Lack of Easy Access to Quality Food Adds to Flint’s Woes

     Flint’s water crisis has been a dominant news story during the past few months. Front and center were the reports of high lead levels found in water samples, which do not bode well for young children who ingested too much of this neurotoxin and could suffer long-term damage to their mental and physical development .

     Added to this public health calamity is the suspicion that the water caused Legionnaires’ disease, resulting in several deaths. In addition, there were the claims by residents that bathing or showering caused skin rashes. The question of accountability—what happened and why— while not nearly as crucial as the well being of the residents, has also been part of the news stories. And despite pleas to not point fingers of blame or allow partisan politics to enter into the fray (Let’s focus on solving the problem instead), heads have already rolled, lawsuits have been filed, political spinning is in full force, and the tug-of-war over blame (or perhaps more accurately over who’s more to blame) is churning up the landscape.

    Another facet to the overall story is the lack of easy access and close proximity to quality food for many people living in the city; the fresh fruits and vegetables and other nutritious food essential to a healthy diet and good health.

     The reason this is connected to the water crisis is that, while there is no cure for lead poisoning, the ill effects can be lessened by foods high in calcium, Vitamin C and iron, all of which is best obtained with fresh, healthy, vitamin-rich foods.

     I first heard about the problem when Mark Bashore of WKAR Radio was interviewing Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha on the show ‘State Side’ Dr. Attisha is the pediatrician from Flint, affiliated with Hurley Medical Center, whose testing showed that children in the city were experiencing increased levels of lead in their blood samples; levels well above what is considered acceptable. It was her results, despite being dismissed at first and despite her credibility being maligned, that finally convinced the officials from Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality that their months-long assurances that the water was safe were, in fact, wrong.

     In talking about the importance of a good diet to mitigate lead poisoning, she casually mentioned that there weren’t any major supermarkets in the City of Flint, creating an additional hurdle for families. Bashore stopped her and had her repeat that comment. 

     I found it as surprising as he did and, with subsequent research, learned that over an eight-month period in 2014 and 2015, two Kroger stores and a Meijer had announced that they’d be closing their respective stores. In each case, company spokespersons said that the operations were “unprofitable.”

     A subsequent story in the Detroit Free Press, commenting on this situation, stated that the “quality of locally owned, full-service grocers—of which there are few inside the city— varies widely.” 

      Erin Powell, a registered dietitian with the Michigan State University Extension, in a report she did in 2014, entitled What is a food desert?, states that it is “an area in which there is no access to fresh, healthy, affordable food and more than 20 percent of the neighborhood falls below the poverty line.”

     Flint, with the loss of those three chain stores and with 40 percent of its residents below that line, would seem to fall within that definition. But the city is not alone. As might be expected, several areas of Detroit meet these criteria as do some neighborhoods in other large Michigan cities and also the more remote rural areas of our state.

     That is not to say that the residents in these “deserts” are lacking food or places to feed themselves. Powell noted that “Food deserts typically have many fast food restaurants and convenience stores.” The problem is that these options, when used day in and day out, are not healthy.

    Of course, as the adage goes, you might lead the horse to the water, but there’s not guarantee your trusty steed will take a drink. In other words, not everyone, whether they are rich or poor or in between, is going to buy an apple rather than a bag of chips, or choose the salad over the bacon cheese burger, even if they have that choice.

     But that’s the key in this consideration… choice. Those who wish the option of buying quality food are faced with barriers when living far from a full-service grocery store or supermarket and being limited in their income.

     Powell listed three of them: Transportation, Access, and Cost. Elaborating on each of these, she stated:

     Transportation is a major issue for those living in food deserts. In an urban desert, many residents live a mile or more from a grocery store or supermarket. Public transportation might be the only option for many of them. Also, it can be very difficult to purchase groceries for the whole family and transport them on the bus.

     In rural areas, these stores are usually more than 10 miles away. Many people who live in either an urban or rural food desert don’t have regular access to a vehicle.

    Access to healthy foods is a barrier to living a healthy lifestyle in a food desert. There might be a lot of options for food in these areas but most are not of the healthy variety. Many of the stores that residents have access to are ones that do not sell food as their main source of revenue, such as gas stations and party stores. The reason they exist might be to sell gas or alcohol rather than food.

    Healthy, fresh, wholesome food is likely not the priority on the list of foods to sell and oftentimes, if they do sell fresh food, the quality is poor and the price is high.

    Cost of food from corner stores and fast food places is higher than at larger grocery stores and supermarkets; especially the cost of healthier options like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – if they’re even offered. Since these stores are not buying large amounts of fresh food, it often costs more to purchase and, therefore, it costs the consumer more to buy.  

      Another reason fresh options might cost more is because the stores sell them individually instead of in a group. For example, a corner store might sell bananas for 50 cents each and a grocery store sells bananas for an average of 50 cents a pound. An average banana weighs less than half a pound. In this scenario, the consumer is paying more than double for a banana purchased at a corner store.

    In Flint there are food stores in the neighboring suburbs. Among them are a Kroger on the northeast side and a Wal-Mart on the southeast side. The city’s Mass Transportation Authority, to its credit, has tried to alleviate the lack of access for those without a car by adding dedicated runs to these stores. It’s called “Ride to Groceries” and, at last report, there are bus runs from 9 a.m.to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. To help residents needing to purchase a large quantity, a call-in service has been initiated that will drive individuals straight from their house to store and back.

     So, it seems, public transportation--affordable and frequent—is an important part of the solution, not only in Flint but elsewhere. Long-term, however, to remain part of the equation, there needs to be adequate funding for these public transit systems.

     There have also been efforts to further develop farm markets with a goal of providing a larger quantity of in-season produce to city residents and, in doing so, giving growers a larger market for their commodities. But, of course, Michigan has this thing called winter, so this is a limited remedy.

     Consumer education is a component, helping people who live far from a store to better understand nutritional needs, stretching the food dollar, and making “healthy” choices. In my mind there’s another long-term solution that needs to be pursued.

     Given the fact that the big-box stores and chains have determined that it’s “unprofitable” to operate in the inner cities as well as the more remote rural areas—a judgment of the free-market system that has effectively left large swaths of our citizens “high and dry”--the solution would be to use the tools of economic development, coupled with social conscience, to aid, assist, and encourage the return of neighborhood grocery stores as well as assist those independently-owned food stores already in operation to remain in business or, if feasible, expand their operations to meet consumer need.

    Tax abatements or credits, flexible zoning, the availability of low-interest loans, affordable wholesale outlets, and state assistance to local government though community development grants and additional revenue sharing could be used to achieve this goal. Collaborative efforts between government, businesses, and non-profit organizations should also be explored and encouraged.

    This strategy wouldn’t be much different than the economic development approach we’ve taken for the past quarter century to lure factories to our communities and to our state. We use these tools because we recognize the value of jobs and an increased tax base and how employed residents and additional public revenues improve the quality of life. Providing fresh, healthy food ought to have a similar priority.

     The reason ‘why’ is explained in the concluding remarks of Powell’s report. Citing a study that was done on food deserts in the City of Detroit, she quoted from it: “Those living in food deserts are more likely to develop one or more diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cancer, kidney failure, obesity and cardiovascular disease,” adding that “unless access to health food greatly improves, residents will continue to have greater rates of premature illness and death.” Just as “bad” water is unhealthy and constitutes a threat to the safety of the public (as we’ve learned with the crisis in Flint), so, too, does a lack of quality food, exasperated by a lack of easy access.