Flipping the Drive-Thru on its Head

Anybody who has been following planning circles in the past months and years knows about the "Burger vs. Neighborhood" debate (basically, it boils down to a question: do healthy diets or  non-walking lifestyles contribute more to the nation's obesity epidemic?).

Last fall my Urban Geography professor seemed to believe that the most processed, unhealthy food was placed in the most economically distressed areas. In essence, the fatty chain franchises are targeting the poorest portion of the population with their locations and marketing (low prices, value menus, etc.). To some degree this could be quantified (a quick search brings up several articles related to this subject).

BoingBoing brought my attention to Oakland's innovative solution: The Mobile Market. The great thing is that its accessibility and pricing beat out the unhealthy food businesses competing for this neighborhood's market. Food First describes this program and others like it in other major cities.

(sidenote: I'm personally really interested in any research on food and social systems. If you're reading this and know about something even tangentially related to it please let me know.)

Comments

[matth]

My friend did this for his Urban Geography/Spatial Analysis thesis. I think he did a test (k/wallace maybe?) and came up with the variables not correalating. I've shot him a link to this.

[Arun Balakrishnan]

My research was focused at a statewide level, using economically disadvantaged indicators as published by the TEA (Texas Education Agency), there was no correlation between the spatial density of fast food restaurants and number of restaurants/1000 people. In fact, the density of fast food restaurants was greatest in middle income areas.