Money wasted on this map could have been used to buy produce.
Just when you thought the people of this city had endured quite enough paternalism, our benevolent overseers have now found it fit to tell us we don’t eat the way they say we should. Bushwick is, as usual, alarmingly red on the map of areas in the city which rate poorly. Lower Manhattanites, along with people in some other areas in the outer boroughs, apparently eat a bureaucrat-endorsed amount of veggies daily. Less-obedient people in other neighborhoods apparently do not eat “enough,” with up to 26% of people having responded to the one-day survey that on the previous day, they had eaten no fresh fruits or vegetables. That’s “400% less than Manhattanites!” I can see the stats-mongers screaming.
To remedy this, the city wants to recruit people to run fruit stands in these “underserved” neighborhoods, so that the people there will buy and eat the approved amount of fresh foods and thereby have lower rates of everything bad. They are calling it the Green Carts program. A few problems I will note:
There already are stores selling fresh produce all over these neighborhoods. Within a few blocks of my house, I have a full-size grocery store selling tons of fresh fruit, a handful of proper storefront fruit stands, and tens of bodegas which, despite legends suggesting the contrary, have plenty of fresh produce for the veggie enthusiast who has no time to walk another two blocks to the fruit stand and needs her mango right this second. However, I do recognize that Bushwick is not flooded with fresh produce like some other, more veggie-craving neighborhoods. Which leads us to another pertinent observation.
Certain cultures resident in this city simply do not tend to eat as many, or even the same, vegetables as the cultures the bureaucrats based their survey on. This suggests two obvious things.
One is that the survey itself is biased in favor of a group of people who already eat a certain way — usually more-affluent white and Asian people — and assumes that all the other backwards savages need to be essentially pelted in the face with bok choy for their own good.
The other is that fruits and vegetables are not overflowing in abundance on every corner in Bushwick and, say, Bed-Stuy, because they are not as much in demand as in fancy-pants Manhattan or what I imagine is a vegetarian-heavy Jackson Heights.
Therefore, this program is likely to fail in getting Bushwickers to eat more vegetables. Fear not, career paper-pushers and bleeding-hearts: I can still see the city taking credit in 5 years or so, when they survey the neighborhood again after a heavy spell of gentrification and then declare the program a success because the same geographic area 5 years earlier ate far less vegetables.
stockholmer February 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
This story struck a chord. One of my favorite green grocers, S&S, just folded up shop on Knickerbocker after being there for 11 years. Increased rent forced them out, they said.
I’m all for more green grocers with good fruits and veggies. I don’t think I’ve ever been tempted by a spongy apple or head of broccoli at a bodega.
Jeremy February 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
S&S closed!? That sucks. How interesting that Make the Road recently had them hit for wage offenses and they had to pay $28,000 to 4 employees. That’s a lot of money when your rent is (probably) under $2000.
Mario February 26th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The “special interests” may put an obstacle in the way of the paternalist state. Apparently, some people realize that the “problem” really is insufficient demand for the fruits/vegetables. So the sellers of other products are worried about competition from the carts — already the proposal has been reduced from 1,500 carts to 1,000. Others, however, may argue that the carts should be REQUIRED to sell vegetables or nothing at all. If so, then presumably there will be few new carts out there. What a mess of interventions are possible counter-interventions! A simple policy would be to make more cart licenses available to sell whatever — including lingerie (a concern of one city council member).
nickjohnson February 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Your argument is flawwed.
True, many things vary from culture to culture, and cannot be ranked from “best” to “worst”. For example, every culture dresses in a different way, but no style of clothing is universally best. This is called cultural relativism.
Also true is the fact that every culture has developed a distict diet. Overall, one cannot say which is “best” or “worst.” Bananas versus pork is simply a matter of taste, at least at this level of discussion. Again, cultural relativism.
