4 ms·

You're possibly in a food desert and unaware. If any of your neighbors live more than a mile or two from a grocery store (not a convenience store), you are in a

by runako 3y ago

You're possibly in a food desert and unaware. If any of your neighbors live more than a mile or two from a grocery store (not a convenience store), you are in a food desert. The definition involves being able to get to a grocery store on foot or public transit.

Retric 3y ago
It’s a BS definition but not quite that BS: “one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas” The initial idea was urban areas are often mostly served by small convenience stores with high markups and few choices. However, being able to walk or use public transport can both work it’s really more a question of effort not distance.
- bombcar 3y ago
  One mile is pretty darn low, even for suburban. I’m technically not in a food desert because there is a grocery store a block away. But if it were to explode, I’d suddenly be in a desert because the next grocery store (Walmart) is 1.2 miles away at the end of a nice bike path. I don’t even know if a grocery store’s customers can fit within a one mile radius circle without urban density.
  - runako 3y ago
    Deciding that a mile is low is a top-down analysis. But if you've ever walked a mile to a store to buy groceries, you'll quickly conclude that much further is not really a viable foot journey to buy groceries.
    - dahfizz 3y ago
      But nobody is walking in a suburban town. This definition makes basically all suburbs a food dessert, even though the grocery store is only a few minutes from most people's house.
      - runako 3y ago
        > nobody is walking in a suburban town I guess YMMV on this one. When I drive through suburbs, there are always people walking there. Watch especially how the staff arrives at your suburban stores & restaurants.
        dahfizz 3y ago
        Okay, to be more pedantic - the vast vast majority of people living in suburbs have access to a car and do not consider a 2 mile drive to the grocery store an inconvenience. To say these people live in a food dessert is silly. You are very clever to point out that people can actually walk around in a suburb, doesn't change the point.
        runako 3y ago
        > the vast vast majority of people living in suburbs This conversation is by definition about people living on the margins. Similarly, the "vast vast majority" of people do not qualify for SNAP. Pointing out that most people don't live on the margins is clever, but not particularly relevant, in a discussion about people who live at the very edge of society.
        Retric 3y ago
        Food deserts are more about human health than people living on the margins. Easy access to healthy food doesn’t guarantee people will eat it, but it dramatically increases the odds. If the closest and most convenient place to buy food is a grocery store then it’s a moot point.
        bombcar 3y ago
        I suspect that food deserts are also an attempt to explain certain health issues in certain areas, but I'm not entirely convinced that "adding grocery stores" will solve those issues. In other words, we have two things, and want to make one the cause of the other, but that's not entirely clear. Maybe the grocery stores die in areas where the population doesn't frequent grocery stores for whatever reason, or maybe people don't frequent grocery stores because they died, or maybe a mix of both.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Walking 1.2 miles down a bike path is also easier than 0.8 miles through urban areas without sidewalks. It seems clear the default was chosen to use round numbers, be easy to calculate, and make the issue seem more important. Stricter criteria mean fewer people fall into the category, but it also means those people have more significance challenges.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I’m urban by census definitions though I certainly don’t look it. I’m also not really rural in spite of living on several acres in a town with a few thousand people. Certainly I couldn’t walk or take transit to a grocery store at all reasonably. But I’d laugh if you told me I lived in a food desert. I also couldn’t reasonably live where I am at all without a car or regular assistance.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      There is some fast and loose with "urban" and "rural" - most people consider New York to be Urban, Los Angeles to be Urban, and anywhere outside of the suburbs to be rural - but the census counts anything as urban that is "populated": To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or have a population of at least 5,000. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g... Many people would consider small towns "rural" but if the town is small enough, it can be an entirely "walkable" "urban" area - because there's a walmart, a gas station, and a hospital, all in a town that is less than a mile across.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        Yeah. My town has a population of 7,000 and is within an hour of Boston. I also have a Christmas tree farm on one side and an apple orchard and horse farm on the other. 75 acres in all and probably over 100 acres when you add some conservation land. Not what most people consider urban. But we don’t have a meaningful commercial area at all in the town. And I’m not walking anywhere except recreationally in the woods.
