That study seems to have many deficiencies. First, it is a county analysis. If you look at the distribution of farmer's markets, it seems to follow the population density of counties in general: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2010/geo/popul...

Secondly, the data comes from the USDA which seems highly dubious. For example, Armstrong County in PA has "0" farmer markets for the purposes of the study even though they have 120 farms with direct sales. Even a cursory Google search for a community inside Armstrong has a farmer's market three times a week: https://www.farmersmarketonline.com/fm/KittanningFarmersMark... . The data and methodology of the study is clearly flawed.

Finally, "living in a county with a farmer's market" is not really a measure of accessibility. Just because you live in a county with a farmer's market, it doesn't mean you can get to it easily. Even a neighboring county might be more accessible.

Overall, the methodology of the paper is highly dubious. But even if the point remains "farmer's markets are not accessible for many Americans", the takeaway message is not that farmer's markets are a pipe dream. The takeaway should be that the focus on globalization of the agricultural supply chain in search of the cheapest food has put us in a precarious spot as a species that many people can't participate in sustainable food because the roots of society has relied on access to cheap food from elsewhere. It's a red flag warning to change our policies, not a sign to give up.

To the other people who down voted my original comment that the solution is easy. It truly is, we simply need to pay more for food. We need to actively choose a more robust system versus the cheapest. I would never ask the government to subsidize farmer's markets, but simply removing subsidies on existing products that would double the cost of specific food items would go a long way for aligning the market to start to grow more stuff locally. We won't solve any climate issues by spending less money.

Cheap unsustainable food or sustainably priced food is the decision we all have to make. Unfortunately, the government subsidizes some of the worst food industries in the name of providing "staples". We can't feed 8 billion people Wagyu beef for every meal. Yes, the world needs to eat more lentils. We can't complain that eating sustainable is "hard" when we really mean "it is 50% more expensive". Great, Disney World every 7 years instead of every 5. For the families that truly need help (which is the minority), we have programs to assist. But instead of giving them government cheese, let's push for locally sourced ingredients. But again, that's "hard".

If those who can afford it would do it, like the well-off people frequenting hacker news, that would be a start. That would drive up demand, make it worth for more farmers to do this sustainably, eventually driving those costs down, and thus making it more affordable for lesser income people. And it's not black and white, in each iteration more people can afford it. Similar to electric cars.

It's easy to armchair-philosophise those things away with "oh but poor people wont ever have the money, so screw it". With that attitude we'd never hav gotten electric cars. Or solar power.

There's what I call the "cheap shoes fallacy" at play here.

When you buy cheap shoes, they break quickly, forcing you to buy another pair, ultimately costing more over time than if you had just bought good shoes to begin with.

The same applies to food. When you buy cheap food, it will nourish you only a little bit, forcing you to buy more of it, ultimately costing more over time than if you had just bought good food to begin with.

Cheap, industrial food contains the minimum amount of actual food to pass for grub, and is laden with artificial flavorings to fool your brain into thinking you're actually eating something, when you're not.

I'm not trying to downplay the difficulties of helping less privileged people eat well, but you should know many cities have programs that specifically make efforts to put farmers markets in food deserts, and often accept EBT/SNAP at above cash value (or with heavy rebates) - if these kind of programs don't exist where you are, perhaps consider petitioning whatever group runs your local farmers markets to see if they might be possible to introduce.

Bringing up impoverished people every time someone asks what one should be eating doesn’t answer the question and it’s exhausting to watch “Avocados are healthy and—“ “Umm, try living in a food desert with three jobs!”

Yes, it sucks for those people, but pointing out poverty doesn’t silence the conversation about nutrition for the rest of us who can afford some cheap vegetables.

The big trick is not to get yourself in the situation of being a single mother with 3 kids for starters. Of course you can’t do the best for your kids with 3 of them on your own.

Well, if she's a mother of three, we already know her life goal is obviously planetary destruction, so what's a few avocados grown by Big Ag? ;-)