‘Food Deserts’ Headed for the Dustbin

The case for the existence of so-called “food deserts” is drying up fast. The “theory” held that there are more obese children in poor urban areas because those areas supposedly had fewer grocery stores (good food) than fast-food joints (bad food).

“Eliminating these food deserts and making sure parents in every part of the country have access to fresh produce and healthy choices is a primary goal of Let’s Move,” reads a statement on letsmove.gov, the website for First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign. She had even called on Congress to spend $400 million on a program to bring more supermarkets into food-deserted areas.

This 'food desert locator' seems like a waste of tax money now, doesn't it?

But two recent studies, from the Public Policy Institute of California and the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, have actually found the opposite: poor urban areas have more grocery stores than affluent areas do. The studies found no link between the types of food available in the poor neighborhoods and child obesity.

“These studies demonstrate that the issue of obesity is more complicated than just a question of where you live, how much you earn, and how many McDonald’s are in your neighborhood,” says the American Council of Science and Health’s Dr. Ruth Kava. The New York Times calls the findings “unexpected,” which is the MSM adjective-of-choice when reality doesn’t go the Obama Administration’s way.

The administration had trouble defending the “food desert” concept last month, when Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked to define the term during a House hearing. Sebelius replied that it meant being further than a mile away from a grocery store, which she thought was too far to walk for healthy food, contradicting the First Lady’s recommendation that adults and children walk further than that every day.

Forget the whole thing, we say. “Let’s Move” on to a new talking point, Mrs. Obama.