|
Look Out for Food Deserts! by Brad Edmonds
The
term “food desert” refers to any location near
which “healthy food” is not readily available at retail.
Troy Blanchard, a sociologist
at In
order to (falsely) magnify the issue as much as possible, Blanchard
described anyone living more than 10 miles from the nearest big grocery
store as having “low access” to decent grocery shopping.
The 10-mile mark was chosen merely because most of us travel an
average of 8 miles to the nearest grocery store.
In other words, 8 miles is average, so 11 miles is, by arbitrary
declaration, a hardship. Bad
science is as bad science does. Blanchard
concludes that “government policymakers and representatives of social
service organizations need to be aware of the burden these ‘consumer
desert’ situations may place on them in the future.”
What burden could this possibly place on government policymakers?
Does Blanchard think Congress should decide where people are
allowed to live? Does he think
the government should decide where investors should be allowed to locate
new grocery stores, how large they should be, and what prices they should
charge? Obviously,
government cannot make and enforce such decisions for us—telling people
where they can live and invest would represent a greater single step
forward into absolute totalitarianism and central economic planning than
our government has ever taken (not that that would matter to vote-buying
politicians and a few of their handout-seeking voters).
But let’s look at the issue from the consumer’s perspective. People
patronize these mega-marts precisely because
they offer increased variety and lower prices.
Many of us willingly drive farther than absolutely necessary
because, human satisfaction seeking being what it is, we decide that the
longer drive is more than offset by the quality and/or price of the goods
offered. For my own part,
there are two stores of the same
chain located near me, and I usually choose the newer one, which is
slightly farther away. They
both offer the same products at the same prices, but the newer one, being
larger, is less likely to have run out of something I want, the store is
cleaner, and the drive is more pleasant. Further,
the mom-and-pop stores go out of business precisely because
the people who live near them are already choosing to drive farther away
to patronize a better store. The
rural customers, for whom the longer drives are a hardship (in Prof.
Blanchard’s world) prove by their actions that they consider the longer
drives less of a hardship than the limited selection and higher prices of
independent stores. Are
there people who are hurt by the new trend toward fewer, larger stores?
Perhaps. The most
food-deserted locations in the But
no one knows the future, and no one can be certain that any particular
economic decision will prove, 20 or 50 years later, to have been the best
one. Many people invested in
the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, and lost money.
Many people developed an artisan’s skill in producing beautiful
buggy whips. The government
could not have forced people to buy those buggy whips had it tried. And the government cannot force people not to live in rural areas; nor can it force them to patronize grocery stores whose prices and selection they dislike. The government can enforce price controls, however, and is already doing so in the food business everywhere you look. From paying farmers to burn crops to placing huge tariffs on imported foods, the government is keeping your prices artificially high already, and thus is keeping your standard of living artificially low. Price
supports that would allow inefficient mom-and-pop operations to stay in
business would have to be directed exclusively at large grocery stores and
chains, and the government would have to decide what constitutes a
“large” one. Being
unprecedented, this new system of price controls would require a new
bureaucratic infrastructure of its own, to determine which chains or
individual stores are exempt from the price strictures.
This, in turn, would create incentives for cheating among grocers,
would invite bureaucratic corruption, and would divert the productive
energies of managers to creating (e.g.) new business structures to get
around the price laws. In free economic life, times change, and people who don’t change with them can occasionally suffer hardships. But economic trends are the product of hundreds of millions of consumers making decisions, each in his own best interest, every day. Government can do nothing about this without creating millions of losers for the benefit of a very few. This will always be true, in the grocery business as in every other. discuss
this column in the forum
Brad
Edmonds, author
of There’s
a Government in Your Soup,
writes from
|