Have you ever lived in a food desert? Residents living in these areas have limited access to healthy, affordable food options. As a result, they are more likely to eat more ultra-processed or “junk foods” than those who don’t. And given the nation’s legacy of racial redlining, black communities are often affected. This is a good case study on how systemic racism perpetuates inequality. Because prejudice formally enshrined in law continues to have an impact. When people are hungry, they need food. Not everyone has the privilege of becoming a picky eater. Where someone lives and works impacts what they can eat. Thus, we can not explain the popularity of unhealthy foods by only focusing on willpower. We must consider the problem of accessibility. Yet, this context is sorely missing from discussions about slashing federal food assistance.
It’s a challenge for those who live far from grocery stores to keep their fridges and pantries full. This is particularly true for citizens who rely on public transportation. Adults working full-time at labor-intensive jobs are less likely to cook most of their meals at home. People experiencing homelessness have nowhere to prepare, cook, and store meals. There are many reasons people living in food deserts eat so-called “junk food.” Potato chips, cookies, candy, little cakes, and pastries are prevalent in low-income communities for a reason. They fulfill a need. That’s why framing this as a matter of poor choices does a disservice to those who live in food deserts. Who, due to no fault of their own, have diminished access to healthy options.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has become the Department of Health and Human Services secretary. As a vaccine skeptic, his views have sparked debate online. He once claimed that Black people should be on a different vaccine schedule than White people. Race is a social construct. Yet, Kennedy’s perspective suggested that significant biological differences exist between racial groups. As of late, he made another statement with more subtle racial implications. He believes families on SNAP shouldn’t have access to sweets. “We shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison,” he commented.” On the surface, this argument seems benched in concern for health and wellness. Researchers identified poor health outcomes associated with the consumption of ultra-processed foods, such as a 37% increase in diabetes, 32% hypertension, and 32% obesity. One meta-analysis confirmed that these foods are bad for our bodies. But, prohibiting these products is not the solution it may appear to be.
It’s a myth that only personal preferences impact the food we eat. One study suggested several factors affect the consumption of ultra-processed foods. Since they are “cheaper to produce, they help meet the dietary needs for a growing population.” Also, people living in urban areas tend to consume more processed foods. The fast-paced lifestyle makes it difficult for some to keep their homes filled with fresh food. Ultra-processed foods are readily available and have a longer shelf life. This makes them a tempting alternative for those who do not have the time to prepare most meals at home. And those who make fewer trips to the store.
Industrialization also played a significant role. Technological advances have enabled companies to make ultra-processed food quickly and in abundance. Thus, they became more likely to push these foods onto consumers. For instance, in 2017, “there was a 139.5% increase in the prepared food category” within grocery stores. Many premade meals are ultra-processed, even when portrayed as well-balanced. A 2017 American Journal of Public Health article suggested that many food companies target Black and Hispanic people. 2017, they spent $1 billion advertising, “more than 80% promoting fast food, sugar-sweetened beverages, candy, and unhealthy snack brands.” Indeed, “Black children and adolescents saw approximately twice as many televison food advertisements compared with their White peers.” This evidence suggests that various factors impact dietary choices. Not only personal preferences.
The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) provides individuals and families access to food. Those who qualify receive funds each month, loaded onto a card. They can use these funds at a grocery store or market. Benefits are often called “food stamps” in reference to the name of the original 1939 program. This helped Americans mitigate starvation throughout the Great Depression. Since then, the program has expanded, feeding millions who couldn’t afford food. And yet, these programs are controversial. Some believe Americans experiencing poverty are not hard working. And thus, not deserving of help. Even though many recipients are working, this problem is exacerbated due to the racialized state of poverty in America. Black people are, in particular, stereotyped as lazy. This presumption is used to grow opposition for food stamps. People from various racial groups depend on this nutritional assistance program. Yet, Black people are often targeted when critiques arise. They accused them of abusing the program.
Yet, their accusations overlook evidence of lasting racial disparities. A 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances report found “the typical White family has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family. And five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family.” Thus, Black families are more likely to rely upon the social safety net. But not because they are lazy. But instead, because the nation’s legacy of racism places them at a disadvantage. Placing limits on the types of foods low-income families access may sound health conscious. After all, ultra-processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes. Still, this approach overlooks the limits many black communities have to food. Those who live in food deserts do not have equal access to fresh, nutrient-rich foods. However, they have easy access to food we consider “junk foods.” They have a lot of sugar and carbohydrates. Their low cost makes them an enticing option for those living in food deserts.
If we’re genuinely concerned as a society about the high intake of ultra-processed foods, we must look beyond personal decisions. Consider the role of society. Limiting access to processed foods without addressing factors contributing to their popularity is a recipe for disaster. We have to adopt a more holistic approach. If you want poor people to eat healthier, you must ensure they can access nutritious food. Even those without a car should be able to have access to a kitchen full of healthy options in rural or urban areas. The government can promote healthy eating by ensuring SNAP recipients can buy prepared meals. This would extend access to those who do not have the time to cook at home. And provide an option for those who do not have a house and, thus, have no access to a space to prepare meals. They can also promote work-life balance, address the predatory advertisement of junk foods in the black community, and advocate for workers to earn a living wage. Using a stick to promote healthy eating feels wrong when our nation hasn’t tried to use a carrot.
“Let them eat cake” has become a phrase that highlights a callous disregard for people experiencing poverty. It’s often attributed to the French Queen Marie Antoinette. However, historians claim that the credit belongs to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his 1765 autobiography, Confessions, he shared a similar quote about a princess. “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or “let them eat brioche.” His writing offered a blistering critique of the excesses of the wealthy and greed. And yet, he never likely envisioned a society where brioche is one of the most expensive on the aisle. Or where cake is a delicacy because of the high cost of essential ingredients like eggs and milk. The irony is that in this society, the wealthy can’t say “let them eat cake” because the cost of eggs is too high. Inflation, the spread of bird flu, and governmental failure have burdened consumers. At Rouses in New Orleans, a carton of eggs is $8.29 + tax, even though the minimum wage for Louisiana workers is $7.25. This means some people must work more than an hour to afford a carton of eggs.
Consider yourself lucky if you live near grocery stores and farmer’s markets. Far too many Americans do not have easy access to fresh foods. This is particularly true for Black people in low-income communities. Many, due to hunger and convenience, choose unhealthy foods. Yet, the push to limit items for SNAP recipients would only harm the most marginalized. As a society, we worry about the high consumption of ultra-processed foods. Yet, a strong-arm approach will likely fail to address the problem in the long term. This is reminiscent of the 1980s when the “war on drugs” framed drug use as a choice rather than an addiction. First Lady Nancy Reagan’s “just say no” program implied as much. And America embraced harsh sentences for drug users. In the end, many continue to suffer from addiction. This is an example of how public misperception can result in misdirected resources. It’s refreshing to see an issue like healthy eating receive widespread support. But the policy solutions we embrace matter. Cutting access to “junk foods” may sound like a healthy shift. Yet, the impact is discriminatory. It overlooks those living in food deserts, many communities, which are predominantly Black.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of Dr. Allison Gaines' work on Medium.