However, your argument breaks down here: “One is that the survey itself is biased in favor of a group of people who already eat a certain way — usually more-affluent white and Asian people — and assumes that all the other backwards savages need to be essentially pelted in the face with bok choy for their own good.”
You are arguing that the healthiness of a diet is subject to cultural relativism as well, or more specifically, that cultural relativism is an adequate defense of a poor diet. This is incorrect since one can objectively state that some diets are healthier than others. A diet that includes (though not limited to) fruits and vegetables is universally accepted as healthier, for instance, than one that consists of only potato chips.
Jeremy February 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
That is only a minor part of my argument, the main part of which is that this program will fail because people do not want to eat more produce than they already do.
And I do agree with you that eating fried chicken and Utz all day is a terrible diet, but that is not what this study has found people do. It has simply found that some populations do not eat as many fruits and vegetables every day as some others, or as much as is said to make one lead a healthier life.
Furthermore, everyone alive knows eating fresh produce is good for you, so it’s not even a matter of education. And as I pointed out, it’s also not really a matter of access. It’s a matter of desire, which fluctuates depending on the individual and culture. So unless the city is planning on mandating the consumption of a certain amount of fresh produce, nothing will likely change.
Jimmy Legs February 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Jeremy, for as stupid as you know people to be, i find it touching that you still ultimately want the citizens of New York to make their own decisions. even the stupid ones :)
now, while i like vegetables (like all good-hearted folk), who will foot the bill when these carts don’t make any money and the gutters are full of rotten unsold produce?
i kinda think they should hire mcdonald’s ad firm to popularize vegetable consumption. if they can sell that McRib shit, those bastards can get the dudes on the corner to ask for rhubarb!
BornOnWyckoffAve February 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Just bread it and fry it!
Jeremy February 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Don’t worry, JL, when the cart system fails — bailouts for all!
Peter February 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I don’t live in Bushwick, but I live in nearby Bed Stuy, and the nearest market to me is a Keyfoods on Broadway @ the Halsey stop of the J. It’s not near me, just nearest. The produce they have is always tired at best. As the map notes, there are no shortage of bodegas around me – I have my choice of 4 within 2 blocks. But they have no produce! I would love it if carts carrying fruits and vegetables were surgically implanted into the neighborhood, as I know many around me would too. No one will force anyone to buy produce from these carts, the whole point is to make the produce available, so that it is an option to select from! Right now, whether people want produce or not, it’s really really hard to go get it.
Jeremy February 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Peter, YOU would love it, but clearly most of your neighbors do not care, or you would have more produce. I mean, what is the argument here, that supermarket and bodega proprietors are part of a conspiracy to make black people marginally more unhealthy by providing less good produce? LOL
Ed February 26th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I don’t understand why this is a bad idea. If there isn’t demand, the carts will go out of business (I’m assuming the bailout thing is a joke). If there actually is unrecognized demand (I know, I know, the market never makes a mistake), then the carts will do well and the supermarkets and bodegas will be forced to improve their terrible produce to compete. No-one’s getting forced to eat anything, so this isn’t paternalistic, unlike a transfat ban or whatever.
Incidentally, it doesn’t take a conspiracy to deny a neighbourhood produce where there’s demand, just a very slow market response, or the perceived high risk & low margins of opening in a poor area keeping out the types of operators who know how to get decent produce. Maybe it’s just the opportunity cost of not being able to sell high margin goods, similar to how there are very few banks in poor areas, and a billion in Manhattan.
Also, “I have a supermarket near me” is not evidence of anything at all, but if we get to use anecdotal evidence, I’d note that I see lots of people from my area (Prospect Heights) — black people even! — at the GAP Greenmarket and bringing home Whole Foods or bags from other decent supermarkets on the subway.
Whisper February 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I like the idea of more neighborhood veggie options but I’m unsure as to when these carts would operate. Are the vendors going to stick around some of these neighborhoods in the evening? Or pack up before 5 when a lot of potential vegetable buyers are only beginning to come home from work? I wouldn’t want to be operating in some of these neighborhoods with cash on hand after dark or even at dusk. Especially after reading some of the mugging accounts on this site, some of which happened as early as 7:30.
