are some vegetables that are aesthetically pleasing.  But simply beginning and cultivating the habit of gardening is an improvement to a housing development, particularly if the residents were doing the work themselves.  I would be inclined to let such a thing roll and give it time.    

    by sberel on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 10:36:05 PM PDT

    •  Lol..yes, it was annuals

      When I say minor scandal I mean very minor - it was about two paragraphs 15 years ago in the neighborhood paper. But I was in Chicago going to University of Illinois at Chicago and the whole urban experience was foreign to me.

      I remember the incident because I would never have thought in a million years to plant flowers with the money and then after seeing the story I agreed. The funding came without any supervision - just a tiny grant to a community fund. Perennials would have been a better idea to be sure.

      Co-ops are a good idea and function well in upscale urban areas as a way to get fresh local produce. But co-ops in general are not widespread and I question any program that imposes institutions on the poor that other people do not embrace. Food stamps and now food debit cards are effective because they can be spent just like money.

      To go off thread from the food angle one successful program I witnessed was a "community dollars" program where local barbers and laundromats and basic services would accept "community dollars" as a subsidy. The dollars were given out to social service clients and participating businesses agreed to a small return and larger tax benefit for participationg. It helped integrate the very poor into the larger community, compensated local businesses with a broader concern, and eliminated a lot of the stigma of poverty for those using the program. That is the best kind of program.

      by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 10:56:35 PM PDT

      •  Well, annuals, I mean, geez

        I meant that as a joke, but annuals really are not a good gardening choice if you are looking at value for money.

        I agree about imposing institutions that do not have local support or understanding.  It's hard to understand co-ops and also the time commitment is rather high.  Particularly working poor folk may not have the time or perceive that they don't have the time to get involved in something like that.

        I do like very much the idea of community bucks, which the program you outline sounds similar to.  These can be used in many types of communities for example the program in Ithaca NY (a college town) is successful I hear.  I am glad you brought this up.  Malcolm X had a great speeah in which he discuss the revitalization of community, it starts with a commitment to community.  He traces the path of dollars outside the community -- you leave the community to earn you pay and you spend it outside your community, and your community will go downhill was the idea.   Keep your business in your community was the upshot.  I believe he was addressing more the lower middle class in this speech.

        It can be tremendously demeaning to get social services, and unfortunately that serves as a deterrent to people who may really need it.  Anything that destigmatizes poverty and the services available to alleviate poverty is I think a Good Thing.

        by sberel on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 05:28:00 AM PDT

•  not so well in suburbs either

  Vegetables are damn expensive.  This year is particularly bad as hurricanes devastated Florida.  I think that the supermarket model is rather wasteful as far as produce is concerned.  Fruits and vegetables are grown on industrial scale is few places of the continent, transported from one coast to another, and then displayed and sold by staff that has no idea what are they doing --- no wonder, supermarket workers cannot afford vegetables, and do not even ask about fresh herbs.

  Supermarkets are good with industrial foods and packed meat.  Of course, convenience stores are typically much, much worse -- although ethnic stores are sometimes good.

  Markets are much better at handling produce.  Sellers are knowlegeble about their wares, they waste less, they can explain anything to a buyer and offer advise.  Produce at markets can be twice cheaper than in supermarkets.  Local producers who offer more fresh and tasty produce, if not as well looking as industrial varieties have easy access.

  When I was a grad student in Boston area, every week I schlepped with my wife, with big knapsack, to Haymarket, to stock fruits, soe vegetables, imported cheese and frozen fish.  If you know what you want to eat, you can walk several miles once a week (we were returning by subway).

  I think that "farmers' markets" and education are the best solution.  And suburbanites could use them too.

  by Piotr on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 10:55:12 PM PDT

  •  Supermarket model dependent on cheap oil

    It's incredibly resource-intensive and the foods are only cheap there because of low price of oil.  As oil prices go up, so will everything else; and for everyone.

    by sberel on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 05:32:09 AM PDT

•  Yes,

  that is a problem:
  "The problem is even worse in low-income neighborhoods and inner city areas which face food redlining. The majority of low income/minority neighborhoods do not have enough supermarkets to serve the entire community effectively. Therefore, these communities generally meet their food needs at smaller, more expensive corner stores, especially at liquor/convenience marts that tend to provide less nutritious foods and very few if any fresh produce. For example, While 3 companies control 57 percent of the huge food retail market in California, West Oakland, with 32,000 residents and a 60 percent unemployment rate has only one supermarket compared to 40 liquor and convenience stores. And the price of food in these stores is almost 30 to 100 percent higher than the price in the grocery store!"

