There's a Whole Foods in my rather un-yuppie neighborhood. From what I've seen compared to other Whole Foods (a sampling of two), they've stocked up and given prominence to reasonably priced produce and their own WF canned goods, etc., which fits the neighborhood profile. (Not that the expensive cheeses, etc. aren't in the back of the store.)

There is also a Hispanic supermarket, as well as a Vietnamese super-dupermarket, where the signs aren't in English but the produce is beyond dirt cheap (like enormous, just-harvested bunches of Italian parsley for 33 cents, or 10 limes for $1).

I think the term "food desert" is reductive and patronizing. In urban areas, at least, there often are options, and many of them are better than you would expect. If there are "food deserts," I imagine they're in sparsely populated areas where there's little agriculture and it's hard to get to Costco or Sam's Club.

"I think the term "food desert" is reductive and patronizing."

I think so, too.

The fact that giving people the fresh produce, etc., that they supposedly would eat if they could buy them doesn't change people's diets says it all.

A more recent piece on Canada.

When you are talking about food deserts you are largely talking about Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and to a lesser extent Alabama. Which heavily matches with incidence of diabetes and obesity here in the US. And yes the issue isn't that people don't have access to vegetables. It is that people don't want to buy vegetables. There are plenty of vegetables around. Acres and acres of them. But they are grown and exported to other states with very little being eaten close to where they are grown.

The commonwealth report is interesting Crid. Did you look at how they measure health outcomes? To me it looks like having a diverse population is the major problem with US health care outcomes. And I do agree we pay far too much in overhead costs. Essentially paying $2 to get $1 of care. But until you return to people paying for themselves and not through insurance that looks unlikely to change.

"When you are talking about food deserts you are largely talking about Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and to a lesser extent Alabama. "

Not to my notice. Y'know, those are agricultural areas. They grow the stuff that's in Whole Foods. I think the reasons for obesity in the sticks are cultural: lots of people have the tendency to gain weight, but in urban and suburban areas, you disadvantage yourself socially if you gain too much weight. There's no social opprobrium associated with obesity out in the country; it's just sort of accepted that everyone will get fat as they get older, and women will get fat after they have children. It's more of a pre-20th-century culture in that respect.

Dave, that sounds very much like what more than one person has pointed out over the years: Rich societies value thin people, and poor societies value fat people.

Cousin Dave,

Look up maps of food deserts online. You will find most places labeled that are rural and agricultural. As I said they grow the vegetables, they just don't eat them. And yes, the cause is significantly cultural. Which is why the federal government paying grocery stores to carry food that no one wants to buy wasn't effective. Instead they spent millions of dollars to let good food rot.

Poor people in the US are getting the same caloric intake as everyone else, according to a recent study article in the Washington Post. The sources of those calories is different, however. Their food choices are much less healthy.

Poor people don't buy fruits and vegetables. Mostly because they don't fit the needs of poor people.

• Poor people eat fewer meals and, so, choose more filling fare for those meals. A plate of vegetables doesn't leave you feeling full like a plate of pasta or a bowl of chili does.
  
• Fruits and vegetables have no shelf life, they go bad quickly and that wastes what little money poor people have to spend on food.
  
• Cooking vegetables requires the implements of a kitchen: spices, butter, cheese, lemons, etc. Poor people don't have these readily available (see the quick spoilage bullet point above).
  
• Store-bought fruits and vegetables are packaged to maximize visual appeal, not maximize flavor. It's hard for a store-bought tomato to compete with a Cheeto on flavor.
  
• Fruits are more expensive than a candy bar, don't provide a much quick energy, are messier, and are harder to carry around all day.
  
• Less money means less leisure time. Popping in a pot pie is easier than cutting up meats and vegetables and cooking them. And while the pot pie cooks, you can do the cleaning you weren't able to do earlier because you and your spouse both work 2 jobs.
  

In addition, fruits and vegetables are not subsidized by the federal government the way foods like high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats are. As a result, the foods containing government-subsidized ingredients are cheaper.

