Food System Inequities Don’t Happen by Accident
For hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents inequities in the food system are part of their everyday lives. Limited access to food, due to cost or physical inaccessibility, means many are food insecure. Lack of understanding about nutrition has led to countless cases of preventable diet-related disease. Farmers who grow produce are often unable to compete in the marketplace against less-expensive, more highly processed, mass-produced foods.
These inequities didn’t happen on their own. They have arisen because of strategic decisions that have shaped the function and structure of the food system. In some cases those decisions may have been made without consideration of these impacts, and in others they may have been made in spite of the understanding of the consequences, and a willingness to trade equity for efficiency or for profit.
For example, the impact of White landowners’ enslavement of Black people for 246 years on this continent is still felt in today’s food system. The dispossession and systemic racism that slavery engendered and that continues today has resulted in wealth and income gaps that still foster limited physical and financial access to food, and higher rates of diet-related illnesses for Black families. The exploitation of slave labor built the very agricultural system that today denies access to land and food for Black communities.
Another inflection point in U.S. history that contributed to inequities in the food system came when refrigerated shipping became common. This development promoted economies of scale through practices like raising livestock closer to where fodder was grown, mostly in the Midwest, and shipping meat and dairy products across the country to consumers. While the intent was to create efficiencies, the changes undermined local and regional food systems, reducing local autonomy and resilience. The continued consolidation since then of every part of the food chain has led to labor practices that create food insecurity for food system workers themselves. The largest food retailer in the U.S. has more employees who rely on SNAP than any other company in the country.
Crop subsidies are another example of a structural shift in food production that has resulted in inequitable consequences. Beginning as a tool to stabilize the nation’s food supply and support farmers as part of FDR’s New Deal, crop subsidies continue to this day, providing around $16 billion a year in direct payments and insurance for farmers. Corn, soy, wheat and rice are the most heavily subsidized and are used mostly in highly processed foods, which nutrition messaging urges consumers to eat less of. Meanwhile, whole foods like fruits and vegetables receive less than 1% of federal food subsidies, while consumers are encouraged to eat more of them. As a result of this imbalance, inexpensive processed food finds favor in most diets over more nutritious food, particularly for low-income people. The higher incidence of preventable diet-related disease in low-income communities and communities of color is, in effect, being subsidized by this policy, using taxpayer dollars.
As a final example, in the 1950s the proliferation of processed foods and fast food restaurants coincided with and likely contributed to the elimination of most nutrition and culinary education in schools. By meeting the needs of and even helping to enable lifestyles built around cars and ever-busier schedules, the food industry dramatically reduced the amount of time people had to spend shopping, preparing or even thinking about food. In ceding those processes and decisions to food businesses, consumers gave up a significant amount of control over their intake of sugars, salt and fats. The amount of food prepared and eaten at home has declined consistently over the last 70 years, along with an understanding of how food impacts health.
These and many other choices have led to an inequitable food system that structurally disfavors local markets, nutritious foods, healthy people and communities of color. Undoing it can’t happen overnight, but thoughtful investments, wise policy, more education and a commitment to considering equity for both producers and consumers in every policy decision that impacts the food system can help. President Biden’s recently released National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health has helped elevate this discussion and begin to make some structural changes, and the new administration and legislative session on Beacon Hill has opportunities to do the same.
This story appeared in the Winter 2023 issue.
