Hacker News Reader

Comment by roymurdock | Hacker News Reader

Summary: Supermarkets open and close based on profit per square foot. Therefore they close in poor neighborhoods and stack up 3 or 4 deep in wealthy neighborhoods.

The author calls for some type of regulation on supermarkets or "the control of food supply". For example rules that chain stores provide evidence they are appropriate for the income level of the neighborhood, as in San Francisco.

"Until then, the food supply of UK cities – and the character of our neighbourhoods – will be subject only to the law of which supermarket locations are most profitable per square foot."

This is related to the "food desert" phenomenon cropping up in the US. Haven't heard much being done on this front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

View on HN

The food desert theory has largely been dismissed as a cause for poor eating, and are rather the result of consumer choices.

http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2015/10/26/if-you-build-it-th...

> For low income and education households, the most publicized reason that people eat poorly is that they do not have access to healthier options. Media coverage of efforts to combat nutritional disparities has focused primarily on efforts by grocers like Whole Foods to open stores in underserved neighborhoods. However, according to the study by Schnell et al., policy initiatives focusing on increasing access to nutritious food will only solve a small portion of these nutritional differences. Controlling for income level, the study finds that differences in access only explain 10 percent of disparities in consumption across education groups.

> Furthermore, the study finds that households do not strongly respond to the entry of new stores into their geographic area, even though they are aware of the addition of new stores. When households change the mix of stores they visit once a new store is introduced, the researchers do not observe a lasting change in the nutritional value of their purchases.

I always get a chuckle about people saying area in cities are food deserts. A food desert is somewhere you can't get delivery, tacos from a taco truck, or a pizza from anywhere but a convenience store.

Nunavut is a food desert. Pickle Lake is a food desert. I live in a food desert. If it is ten blocks to a Safeway, it's not a food desert. If you can call and get delivery from three different types of ethnic food, it's not a food desert.

Even where I live, 25 miles from a grocery store, there are all sorts of choices. I have a whole wilderness full of game and have pretty much finished harvesting my garden. I've been in cities around the globe, and the only ones I've seen that are worthy of the title are hugely impoverished and probably not far from a war zone. I have seen poor people in cities who can't afford much food, however.

Food deserts don't apply to people who are well off. A food desert is a place where healthy food is much more costly and less accessible than junk food, which is true in most slum areas. Poor people generally can't afford delivery. As we reduce the number of people affected by famine, food deserts become an increasingly significant driver of health disparities between rich and poor.

Products tend to be more expensive if they're rarely sold (esp perishable items). That you don't find healthy food in some rural areas in the US is not because supermarkets have no means of getting them there, it's because they'd not sell much.

Asking supermarkets to stock items they'd have to throw away is questionable from an ethical standpoint.

Yes, sadly, junk food is more tasty and more convenient. It's a problem in cities and rural areas alike. There's lots of room for creative solutions without going communist. I support a tax on junk food and a subsidy on healthy food. Aside from that, governments and communities can collaborate to educate people about the benefits of healthy food, hold workshops on easy and tasty cooking, put together good financing deals for community-based markets offering fresh and local food, encourage community gardens, set up healthy food trucks, etc. We can help by voting, volunteering, or working for a social venture.

I grew up in a place like you. The difference is that you have a car.

I live in a small city now. I’m a quick drive or walk (10 blocks) to a small grocery store with limited selection and higher prices that mostly caters to students. Most shopping gets done in supermarkets outside the city... 10m car ride or 30 minute bus ride.

From the inner city area, that’s usually a 90 minute bus ride that runs every 45 minutes. Poor people don’t work 9-5, so they buy most food at bodegas at inflated prices. Stuff like produce is rarely available, unless Kure lucky to be near a Chinese market.

Yeah, that's a food inconvenience and certainly a problem. It seems not very desert-like, at all. It sucks, but it's not fight a hyena for your breakfast suckage. It's not pretend to like fermented fish desert sucks It's not like the delivery plane can only land every four months suck. It's hardly a desert.

But you're just applying your own, personal definition and not the definition that everyone else uses.

Sure, but then desert already carries certain connotations. Living on the wrong side of MLK Drive in Atlanta probably sucks, that's a given. If orange juice is priced like a luxury good, it might be a food desert.

Your comment makes it sound like it's only an "inconvenience" as long as the poor people aren't literally fighting animals for food, and their supply chain is replenished at least quarterly.

