The Underlying Effects of Food Deserts
Brandon Odell Ware, Ph.D.
Upon my return to Indiana in 2014, I was amazed at the number of grocery stores closing in the
Indianapolis and surrounding areas, but even more shocking was the number of their competitors
and other businesses that entered the bidding process to take over the top-performing locations.
However, within low-income areas many locations remained vacant, thereby increasing the
number of existing food deserts.
There is unequal access to healthy foods in Indiana, and many avoid the complex issue of
socioeconomic inequality that is associated with it. While grocery retailers appear to be easily
accessible in many regions of Indiana, there are areas in which accessibility is relatively difficult.
Access in urban areas has long been defined as a reasonable walking distance of 1 kilometer
(0.62 miles), presumably because the urban resident often does not have access to a vehicle. That
definition can be extended to include low access for those in rural areas that have greater than 20
percent of their populations living under the poverty level, per the 2016 USDA statistics.
Food choices are made based on the consumer’s preference (e.g., willingness to pay, taste, cost,
convenience, healthiness, and variety). Most convenience stores and fast food restaurants offer
readily accessible and low-cost foods that are nutritionally poor, which is one of the reasons why
we find the highest obesity and diabetes rates among the most economically disadvantaged
population. It is important to note that the population with the healthier food/diets are often
consumed by people with higher incomes. Diet quality in Indiana is becoming a function of
socioeconomic status. Hence, people who are wealthier and have a better education often have
better diets than their counterparts. The impact of those socioeconomic variables on quality of
diet extends to other health issues, such as high blood pressure and heart disease.
Thus, we can conclude that the food choices we differentiate by cost and quality of the food have
some probable effect on our health. Those health disparities are not only seen here in Indiana or
the United States, but it has become a worldwide phenomenon. In each instance, there has been a
correlation between poverty and health diseases. Unhealthy diets cost significantly less than the
recommended healthier diets. When families need to trim their budgets, often it will begin with
the food portion of the budget to accommodate the increase in the cost of living. According to
Drewnoski (2009), increasing food expenditures does not necessarily guarantee a healthier diet,
it does make it easier to offer one’s family healthy and nutritious food choices. In fact,
households with less disposable income will find it difficult to maintain a healthy diet. The
difficulty arises in cost of the product, change in eating habits, or being forced to depart from
cultural eating norms. What is interesting is that there is a growing price gap between those
healthy and unhealthy foods and what grocery retailers charge. The unhealthy foods (e.g.,
products with high levels of fat, salt, and sugar) are maintaining their prices, while more healthy
foods (e.g., organic) have more than doubled in prices. According to Drewnoski (2009), this
dramatic increase in prices imposes a financial constraint that prohibits low-income families
from eating healthier. Hence, those families are unable to purchase the healthier staples, such as
fresh fruit, vegetables, and choice meats.
Currently, in Indiana, there are some policies, economic subsidies, and healthy eating education
programs that are attempting to address not only food deserts, but also the other socioeconomic
inequalities (e.g., diversity, declining neighborhood environment, and living wages). While this
is a good start, there needs to be more done. My research in various Indiana counties and zip
codes still finds that minorities and the poor are at a disadvantage when it comes to the adoption
of healthier eating habits. According to some food nutrition research, we as humans are
genetically programmed to like fatty, salty, and overly sweet products and to despise sour and
bitter products. Those processed products with the sweet or savory taste are the ones costing less,
whereas healthier products cost more.
My research shows that poor, urban neighborhoods attract more fast-food outlets and
convenience stores as opposed to full-service supermarkets and grocery stores. In contrast, more
affluent suburb neighborhoods generally have access to grocery stores, fresher produce, and
fewer fast-food restaurants, highlighting not only the socioeconomic factors, but also the unequal
access to healthy foods, which could have an effect on a person’s health.
This is a stark contradiction to some public health research which has adopted the view that most
Americans could follow a healthy diet but they simply choose not to do so. However, that is just
not the case. In order for any attempts to improve a population’s dietary habits to be successful,
the first thing we should consider is placing a limit on the number of unhealthy food-choices
available for individuals. The unspoken assumption has been that healthful foods are inexpensive
and all-American households, regardless of income, have access to a healthy diet is a myth. In
fact, it may be time to point out that obesity, heart disease, and diabetes are an economic issue.
Many segments of society have limited resources and are unable to resist powerful economic
forces that are largely beyond their control. To make an impact on health disparities, it makes
sense to give tax breaks to grocery stores that are located in underserved locations, given the
consumers’ needs and preferences. Other policies might include limiting the number of fast food
outlets in a given area. Our focus should be on improving policies that not only improve access
to food options but also allow us to address the demographic and environmental characteristics
that affect those food retailers’ choices of locations.
Access can be measured in many ways, including the distance to the nearest grocery store or by
the number of stores in an area. Access can also be measured by resources or impediments that
may affect accessibility, such as disposable income or cultural norms. When we factor in
accessibility variables, it offers new ways to address the problem of unhealthy diets. When we
change our focus to the grocery retailers’ locations, we find the urban transport system is
intricately linked to how a facility chooses it location. On average, the sparse grocery retailers
are often limited in size and in the scope of food products available, which creates another
product of food deserts: food imbalance.
The relationship between grocery retailers, location, the prevalence of food deserts and
profitability are important issues that may shed light on diet-related health disparities. The food
retailer’s location decisions are driven by expected profitability. My research findings support
the argument that grocery retailers tend to locate in higher-income areas because these areas are
expected to be more profitable for full-service grocery stores. As a result, families in low-income
areas often struggle to buy healthy foods.
The optimal location of grocery retailers depends on consumer demand, which is derived from
consumer’s utility or how economists measure well-being. Hotelling (1929) demonstrated the
relationship between location and pricing behavior of firms through a model of two firms
competing with locations and then prices. In practice, firms differentiate themselves by their
locations. To find a niche, some retailers are experimenting with neighborhood markets (e.g.,
more diverse neighborhoods, up-scale stores offering more natural, ethnic, and organic
products). The location is bound to a certain geographic area. Again, this is relevant for grocery
retailers because input costs are constant (e.g., labor), but income (sales) vary depending on
location, neighborhood amenities, and other externalities.
To develop an understanding of the importance of optimal location, we only need to study the
locations of fire stations. The objective to optimize the location of fire stations is extremely
important for reaction time. Given this premise, it is important to duplicate their methods in an
application on the location of grocery retailers in reducing the prevalence of food deserts. The
objective is to achieve a maximal total service area given a specified number of consumers. The
strategy assumes that the residents in each neighborhood will use the closest grocery retailer
located in their community.
The broad question is whether grocery retailers are truly accessible within Indiana and whether
we can provide an explanation for a grocery retailer’s location. The initial analysis of optimal
grocery retailer locations supports the argument that grocery retailers tend to locate in areas of
above-average social class. The logical assumption about food deserts is that grocery retailers in
low-income areas make lower profits. Thus, families in low-income areas are struggling to
obtain access to healthy foods. When a large grocery retailer locates their store based on income,
it often makes the food desert problem worse by eliminating existing local grocery retailers and
driving down wages, leaving certain Indianapolis communities impoverished. The large grocery
retailers are not in convenient locations; nor should we ever think they are addressing the
concerns of the community. Rather, they are maximizing profits.
Reference
Drewnowski, A. (2009), Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutrition Reviews, 67: S36-S39.
doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00157.x
Hotelling, H. 1929. Stability in Competition. Economic Journal 39: 41-57.