Jeremy February 26th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Ed, first, thank you for recognizing a joke when you see it. That’s a skill sorely lacking on the internet.
Anyway, here’s why I’m sure demand isn’t going unrecognized: there are tons of carts throughout Bushwick selling everything from cotton candy to ice cream to Italian ices to piraguas to corn on the cob — the list goes on. These vendors are responding to a demand — and many of them even do it without permits. Why would they sell all that other crap and not sell other in-demand items? It just doesn’t make sense.
This also would predict that though they may make these permits available, nobody will file for them because there is no demand for them. So we wouldn’t even get to see them fail because they will never materialize. Some may go into business if they are offered grants or artificially cheap loans, and those are likely to fail. While there is no force involved, the intent is still paternalistic.
We do get to use anecdotal evidence, that’s what makes this a fitting blog post and not a policy paper. But look at the map above — it’s not just me that has a grocery store within mere blocks, it’s almost everyone. Being too lazy to walk a few blocks to the store does not mean you don’t have a store.
Hal February 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
The economy doesn’t care what you eat.
In fact the less you have to spend,
the more likely your diet has too much
High Fructose Corn Syrup
This is America’s food.
It’s cheap and subsidized by the people you vote for.
Our economy is dependent on poor uneducated people to buy the cheapest food available.
We are addicted to convenience and cheapness.
When all you’ve got is three dollars in your pocket, what are you gonna eat for the day?
How can we improve the nutrition of people with limited resources? Right here in NYC?
Educate consumers?
Deliver pre-portioned meals?
Subsidize healthy foods?
I don’t know the answer.
The irony is that food is cheap in this country comapared to the world. Let’s not mention health care.
We are ready for some kind of revolution.
I wish I could define it.
ed February 26th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Fair enough. The impulse behind the law is almost certainly paternalistic. The law itself, though… I think it’s fine. Maybe you’re right and it will fail. Seems to me that the potential for harm is pretty limited.
It seems to me that there is something about fresh produce that makes it more expensive to respond to demand. If I look at the Key Food on Washington, their produce is horrendous but they actually do have decent selections of, say, fancy smoothies or granola or whatever. Maybe fresh food presents a special challenge.
That said, I don’t see how a cart vendor is going to be able to solve whatever the logistical issues are in a more efficient manner, thus making the exercise worthwhile. So I guess I agree that the law is doomed to fail, but for a different reason, namely, that it doesn’t address the problem (how are they going to suddenly get better produce than the Key Food?), rather than the lack of a problem at all.
Ray February 26th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I’ve been paying closer attention to the price of groceries lately, and the cheapest food in the store — other than Ramen, which is hardly even food — is produce, followed by certain soups and canned foods. The “poverty” excuse is bunk.
People don’t eat unhealthy because they’re poor. They eat unhealthy because they’re lazy.
Janice February 27th, 2008 at 12:34 am
The idea of fruit and veggie carts reminds me of the produce trucks that cruised around my neighborhood in Los Angeles, catering to a mainly Mexican clientele…the open trucks were much appreciated and came after dark to be there for people to shop close to home after their day at work.
The Changeling February 27th, 2008 at 6:20 am
“People don’t eat unhealthy because they’re poor. They eat unhealthy because they’re lazy.”
Ray, you’re partly wrong here. Sure, people may eat unhealthy foods because they are lazy. If you have to travel farther to get the banana, while the puffy Cheetos can be had at the local corner store, then laziness can indeed cause people to make bad food choices.
But you cannot deny that one of the reasons why people eat unhealthy foods is that they are poor.
It makes financial sense (in the short term, anyway) to eat foods with a high fat content. If you only have $1.00 in your pocket and you’re ready for lunch, it makes more sense to buy a bag of Doritos rather than a couple of bananas. The high fat content in the Doritos will leave you satiated much longer than the bananas. Of course, in the long run, consistently choosing Doritos over fruits puts your health at risk, but poverty has a way of making people myopic.