"Support for these few crops, critics say, has compelled farmers to ignore other crops such as fruits, vegetables, and other grains. The market is flooded with products made from the highly subsidized crops, including sweeteners in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fats in the form of hydrogenated fats made from soybeans, and feed for cattle and pigs. This flood, in turn, drives down the prices of fattening fare such as prepackaged snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fast food, corn-fed beef and pork, and soft drinks. Worse yet, some scientists say, paltry support for foods other than these staples increases the contrast between prices of fat-laden, oversweetened foods and those of healthier alternatives, offering poor folks little choice but to stock their pantries with less nutritious foods."

"Instead they spent millions of dollars to let good food rot."

Yeah but that's just the way it goes with Kale. Those of us in the lefty food jungle -or whatever the land of organic plenty is called - have to have a token garden and a compost tumbler so we don't feel bad about throwing away 50% of the produce we buy. I'm not wasting, I'm working on next year's black gold. But it's my money not y'all's.

Thanks for reminding me - it's time to plant the fall kale. Grows like a weed, likes cool shoulder season temperatures.

> To me it looks like having a
> diverse population is the major
> problem with US health care
> outcomes.

Golly, little feller...

Can't imagine where you're going with that.

...Maybe it's like saying your wife's sexual allure is a real hindrance to her safe passage through public spaces.

Something should be done. About that.

Knowutimeen, Jellybean?

"Rich societies value thin people, and poor societies value fat people."

Indeed... if you believe that you might face starvation (whether the belief is rational or not), you're going to eat whenever food is available. Get "lucky" for a while, and presto, you gain weight. If the belief is irrational and you don't actually even go without a meal, you gain a lot of weight. And there are some evolutionary reasons: fat is energy reserve, and if you incur a severe injury, or illness, or pregnancy, or period of extreme stress, you're more likely to survive if your body has some energy reserves to draw on.

We evolved to eat regularly. Our primitive brains don't know about things like desk jobs, labor-saving appliances, and vegging in front of the TV.

"Can't imagine where you're going with that."

Uniform societies are easier to manipulate. You have one set of variables that are commonly known. When you get a mixture trying to manipulate society into 'good' outcomes is far more difficult. What works with one group often harms two or three others.

You actually see the same effect with IQ research. In Europe you can find a strong genetic link to IQ pretty easily. But the genes for smart people are completely different when you cross national borders. And the effect completely vanishes into the noise floor here in the US. Which makes it pretty questionable if there is any real link or if you are measuring cultural groupings or socioeconomic effects instead. Just because something is hereditary doesn't mean it is genetic.

> Uniform societies are easier
> to manipulate.

So you want to "manipulate societies."

Good to know.

> Just because something is hereditary
> doesn't mean it is genetic.

Did you go to college?

The concept of food deserts is simply snobbery. It says that if poor people had a Whole Foods they would eat just like the elite/hipsters, and buy organic, unusual foods. How to tell it is just snobbery? These same people fight tooth and nail to keep Walmart (which has a fine grocery section) out of chicago, Washington, NYC etc. Interestingly, in Chicago they let a Target in (which I hear hires union workers) but still no Walmart. Hell, I make good money and I think Whole Foods is way too expensive. Seems to me it is for people obsessed by food, not hungry people.

Seems to me it is for people obsessed by status and virtue signalling, not hungry people.

Fixed it for you. They probably drive a Pious.

> They probably drive a Pious.

Boom!

☑ I R A Darth Aggie at August 15, 2017 1:20 PM

...It's like that product name has been rattling around in some vaguely familiar linguistic neurology all these years, and you finally identified the neighborhood.

With your new intuition, we can safely wager that the next great product introduction from Elon Musk will be named the 2019 Telsa Sanctimatic.

Maybe the 2018 Tesla Sanctimonium. Moonroof, leather, WiFi & Bluetooth, the sport trim version has vented seats and really thick & luxuriant floor mats.