  However, I think it is more important to think about the hunger problem:
  "A look at the United States reveals a wide gap between the goal of universal access to adequate nutrition, and the reality of hunger that plagues millions in this country alone. The number of hungry people in the United States is greater now than it was when international leaders set hunger-cutting goals at the 1996 World Food Summit. The pledges by United States government leaders to cut the number of Americans living in hunger-from 30.4 million to 15.2 million by 2010- are lagging behind. An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least 4 in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50% of Americans!"
  Quoted from Hunger in America

  by astute observer on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 11:37:23 PM PDT

•  L A Times did a similar story

  About a year or so ago.  It was really interesting from my standpoint.  When I lived in tbe 'burbs, there were only 2 stores nearby.  You have to drive to each.  The closest one closed down in the early 90s.  Produce was awful, the meat was awful and selection was middle of the road.

  I'm broke and live in the city in an area where people can afford ridiculously priced rentals and homes.  Within walking distance we have a year-round Farmers Market, 3 weekly farmer's markets, 2 Whole Food stores, 2 Trader Joe's stores, and 2 Ralph's stores, not to mention a street of bakeries.  We usually get our dry goods from Trader Joe's because it's dirt cheap.  We always get our produce meat/fish and cheeses from Farmers Market.  For one, it's a great quality and you can get the stuff for a gourmet meal for 4 for about $40.  

  Anyway, I see your point, but I think a lot of the problems, especially here in Los Angeles, are just lack of education and/or time.  Most people think that Farmers Market is expensive, but it isn't.

  To support your point:  We go into poorer neighborhoods all the time for items we can't get around our gentrified neighborhood and the food is always cheaper, but the brand name items are always more expensive than anywhere I've seen.  Case, if I walk to my local Ralph's to get Knudsen's sour cream, it's about $1.39.  Go up 2 miles on the same street is a Jon's market.  They cater to the mostly Russian immigrant area.  That same container of sour cream runs between $2.19 adn $3.49.  I should also mention there is a Ralph's across the street from that Jon's that is super-expensive.  Meanwhile, at Jon's, I can get cheaper, better quality produce and equal quality meat, not to mention Russian and Armenian foodstuffs.  

  No matter who you are, it comes down to a choice of if you want to drive those 2 miles south to get a better deal on sour cream or not.  
  

  by fabooj on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:42:38 AM PDT

  •  transportation

    a problem if you don't have a car or your car is unreliable!  Driving two miles is not a choice for everyone, and walking is time-consuming, and that distance impracticable if you have young children coming with you.

    That is great that you have so many farmer's markets near you.  I recall as a child my mother was involved in an informal buying co-op.  The members rotated the duty of going to the farmers market for produce and they would buy the produce for everyone in the group.  Then lay it out on the driveway for the members of the group to pick up at the appointed hour.    

    by sberel on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 05:39:51 AM PDT

•  very interesting diary

  i am lucky in that i have several grocery stores within reasonable driving distance from my home.  the one that's farthest away - about 3.5 miles - is a whole foods.  i also have a farmer's market about 2 miles south and a discount grocer about 2 miles north.  in my little city, the food choices are pretty varied, and i like to think our family makes better choices than most.

  however, the poorer parts of the city are segregated over to one side - and i've noticed when i drive on that side of town that the choices are very limited.  plus, we're the largest city in the country without pulic transportation, so many of our city's poor are prevented from choosing smarter/healthier foods because they don't have access to the grocers throughout the city.  

  this lack of access is just a side effect of a longterm, mainly unspoken policy among our city leaders, which is to do as little for the poor as possible.  segregate them on one side of the city so "we don't have to think about them".  needless to say, our government has been controlled by republicans for the better part of thirty years.

  you know what?  i don't think we'd have much of a chance of finding a diary like this on a gop blog.  thanks for the thought-provoking diary.  i'll tip you a 4 somewhere upthread for your efforts.  make that two 4s, as you said you lost the post first time around.

  by anna on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 08:15:37 AM PDT

•  dangit

  i meant to add that i picked the grow your own option (community gardens).  if you are fortunate enough to have a bit of green space or even a couple of two gallon pots (for apartment dwellars with balconies), you can really make a difference in how you eat.  

  my husband and i have been growing some of our own veggies for about 5 years.  since we didn't know what we were doing we started small - just one row in our yard where we planted squash, tomatos, carrots, and strawberries.  over the years we've expanded our efforts, learned more about what works in our climate zone (north texas, i think we're zone 8), and had successful harvests every year.

  we invest maybe thirty of fourty bucks every year in seeds, soil, pots (if we need 'em), fertiliser, etc, and yield veggies and fresh herbs all season long.  for that investment you can yield hundreds of dollars worth of food, so it's also a money saving option.  not only that, but it's incredibly rewarding to get your hands dirty digging in the earth.  i can completely understand a farmer's love for their land after doing this for several years.  i love getting my hands in the garden.

  i know it's not an option for everyone.  for example, if you lived in an apartment with no balcony you don't really have a place to put anything.  but even a small patch (5X5) or some 2 gallon pots (maybe 6-8) can be worth the investment.
  

  by anna on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 08:22:15 AM PDT