    - tzs 3y ago
      Nearly everybody is getting the definition of "food desert" wrong. It varies somewhat depending on who is defining it but for non-rural areas it is generally along the lines of a low income area with no sources of affordable healthy food within walking distance or reasonably affordable public transit distance and most people don't have other good transportation options. Places where nearly everyone has a working car and can generally afford gas, whether rural or not, generally won't be food deserts unless stores selling affordable healthy food are all pretty far away.
- dahfizz 3y ago
  The problem is the definition of "urban or suburban". The census classifies any town of 5000 (!!!) people or more as urban. I live in a small town of more than 5000 people, so it's technically urban. It takes me 5 minutes to get to the grocery store, but it's technically more than a mile so I am in a food dressert even though I have easy access to fresh produce.
_chu1 3y ago
I'm 2 miles to the nearest convenience store and 5 miles from the grocery store I choose to go to and I do not consider that to be a "food desert", it's just a drive down the road. It is quite easy to grow your own produce to eat, and kids want to do it now because it reminds them of Minecraft.
- runako 3y ago
  Yeah, 2 miles is ~80 minutes round trip on foot for a healthy person. 5 miles is over 3 hours round trip on foot, carrying groceries back. This is not accessible. If a person is poor enough to qualify for food stamps, is it reasonable to expect them to have enough land and resources (fertilizer, etc.) to grow enough food for a family, while also earning a living? Should that be the only option? Finally, of the group of people who do not have reliable access to cars, the poor are a significant portion. "Just jump in your car and drive down the road" is not an option for millions of Americans. But yes, if you are relatively well-off, there's no such thing as a food desert. If you have a few tens of acres of land, a tractor, and car, even being 50 or 100 miles from a store is not a problem. SNAP isn't for those people.
  - _chu1 3y ago
    Sure, but nobody does that because you're clearly doing something wrong or have done something wrong if you live in a rural area with zero access to a car and nobody who could give you a ride. Counties with rural areas provide public transportation for these people. If you're literally on the brink of starvation, I don't think growing tomatoes is that hard.
    - runako 3y ago
      > Counties with rural areas provide public transportation for these people. Maybe in your state, but this is definitely not universal in America.
- piva00 3y ago
  > it's just a drive down the road. It is quite easy to grow your own produce to eat, and kids want to do it now because it reminds them of Minecraft. That assumes: having a car, and having some arable land + time on hand to grow and care for crops. Those are big assumptions, you need money to have a car and land, poor people lack... Money.
Aurornis 3y ago
That’s an unreasonably strict definition. Most people in the US and many other countries don’t walk to a grocery store even if it’s within a mile or two or accessible by public transit. They drive because it’s easier to haul groceries that way. Once you’re driving it’s not a big deal if the grocery store is within 1 mile or 5 miles. I don’t understand what the purpose of the “food desert” definition is if it’s so strict as to include huge numbers of people for whom it doesn’t matter. This feels like the kind of buzzword that an organization dreams up to make their work sound extra important while undermining the true problem by diluting it too broadly.
- inetknght 3y ago
  > Most people in the US and many other countries don’t walk to a grocery store even if it’s within a mile or two or accessible by public transit. > They drive because it’s easier to haul groceries that way. > Once you’re driving it’s not a big deal if the grocery store is within 1 mile or 5 miles. Imagine you're between jobs, receive government aid for food, and can't afford to fuel your car. How will you get to the store? Imagine you don't have a car. How will you get to the store? Imagine you don't have friends or family. How will you get to the store? Your assumption of being able to drive is an unreasonably strict definition of a person.
  - friendzis 3y ago
    Hop on a bicycle or public transport? If you can't afford to fuel the car, more often than not you can't afford to own one either.
    - inetknght 3y ago
      > If you can't afford to fuel the car, more often than not you can't afford to own one either. Perhaps. Or perhaps you afforded the purchase of the car years ago. Your situation has changed since then and now you have a car that you can no longer afford to maintain.
  - _chu1 3y ago
    You are literally imagining the saddest person in the entire world that has every single difficulty imaginable preventing them from getting food. Are they a disabled veteran who's blind, can't speak and has autism too? None of those people exist here, not in singlewides, duplexes, apartments or living in their relatives basements. There are more people living in their car than people without cars where I live in Alabama close to places where get bored and live off the grid. Do you live in a rural area?