Kelly Brownell of Yale proposes the idea of a Twinkie tax–an idea with which I wholeheartedly agree. Tax the hell out of junk foods. You should have the pay for the privilege to eat poorly. Poor people would be less inclined to eat unhealthy foods because it wouldn’t make good financial sense.
Toolio February 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
christ its produce, chill the fuck out.
Jeremy February 27th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Holy shit! I actually know someone who supports the Twinkie tax!? This is seriously the first time I have ever heard it used as something other than derogatorily.
The problem is, if someone is so poor they can only buy a bag of Doritos to not starve, you are doing them no favor by… actually making them starve. And I find it funny that you think that poor people would suddenly do things that “make good financial sense.”
Ultimately, it is not a privilege to eat poorly, and you are nobody to be granting it. If people want to eat like shit, what is it to us? I know, you’re concerned you’ll have to foot their medical bills (in addition to all the other bills you already pay for). How about this: instead of seeking to police their health — an essentially impossible proposition in this relatively-free country — you advocate that they be made responsible for their own damn health, just like the rest of us. Much simpler than adding more positive obligations to the world through a complicated junk food tax regime. Then the only assault on us is we have to look at their fat asses.
Plus, they’d be throwing Fritos smugglers in prison for their “criminal” actions. Yeah you’d see it on the news. Some stupid anchor bleating “today authorities swooped in on a corn chip smuggling ring, who had invaded minority areas seeking to push their trans-fatty wares on less-educated citizens.” The kingpin would be slippery — they’d have to get him on tax evasion before they could send him up the river to Sing Sing.
Peter February 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Like I said, I don’t live in bushwick, I live in Bed Stuy. I don’t see the vendors on the street you see, and I disagree about demand not being there. I don’t think there is any conspiracy going on, but I do think things are scripted where we live, and if someone were to offer something new and healthy, people like yourself may be surprised to find the positive response. Also, the nearest supermarket, which is not near, does not offer real produce. It is not a matter of being too lazy to go out and find it. It’s that it’s not there.
Andrew February 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
As someone who’s worked on public and private health interventions, I feel complelled to defend this initiative (not to mention the Bushwick Initiative). A number of surveys, including those conducted by the New York Academy of Medicine, have found that bodegas in neighborhoods such as the South Bronx, East Harlem, and Central and North Brooklyn, DO NOT carry fruits and vegetables (not to mention the fact that they sell milk above the New York state determined maximum legal price).
“Only 1 in 3 bodegas sells reduced-fat milk, compared with 9 in 10 supermarkets.
• About 28% of bodegas carry apples, oranges, and bananas, compared with 91% of
supermarkets.
• Leafy green vegetables are available at few bodegas (about 1 in 10).” from (pdf)
Why do bodegas not sell fresh fruits and vegetables? There are most likely a number of answers. One major one is the profit margin that a bodega earns off of fruits and vegetables, which need to be stored, maintained, and delivered properly, are much lower than those of potato chips, candy bars, etc. There are definitely problems with America’s food production and distribution system, which I’d also love to see addressed, but this particular initiative is a good start.
In terms of Jeremy’s argument, I see a few main points: 1) because the stores don’t sell them, there’s no demand; 2) there’s no demand because of culture; 3) this initiative is a paternalistic attempt to fix a problem that only the free market can fix; and 4) government should not be responsible for the health of its citizens(but why not?).
