Right here in America: "'food deserts' -- these are areas without a supermarket"

[Steve Davis] Politics apart and with skepticism about statistics, there are food deserts in Philadelphia.

philly was the first place i was thinking of too. i have been in kensington, and there are corner markets (convenience stores), but no real grocery stores that a normal person living there can get to reasonably. a much better metric would be time instead of miles.

If only everything would be perfect we wouldn’t have to point to exceptions in order to ignore the rule. The point isn’t that exceptions don’t or won’t exist but that the thesis of both “food deserts” and “obesity among blacks or minorities and poor because of food deserts” is demonstratively wrong. But this is how a liberal reacts to facts which run counter to their narrative, they want to find exceptions to ignore the rule.

[Alex Guggenheim] If only everything would be perfect we wouldn’t have to point to exceptions in order to ignore the rule.

that food deserts don’t exist near you don’t mean they don’t exist or that it’s not a genuine phenomenon. niether does it necessarily mean that a national response is best. “food desert” does not mean that there is no food. so i don’t understand how you think that both ideas are contradictory.

[ChrisC]

[Alex Guggenheim] If only everything would be perfect we wouldn’t have to point to exceptions in order to ignore the rule.

that food deserts don’t exist near you don’t mean they don’t exist or that it’s not a genuine phenomenon. niether does it necessarily mean that a national response is best. “food desert” does not mean that there is no food. so i don’t understand how you think that both ideas are contradictory.

Did you read the article in the OP? The premise of “food deserts” as well as their existence being the cause of obesity in poor people is continuously be exposed as a faulty thesis. Feel free to interact with that. But let’s go with the liberal meme that they exist, (they do not, it is provocative hyperbole by liberals), why is it those in these alleged exceptions, STILL, are able to feed themselves? It is because there is no such thing as a “food desert”, in reality there is a “liberal meme desert”. Food is available. There is no desert.

[Alex Guggenheim] Did you read the article in the OP? The premise of “food deserts” as well as their existence being the cause of obesity in poor people is continuously be exposed as a faulty thesis.

the nytimes article highlights two studies that question the conclusions of dozens of other studies. that doesn’t in any way mean it’s a “faulty thesis”. it just may mean that food deserts aren’t as widespread as previous studies claimed or that a national response wouldn’t be the best way to approach the issue.

see for example this review of the evidence
Cummins, Steven (2002). ” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123946] ‘Food deserts’—evidence and assumption in health policy making “. BMJ. 325 (7361):436–8.