FOOD ENVIRONMENT AND OBESITY IN DETROIT
How did we get here?
Brief history of Detroit's food swamp:
The lasting effects of discriminatory practices in the 20th century shaped Detroit's food environment. Redlining practices contributed to disinvestment in racially homogenous communities, causing the flight of high-quality grocers to the suburbs.
Across the nation, urban supermarket closings in the 1980s became more frequent than openings–so much so that by the end of the 1990s “the poorest 20% of urban neighborhoods had 44% less retail supermarket space than the richest 20%” (Eisenhauer, 2001).
Currently, Detroit residents with the luxury of transportation and time prefer to shop for their groceries outside of the city, whereas residents at or below the poverty line are forced to frequent the most convenient–but not necessarily the healthiest–grocery options (Hill, 2020).
CASE STUDY:
WHOLE FOODS
Why can't we just build more grocery stores?
Appeal to middle-upper class shoppers, outreach to lower-income shoppers through price cuts and educational efforts, as well as company profit were just some of Whole Foods-Detroit’s goals (McMillan, 2014). However, “community-focused” branding failed to hide the obvious price increases experienced when shopping at Whole Foods–dubbed “Whole Paycheck” by critics–versus lower-end supermarkets.
Indeed, despite the “public relations flurries” that depict urban supermarket openings as “trendy” once again, this is not the reality–national grocery store closings still outnumber openings in the city (Eisenhauer, 2001).
As much as Whole Foods claims to want to bridge the gap in healthy food equity among Detroiters, higher prices raise questions of whether low-income shoppers will actually make the trade-off between food quality and cost.
Therefore, merely opening another store will not improve Detroit’s obesity epidemic. Here's why:
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
plays a big role in shopping behavior. Opening another store in addressing the obesity epidemic neglects 3 constraints faced by low SES shoppers. A more comprehensive solution addresses all three issues.
AFFORDABILITY
The increased cost of higher-quality or organic foods presents a challenge for low-income individuals to make the most of their dollar. More often than not, the most economic choice for individuals below the poverty line is to purchase the cheapest food with the highest caloric density–often, fast food (Cooksey-Stowers et al., 2017, p. 12).
NORMS
Studies have demonstrated a higher frequency of unhealthy food advertisements in areas with proportionally higher low-income households (Powell et al., 2014). When it is more customary for neighbors–influenced by advertisements–to shop from the nearest corner store or fast-food restaurant, it becomes easier to fall into that community norm as well.
TIME
The time required to shop from higher-quality grocers is more expendable for individuals of a higher SES. Accessible transportation indicates less time sacrifice for a high SES shopper to commute to the grocery store (Cooksey-Stowers et al., 2017, p. 12). Similar to cost, lower SES individuals face time constraints.
DETROIT'S OBESITY EPIDEMIC IS A HEALTH INEQUITY.
The distinction between health inequity and inequality becomes important when allocating resources to the groups that need them most (Braveman, 2014). Focusing on the obesity epidemic in Detroit and other urban environments does not neglect other social groups with a high prevalence of this disease, but rather is more like triage.
Interact with the two terms below to understand the difference between them!
HEALTH INEQUALITY
A health inequality is a measurable health difference between any particular group and the general population (Youatt, 2020).
For instance, higher prevalence of knee injuries among tennis players.