1. Although bodegas don’t sell drugs, IV needles, and, in many cases, condoms, there remains a strong demand for all three in many of these neighborhoods. Drugs are illegal, which stops them from selling them, but the other two materials aren’t. Certain governments, like New York City’s, sees that because drug users can’t procure clean needles in any preexisting legal way, that they need to be provided them. Needle exchange has yet to be proven to encourage drug use, but has been proven to reduce Hepatitis rates of all varieties, as well as rates of HIV. What is the harm of a needle exchange program run by the government? The government could be seen as condoning heroin use and providing drug users with an ability to get high, something some Americans morally disdain. However, at every needle exchange, they can run an intervention to reduce the practice. Because many heroin users come from low income families with abuse, in neighborhoods where drug dealing is encouraged as a means of profit and occupation, and because the “war on drugs” has yet to solve this problem, needle exchange is a route of harm reduction for people who need help.
For condoms, just about anyone could agree that sex is widespread in New York City and the United States (not to mention the world). New York City government understands this fact, while also admitting that condeming the practice of pre-marital sex would be laughable, thus, they condone and provide condoms for free. Condoms are also proven to reduce the spread of all STDs. Now we could argue for legislation, if it’s even needed, for bodegas to sell condoms, we could have City employees pester and request bodegas sell condoms, or, the city could provide them for free. Because a demand may not be met by the stores and markets in a neighborhood, the city government has stepped in to fill that demand, because it will protect the health and lives of its citizens.
Now, scientists and medical researchers have studied and discovered the health benefits of fruits and vegetables for decades, and the city notes that there’s a severe lack of fresh fruits and vegetables in certain neighborhoods. In an attempt to solve that problem, they’ve created a Green Carts program to provide the lacking resource to poor and unhealthy citizens.
2. It’s true that certain cultures may not encourage the consumption of fruits and vegetables; however, those cultures could certainly not be Italian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Brazilian, German, Irish, English, French, Chinese, Japanese, Thai etc. Because, amazingly, from the apple to the zucchini, all of these cultures are and have been known by some of the fruits and vegetables that they do eat. How I lived before personally discovering the tomatillo, I can’t really say…
Maybe there’s a partially economic answer here; maybe it might have something to do with the fact that a fresh head of lettuce costs the same amount as a Wendy’s Value Meal. Or maybe some people don’t have adequate access to a fresh head of lettuce: http://www.citylimits.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/CityLimits.FoodGuide.pdf
3. The free market has been shown, even by economists,
to sometimes tend toward boom and bust cycles, wonderful ecstasies, and terrible catastrophes. While it’s true that the government can be corrupt and inefficient, Jeremy seems to believe that free markets are exempt from both of these problems. He seems to have forgotten certain problems with markets, specifically FOOD markets, in books like the Jungle and Fast Food Nation. Or what of our current economic situation, which the article above addresses? Somehow a relatively free Wall Street got itself into lots of trouble, on its own, and through its own volition and design. Shocking! Still, the government really shouldn’t help them out, because it’s their own fault, and we should just let Wall Street solve its own problems.
4. Honestly, Jeremy, why shouldn’t the government be responsible for the health of its citizens? Why should we have police, public clinics, or public health care? Why should the government work to ensure length of life and quality of life?
Does anyone else? Does the free market?
As for the Bushwick Initiative, yeah, it’s a real shame NYC government woke up, removed some lead paint from apartments, helped landlords fix up their buildings, and improve the neighborhood of Bushwick. Is it the final solution? Thankfully and hopefully not.
Ray February 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Changeling,
No, it does NOT make more financial sense to buy a bag of Doritos than bananas. A bag of Doritos, even a large bag, costs around 25 cents an ounce. The edible part of a banana costs around 7 cents an ounce. This is for large bags of Doritos at the grocery store; if we’re talking about small snack bags at a convenience store or bodega, it’s closer to 35 to 40 cents an ounce. 4 bananas will definitely fill you up more than a bag of chips.
Something else that makes no economic sense: eating fast food. I spend an average of a dollar on a meal at home; to stuff a fat face at a Burger joint can cost double or triple that for the same amount of food (and if you’re overweight, you’re probably spending more than $3 on a trip to Burger King).
People eat fast food and Doritos because it takes no work. We live in a culture of convenience.
