I read John's column and I'm not following his reasoning. He seems to be suggesting that food insecurity being associated with "reduced quality and variety of food rather than insufficient quantity" makes it less of a problem. Yet he also points out that food insecurity is associated with obesity -- which is the granddaddy of all public health problems. That's the whole problem with food insecurity, and why it's a more useful concept than looking only at starvation. People who are food-insecure are consuming too many cheap, empty calories, and it's giving them health problems that put a strain on the health care system and the economy.
The food desert concept is useful too, and the $2 million minimum John criticizes is obviously intended to filter out convenience stores that specialize in junk food. (John doesn't mention it, but the food desert methodology also filters out food stores that don't sell a full range of food, like meat markets, wine shops and bakeries.)
John is right that food deserts don't tell the whole story though. I live within walking distance of two good-sized grocery stores and a farmers' market, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to shop at those places to my heart's content. A lot of my neighbors aren't so lucky though, and they have to make tough choices about what food to buy. That has nothing to do with living in a food desert and a lot to do with inflation.
When California cut food stamp benefits earlier this year, our local food pantry saw an influx of new customers. Whether it's out of learned dependence or not, and however you prefer to label it, folks out there are needing food.
There is NO Food Insecurity: Add all the grocery chains, resturants, hotels, colleges, schools etc
Food is everywhere
See the Food Banks
I take home leftovers when dining out
Its Bogus BS
Grocery store chains donate bakery goods to non profits
apply nationwide
What is America’s exit strategy from the failed War on Poverty?!?
I read John's column and I'm not following his reasoning. He seems to be suggesting that food insecurity being associated with "reduced quality and variety of food rather than insufficient quantity" makes it less of a problem. Yet he also points out that food insecurity is associated with obesity -- which is the granddaddy of all public health problems. That's the whole problem with food insecurity, and why it's a more useful concept than looking only at starvation. People who are food-insecure are consuming too many cheap, empty calories, and it's giving them health problems that put a strain on the health care system and the economy.
The food desert concept is useful too, and the $2 million minimum John criticizes is obviously intended to filter out convenience stores that specialize in junk food. (John doesn't mention it, but the food desert methodology also filters out food stores that don't sell a full range of food, like meat markets, wine shops and bakeries.)
John is right that food deserts don't tell the whole story though. I live within walking distance of two good-sized grocery stores and a farmers' market, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to shop at those places to my heart's content. A lot of my neighbors aren't so lucky though, and they have to make tough choices about what food to buy. That has nothing to do with living in a food desert and a lot to do with inflation.
When California cut food stamp benefits earlier this year, our local food pantry saw an influx of new customers. Whether it's out of learned dependence or not, and however you prefer to label it, folks out there are needing food.
Given enough parasites, the host will eventually succumb.