by runako 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

It’s a BS definition but not quite that BS: “one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas” The initial idea was urban areas are often mostly served by small convenience stores with high markups and few choices. However, being able to walk or use public transport can both work it’s really more a question of effort not distance.

bombcar 3y ago
One mile is pretty darn low, even for suburban. I’m technically not in a food desert because there is a grocery store a block away. But if it were to explode, I’d suddenly be in a desert because the next grocery store (Walmart) is 1.2 miles away at the end of a nice bike path. I don’t even know if a grocery store’s customers can fit within a one mile radius circle without urban density.
- runako 3y ago
  Deciding that a mile is low is a top-down analysis. But if you've ever walked a mile to a store to buy groceries, you'll quickly conclude that much further is not really a viable foot journey to buy groceries.
  - dahfizz 3y ago
    But nobody is walking in a suburban town. This definition makes basically all suburbs a food dessert, even though the grocery store is only a few minutes from most people's house.
    - runako 3y ago
      > nobody is walking in a suburban town I guess YMMV on this one. When I drive through suburbs, there are always people walking there. Watch especially how the staff arrives at your suburban stores & restaurants.
      - dahfizz 3y ago
        Okay, to be more pedantic - the vast vast majority of people living in suburbs have access to a car and do not consider a 2 mile drive to the grocery store an inconvenience. To say these people live in a food dessert is silly. You are very clever to point out that people can actually walk around in a suburb, doesn't change the point.
        runako 3y ago
        > the vast vast majority of people living in suburbs This conversation is by definition about people living on the margins. Similarly, the "vast vast majority" of people do not qualify for SNAP. Pointing out that most people don't live on the margins is clever, but not particularly relevant, in a discussion about people who live at the very edge of society.
        Retric 3y ago
        Food deserts are more about human health than people living on the margins. Easy access to healthy food doesn’t guarantee people will eat it, but it dramatically increases the odds. If the closest and most convenient place to buy food is a grocery store then it’s a moot point.
        bombcar 3y ago
        I suspect that food deserts are also an attempt to explain certain health issues in certain areas, but I'm not entirely convinced that "adding grocery stores" will solve those issues. In other words, we have two things, and want to make one the cause of the other, but that's not entirely clear. Maybe the grocery stores die in areas where the population doesn't frequent grocery stores for whatever reason, or maybe people don't frequent grocery stores because they died, or maybe a mix of both.
- Retric 3y ago
  Walking 1.2 miles down a bike path is also easier than 0.8 miles through urban areas without sidewalks. It seems clear the default was chosen to use round numbers, be easy to calculate, and make the issue seem more important. Stricter criteria mean fewer people fall into the category, but it also means those people have more significance challenges.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I’m urban by census definitions though I certainly don’t look it. I’m also not really rural in spite of living on several acres in a town with a few thousand people. Certainly I couldn’t walk or take transit to a grocery store at all reasonably. But I’d laugh if you told me I lived in a food desert. I also couldn’t reasonably live where I am at all without a car or regular assistance.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    There is some fast and loose with "urban" and "rural" - most people consider New York to be Urban, Los Angeles to be Urban, and anywhere outside of the suburbs to be rural - but the census counts anything as urban that is "populated": To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or have a population of at least 5,000. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g... Many people would consider small towns "rural" but if the town is small enough, it can be an entirely "walkable" "urban" area - because there's a walmart, a gas station, and a hospital, all in a town that is less than a mile across.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Yeah. My town has a population of 7,000 and is within an hour of Boston. I also have a Christmas tree farm on one side and an apple orchard and horse farm on the other. 75 acres in all and probably over 100 acres when you add some conservation land. Not what most people consider urban. But we don’t have a meaningful commercial area at all in the town. And I’m not walking anywhere except recreationally in the woods.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Nearly everybody is getting the definition of "food desert" wrong. It varies somewhat depending on who is defining it but for non-rural areas it is generally along the lines of a low income area with no sources of affordable healthy food within walking distance or reasonably affordable public transit distance and most people don't have other good transportation options. Places where nearly everyone has a working car and can generally afford gas, whether rural or not, generally won't be food deserts unless stores selling affordable healthy food are all pretty far away.
dahfizz 3y ago
The problem is the definition of "urban or suburban". The census classifies any town of 5000 (!!!) people or more as urban. I live in a small town of more than 5000 people, so it's technically urban. It takes me 5 minutes to get to the grocery store, but it's technically more than a mile so I am in a food dressert even though I have easy access to fresh produce.