By the way, a box of Twinkies costs around 25 to 30 cents an ounce. I can only imagine what those little 2-packs at bodegas cost.
People are completely delusional about food prices. The most expensive meats are fatty cuts. The most expensive frozen foods are the ones that take the least work and have the most fat. Cheese: expensive. Chips: expensive. Candy: expensive. Poverty does not cause obesity; they’re two effects of the same cause.
Manuel Lora February 27th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Andrew misses one important point that Jeremy makes: bodegas, unlike supermarkets, are places of convenience. Because they are usually closer to one’s homes and are usually smaller than the larger supermarkets, they are unable to store as wide a variety of products. Thus, they have to basically sell what most people find important. The same reason why you don’t find olive oil or wart-removing drops or pleasure lube at the gas station store is the same reason you don’t find more the things that you are complaining about (various kinds of milk, entire fruit ecosystems, etc).
Andrew February 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Ray,
I think you’re mistaking the ounces in a bag of food for the calories, fat, and carbohydrates (not to mention protein and vitamins) that it provides. Let’s say an 8 ounce bag of Doritos costs one dollar, and 3 bananas cost the same.
In an 8 ounce bag of Doritos, there are roughly 1120 calories, 56 grams of fat, and 144 grams of carbs. In the 3 bananas, medium size (126 grams each, or about 5 ounces each, for a total of 15 ounces), there are 330 calories, 0 grams of fat, and about 90 grams of carbohydrates. Although they weigh more, they aren’t going to sustain your body or your mind.
As for your 1 dollar meals at home, what are you eating?
Ray February 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“I think you’re mistaking the ounces in a bag of food for the calories, fat, and carbohydrates (not to mention protein and vitamins) that it provides.”
I’m not mistaking anything for anything. You’re listing several ways of measuring the value of food, then picking the one you feel proves your point best. Of course you’re omitting some of the ways you yourself mention, such as vitamins (you think Doritos provide more vitamins than bananas?). So we can remove all considerations of fiber, protein, carbohydrates, simple sugars, complex sugars, vitamins and minerals and just look at the actual amount of food someone’s buying. Or we can pretend fat people are just being rational to a fault in their calorie-counting.
Furthermore, you haven’t convinced me Doritos will “sustain you” longer or even make you feel fuller. Bananas have far more fiber and water in them, both of which make a person feel full. Doritos are a classic carb-binging food: simple carbs are wholly unsatsifying and only lead to more binge-eating later on, when the blood sugar spike leads to the inevitable blood sugar drop.
There is one and only one reason people buy Doritos over bananas: they like the taste.
“As for your 1 dollar meals at home, what are you eating?”
Like most non-poor people, I pay attention to how much money I spend and on what. If I didn’t know how much money I spent, I’d probably be a poor person. At home I eat eggs, chicken, steak, rice, pasta, yogurt, fruits, vegetables, soup, beans, breads, and cheeses. Obviously the meals with expensive meats cost more than a dollar, but plenty of meals that cost less than a dollar make up for it. A dollar is the average. When I’m feeling lazy, I grab fast food and spend 5 times as much. You know, like poor people do every day.
BedStuyNative February 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I haven’t read everyone’s responses because frankly, I’m lazy.
As my name suggests, I’m a native of these parts and everyone that I’ve known, since I was a wee lass as always gone OUT of the neighborhood to get good fruit and veggies so, though the bodegas may not sell a great selection and what is available in the supermarkets may not be great, when one is importing their produce, what is available in walking distance doesn’t have to be great.
When I was a kid, my parents drove a few neighborhoods over to get fresh, good produce for our family. When I became an adult, I did the same but now that I’m lazy and make a bit more money, I get my stuff from Fresh Direct. Maybe others in the nabe do the same?
Dresden February 28th, 2008 at 3:32 am
This report is trite, stupid and insipid. Some sociologists are truly parasites of the social order. These studies just get ridiculous.