Here's the definition that most of the rest of us use:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-...

The "convenience" factor in modern civilized society is compared to a baseline of "suburban parent hops in the car, drives 5 minutes to a well-stocked and affordable grocery store with plenty of nutritious options" and NOT compared to "prehistoric hunter-gatherers on the verge of starvation."

The comment stands on its own.

“I have what my kids need, if you don’t, you should feel lucky that you aren’t fighting wild animals.”

I grew up in the Air Force. When we lived off base, my parents would drive to the PX on the base because it was cheaper. It was often a 30-45 minute drive there, and to make it worthwhile they'd usually get a couple weeks worth of groceries.

My VA card gets me into the PX. They say my hearing is diminished because of my time in the service and they accepted responsibility for my knee. So, I am disabled enough to use the PX, not enough for much else except some medical.

The PX is pretty awesome.

Dude, if you go to a Safeway in a crime-ridden area it’s a completely different experience. A ten minute visit will take half an hour because everything will be locked up and the attendant you ask to unlock it will go back to the counter to call someone to unlock a thing and they will never show up. It’s a disaster.

Do they have the same Safeway gun policy in those areas?

Maybe the answer is not to force private companies to cover a money-losing store in a “food deserted” area but to ask the government to provide this service?!

The way this has been traditionally handled has been weird prop tax relief and govt backed ultra low interest loan schemes.

The problem is criminality is so high in some areas that no amount of property tax relief will make up for shoplifting losses.

Its all water under the bridge anyway, as delivery services, amazon, etc, will make the concept of a supermarket as quaint as the concept of a record store or book store, in a couple years. I already get food delivered via amazon, I can't buy decent loose leaf tea locally or conveniently via any brick and mortar.

A true government operated store would resemble the DMV; wait in line for two hours to buy a bag of rice only to be told they only provide beans at this facility and you need to fill out another form and wait in line again. Then fill out the correct form and for homeland security reasons they can only provide the beans via mail delivery to your home address. And they can't give you beans until you give them proof of homeowners insurance and cooking training classes.

> The problem is criminality is so high in some areas that no amount of property tax relief will make up for shoplifting losses.

So subsidize it with dedicated law enforcement presence rather than tax relief.

> Its all water under the bridge anyway, as delivery services, amazon, etc, will make the concept of a supermarket as quaint as the concept of a record store or book store

Delivery services are also problematic in areas of high criminality.

Seriously, was going to say, it might just be a matter of time before delivery services decline to service certain zip codes due to delivery truck robbery & porch theft losses. Unlike the USPS they have no mandate to serve all addresses.

>So subsidize it with dedicated law enforcement presence rather than tax relief.

I don't know how you reckon that it would be any more popular to have tax-subsidized, deputized loss prevention officers at such stores. Seems it would just feed into the outrage over "public servants stationed at Walmart?" "Tasing someone for shoplifting?"

Edit: But here's an idea in the same vein: go find cash-strapped families that would benefit from a one time infusion of money to do the long-term cheaper option for grocery shopping [1]. Say, they purchase in bulk and learn how to cook and coordinate monthly supply runs (rotating for fresher items etc).

They would be able to pay back a huge rate of return with just a fraction of the savings, which could then bankroll a virtuous cycle expanding the program.

Why hasn't anyone tried that? Or why hasn't it worked?

[1] The Vimes boot theory that is often quoted here.

How do you check the quality of produce items you've purchased online? If I want to buy avocados, oranges, or tomatoes, I have to trust some picker that I've never even met to know how I prefer them. Until they solve that problem I will never order produce online.

You look at them when they arrive and then complain if they suck to get a refund. The same thing you do with every other thing you order online.

That's not exactly as convenient as being able to squeeze and smell produce before you buy it. If I'm ordering for dinner and my produce sucks, what is my actual recourse other than to not cook the dinner I wanted to cook?

Would you order your other groceries online though? For a lot people in the west their diet is comprised of more than just fresh produce.

>Its all water under the bridge anyway, as delivery services, amazon, etc, will make the concept of a supermarket as quaint as the concept of a record store or book store, in a couple years.

Are you suggesting that grocery delivery will solve the food desert problem in poor areas?

The PX is a government operated store on any military base. I haven't been to one since I turned 21, but they weren't that bad, though they tended to be utilitarian and rather drab.

Criminality will affect Amazon's trucks also.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com