_chu1 3y ago

I'm 2 miles to the nearest convenience store and 5 miles from the grocery store I choose to go to and I do not consider that to be a "food desert", it's just a drive down the road. It is quite easy to grow your own produce to eat, and kids want to do it now because it reminds them of Minecraft.

runako 3y ago
Yeah, 2 miles is ~80 minutes round trip on foot for a healthy person. 5 miles is over 3 hours round trip on foot, carrying groceries back. This is not accessible. If a person is poor enough to qualify for food stamps, is it reasonable to expect them to have enough land and resources (fertilizer, etc.) to grow enough food for a family, while also earning a living? Should that be the only option? Finally, of the group of people who do not have reliable access to cars, the poor are a significant portion. "Just jump in your car and drive down the road" is not an option for millions of Americans. But yes, if you are relatively well-off, there's no such thing as a food desert. If you have a few tens of acres of land, a tractor, and car, even being 50 or 100 miles from a store is not a problem. SNAP isn't for those people.
- _chu1 3y ago
  Sure, but nobody does that because you're clearly doing something wrong or have done something wrong if you live in a rural area with zero access to a car and nobody who could give you a ride. Counties with rural areas provide public transportation for these people. If you're literally on the brink of starvation, I don't think growing tomatoes is that hard.
  - runako 3y ago
    > Counties with rural areas provide public transportation for these people. Maybe in your state, but this is definitely not universal in America.
piva00 3y ago
> it's just a drive down the road. It is quite easy to grow your own produce to eat, and kids want to do it now because it reminds them of Minecraft. That assumes: having a car, and having some arable land + time on hand to grow and care for crops. Those are big assumptions, you need money to have a car and land, poor people lack... Money.

Aurornis 3y ago

That’s an unreasonably strict definition. Most people in the US and many other countries don’t walk to a grocery store even if it’s within a mile or two or accessible by public transit. They drive because it’s easier to haul groceries that way. Once you’re driving it’s not a big deal if the grocery store is within 1 mile or 5 miles. I don’t understand what the purpose of the “food desert” definition is if it’s so strict as to include huge numbers of people for whom it doesn’t matter. This feels like the kind of buzzword that an organization dreams up to make their work sound extra important while undermining the true problem by diluting it too broadly.

inetknght 3y ago
> Most people in the US and many other countries don’t walk to a grocery store even if it’s within a mile or two or accessible by public transit. > They drive because it’s easier to haul groceries that way. > Once you’re driving it’s not a big deal if the grocery store is within 1 mile or 5 miles. Imagine you're between jobs, receive government aid for food, and can't afford to fuel your car. How will you get to the store? Imagine you don't have a car. How will you get to the store? Imagine you don't have friends or family. How will you get to the store? Your assumption of being able to drive is an unreasonably strict definition of a person.
- friendzis 3y ago
  Hop on a bicycle or public transport? If you can't afford to fuel the car, more often than not you can't afford to own one either.
  - inetknght 3y ago
    > If you can't afford to fuel the car, more often than not you can't afford to own one either. Perhaps. Or perhaps you afforded the purchase of the car years ago. Your situation has changed since then and now you have a car that you can no longer afford to maintain.
- _chu1 3y ago
  You are literally imagining the saddest person in the entire world that has every single difficulty imaginable preventing them from getting food. Are they a disabled veteran who's blind, can't speak and has autism too? None of those people exist here, not in singlewides, duplexes, apartments or living in their relatives basements. There are more people living in their car than people without cars where I live in Alabama close to places where get bored and live off the grid. Do you live in a rural area?