Armstrong February 28th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Bring on the fruit and veggie carts, and let the market decide if they thrive or fail. What’s the problem? Street vendors really add to my enjoyment of walking around a neighborhood, barring certain parts of Chinatown where they make the sidewalks impassable.
doug February 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I am thoroughly confused about anyone seeing a lack of fresh fruits and veggies at least in my area (around Myrtle JMZ). One market is almost 100% fruits — some of which I can’t even identify — and another has an excellent selection of both. The Food Dimensions has a huge veggies section as well. If people don’t choose to eat them, it’s their choice, be it cultural, or whatever — most likely it’s that they’re tired from working all day and don’t want to cook. Popeye’s is a heck of a lot faster even if the food isn’t so good for you. Though rice isn’t technically a vegetable, it’s lumped in there for health purposes by many and I can tell you this area has more rice than any place I’ve lived, whether eating at home or eating out. Bushwick food (eating out) is pretty monotonous, true, but in the four blocks between me and the J I have two excellent produce/fruit places, one great seafood market, a butcher which has been consistently high-quality, and, if I dare brave a huge line, there’s Food Dimensions. The only thing I have ever had trouble finding here is Vermont cheese or any cheese that’s terribly edible. An invasion of vendors accomplishes nothing except possibly increasing prices here or forcing out the local shops, which would disrupt the neighborhood. I like knowing the people I buy my food from.
-d
Jeremy March 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Finally have time for this:
Andrew, are you paid a salary to go to blogs that badmouth bureaucracy and write poorly reasoned essays? You’re like the Karen Hughes of City Hall, and you make just about as much sense talking about veggies as she does talking about the war!
The fresh produce in bodegas statistic is bogus, as several people have pointed out here and the Neighborhood Retail Alliance has also observed.
The survey also displays the cultural bias which I noted above: apples, bananas, and oranges are not the only nutritious fruits in the world. Every single bodega I have ever been in has had mangoes and huge, lush, Florida avocadoes for a dollar. I must note as Manuel did above that bodegas are for the things people most want on a whim — cigarettes, a pint of ice cream, and a few staples they ran out of. They carry far more than that, but the point still stands that bodegas are not for grocery shopping — supermarkets are. And there are supermarkets, none more than a few blocks from anywhere in both Bushwick and Bed-Stuy. When you consider far more people have cars in Brooklyn than in Manhattan, the choice is even greater for many. Another fabulous source of nutrient-packed produce has been completely ignored by this study — the frozen aisle. They are frozen at the peak and remain in that peak state until they’re cooked. There is no reason not to carry that if there is a demand for veggies but a perishables storage problem. They store fine in the freezer for weeks and months. The point is that there is no significant dearth of healthy options for the people of these neighborhoods, “despite” the clear cultural preference against certain fresh fruits and vegetables.
#1: a) I don’t care if people do heroin or whatever else needles are used for and b) the war on drugs causes most of the hideous problems associated with drug use in this country. Really, if people can’t be bothered to procure clean needles when they inject themselves with recreational drugs, why in the hell should I be bothered to provide them? Anyway, some bodegas DO sell drugs. Apparently you think that because something is illegal it is also unavailable. This creates a bit of a problem when debating reality.
There are places to buy condoms. Which is remarkable in the face of competition with FREE condoms from the city. I would expect nobody to ever sell condoms anywhere if the city provides them for free. I guess the market for condoms is even more complex than I could have ever imagined! Amazing.
#2: The pdf you provided gave me comparisons of shelf space per resident by the borough. It’s comparing the rich with the relatively poor. That tells me nothing significant, except that rich people probably buy more stuff — not exactly a revelation.
That has nothing to do with the availability of heads of lettuce. I’m willing to venture that people by Wendy’s Value Meals instead of heads of lettuce because heads of lettuce SUCK. They LIKE Wendy’s. Ray already seems to have dealt with this subject above.
#3: This made me laugh out loud. First, and this is key: there is no free market. The boom and bust business cycle was created by prior — and massive — government interventions. Government controls the money supply. Government regulates so many facets of the financial system it would take me all day to list them. The Federal Reserve’s tinkering with interest rates is a shockingly laughable attempt at central planning in our alleged “free” market. I mean, go ahead and start a bank. It’s a free market, right? Anybody can do anything! Tell me how it goes.
Anyway, nowhere have I ever suggested that the market is exempt from corruption and inefficiency. That is because humans can be corrupt and inefficient. The whole problem here is that you and too many other people do not understand what the market IS. It is not a system we can choose among many from a shelf and say, “we’re going to use the market to organize society!” and then go about it. The market is the sum of all voluntary human action in the world. What we do IS the market. Humans will usually prefer to cooperate, as that is conducive to wealth creation, as Coase suggested. What is considered a “bad” is violence and theft because it undermines cooperation and wealth creation. It’s why I equally condemn a mugger and the government, as both cannot do their jobs without stealing and especially in the latter case, at least threatening to kill. When you say that the market needs the state to regulate it so that, in your judgement, it works better, what you are actually saying is that voluntary human interactions need to be subjected to a bit of violence to make them work more toward the goals that you prefer.
No, my argument is simply this: the market is more efficient than the government in providing for human needs. That is all. That does not say that the market is perfect, because people are not perfect. To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to a kind of reverse nirvana fallacy, which I described in the Bushwick Initiative thread: “That’s where you compare actual human limitations operating in the market to flawless superhuman actions operating as the government, and thus ‘prove’ the superiority of government intervention.”
Wall Street has gotten itself into trouble — so what? What’s key is that they are not fed any bailouts, as they always have been in the past. Otherwise, they operate with far less risk than in — omg! — a truly free market. But no, the moronic administration, following in the footsteps of all its predecessors, will lavish Wall Street with gazillions, and also probably pass legislation that will decrease creativity and competition in the financial markets and thus consolidate even more wealth at the top for those already established.
#4: Why shouldn’t the govt be responsible for the health of its citizens? Since you’re the one assuming a positive obligation, I’ll just ask you why it should. I’ll add that there is no reason why the state can do better than everyone else. In fact, it does NOT do better.
“Why should the government work to ensure length of life and quality of life? Does anyone else? Does the free market?” Haha, yes. It’s the only thing that has. The government has done nothing but stifle innovation, misallocate funds to disastrous effect, keep potentially lifesaving products off the market, the list goes on. Governments steal and beat and kill and destroy. The market creates and invents and provides and responds.
Look at all this waste of time. The purpose of writing so many words on so many subjects and including so many rhetorical questions is so that nobody bothers to waste the time to answer you, thus “proving” the correctness of your missive with their silence. Good thing I have an unhealthy obsession.
Honestly, are you paper-pushers so desperate to prove the usefulness of your job that you had to launch an all-out multi-pronged attack on the market itself — in a post about fruit? LOL. Christ, if this is what capitalism is up against, I should just stop wasting my time refuting your points and just let whatever happens happen. Let me tell you: I’m not worried.
As many above noted, the green cart program will not work because few are likely to even apply for the permits. That is if I am right. If others here are right, and these people really do prefer to buy fresh produce but people just don’t feel like selling it to them (*snort*), then we should expect to see green carts proliferating throughout Bed-Stuy and Bushwick — and for them to do a brisk business.
Judy March 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 am
I’ve been in the bushwick/ridgewood area for a good ten years now and would be ecstatic if there were good quality fresh produce being sold in the area. the markets around here sell crap. Even better if they sold asian produce as well. I would love to be able to come home from work and pick up fresh greens on the way for dinner instead of having to plan out a route from the office to some place in manhattan then home. PITA! Yes, I’m lazy and as much as I hate fast food, would order up in a heart beat instead of walking five blocks for crap produce.