The Jordan Harbinger Show - 1385: Food Deserts | Skeptical Sunday

Episode Date: September 20, 2026

The map says oasis; the aisles say Doritos. This Skeptical Sunday, Jessica Wynn explains why grocery stores failed to fix how low-income neighborhoods eat.Welcome to Skeptical Sunday, a special edition of The Jordan Harbinger Show where Jordan and a guest break down a topic that you may have never thought about, open things up, and debunk common misconceptions. This time around, we’re joined by writer and researcher Jessica Wynn!Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1385On This Week's Skeptical Sunday:A 'food desert' is the USDA's label for a low-income neighborhood where hundreds of people live over a mile from a large grocery store — too far, the theory goes, so they eat worse. Build a store and diets improve. Yet billions of dollars later, most residents were already driving past one to shop elsewhere.Distance was never the driver — equalizing access and prices closes just nine to ten percent of the diet gap. The rest is preference, and preference isn't fixed taste; it's learned from culture, marketing, price, and stress. West Harlem got a great supermarket 15 years ago, yet obesity stayed high.The same government building stores to fix diets spends roughly $9 billion a year subsidizing crops like corn and soy — the raw material for syrup, seed oils, and cheap meat. Fresh produce gets under ten percent. No wonder a pint of blueberries costs more than a family-size bag of Blue Takis.The sharper problem isn't the desert but the swamp — neighborhoods saturated with fast food, dollar stores, and junk promotions. Counties with the worst swamp scores saw 77% higher obesity-related cancer deaths. A store can even be a mirage: it's there, but the shelves are mostly Doritos.You can't buy health by proximity, but you can build it through knowledge. Don't abandon the food you love; adjust it. Swap corn oil for olive, tweak a method, make one familiar dish a little healthier. Preference is learned, which means it can be relearned, starting now.Connect with Jordan on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. If you have something you'd like us to tackle here on Skeptical Sunday, drop Jordan a line at [e-mail] and let him know!Connect with Jessica Wynn at Instagram (and Instagram!), and subscribe to her newsletters: Between the Lines and Where the Shadows Linger!And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: Xero: One month of Xero for free: xero.comOrion: 15% off: orionsleep.com/jordanCastbox: Find, organize, and subscribe to the world's best podcasts: castbox.fmFlyKitt: 15% off: flykitt.com, code JORDANSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This episode is brought to you in partnership with Airbnb. This summer, we spent an entire month in China with the kids, and it was an incredible experience. They attended summer camps, practiced their Mandarin Chinese, tried new foods, got to experience everyday life in another country. Meanwhile, our poor home was sitting here completely empty, and it made me think, while we're away having that experience, we could list our home on Airbnb and give another family the chance to experience our neighborhood like a local too. Our neighborhood is incredibly walkable.

You can head to the movie theater, grab coffee, stop it. What I would argue is the best boba shop anywhere. or choose between some fantastic Korean and Ethiopian restaurants, all without having to plan your entire day around getting in the car. A family staying in our home could settle in, explore the area, discover their own favorite spots, and get a real sense of the community rather than just passing through. Meanwhile, we could earn some extra income,

maybe help cover the kids' camps or at least a good part of the trip. Your home might be worth more than you think. Find out how much at Airbnb.ca.com. This episode is brought to you by zero. That's zero with an X. Running a small business and managing your finances shouldn't make your day more complicated. Learn more at zero.com. Welcome to Skeptical Sunday.

I'm your host, Jordan Harbinger. Today I'm here with Skeptical Sunday co-host writer and researcher Jessica Wynn. On the Jordan Harbinger show, we decode the stories, secrets and skills of the world's most fascinating people and turn their wisdom into practical advice that you can use to impact your own life and those around you. And our mission is to help you become a better informed, more critical thinker. During the week, we have long-form conversations with a variety of amazing folks from spies to CEOs, athletes, authors, thinkers, and performers. On Sundays, though, it's skeptical Sunday. A rotating guest co-host denial breakdown a topic you may have never

thought about and debunk common misconceptions about that topic, such as why tipping makes absolutely no sense, the lottery, rakey, healing, ear candling, surprisingly controversial, self-help cults, bottled water, and more. If you're new to the show or you want to tell your friends about the show, I suggest our episode starter packs. These are collections of some of our favorite episodes on persuasion and negotiation, psychology, disinformation, junk science, crime and cults, and more. That'll help new listeners get a taste of everything we do here on the show. Just visit jordanharbinger.com slash start or search for us in your Spotify app to get started. Today on Skeptical Sunday, we're talking about food deserts.

If a neighborhood doesn't have a grocery store, it seems intuitive that people are probably going to eat worse, right? So you build a grocery store, problem solved. That idea has shaped public health policy for decades. It's inspired billions of dollars in spending, thousands of money. of new supermarkets and an entire movement built around solving something called food deserts. There's just one problem. It's not working.

Joining me today to ruin another thing that I thought I already understood is writer and researcher Jessica Wynn. Jess, start at the beginning. What exactly is a food desert? And how did everyone become so convinced that just building more grocery stores was the answer? Well, the term food desert was coined in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom. Researchers studying low-income neighborhoods noticed, residents often lacked convenient access to affordable, healthy food.

So there weren't many supermarkets nearby. Instead, there were mostly convenience stores and takeaways. That's British for fast food. Right, yes. Takeaway. Yeah. Well, I guess is it just fast food or is it also anytime you actually take food out of a restaurant, like delivery? I think it's bodega type food that they call takeaway.

Sorry if I'm getting that wrong, everybody. Yeah, we'll hear about it from a thousand people if you get it wrong. Don't worry. in language we don't understand. That's right. But the thinking was simple. If healthy food is far away and unhealthy food is close by, people are going to eat worse. Which makes perfect sense because if healthy food isn't available or it's harder to get than junk food, of course people are going to eat worse.

I mean, the only reason I know this so well is because I was once a teenager. And it's not that I couldn't eat healthy food. It's just that when I opened the freezer, there wasn't any in there, but there was a pizza. So that was what got consumed. I mean, this is kind of common sense, right? That's exactly why I bought this whole build a grocery store logic, too. I completely believed the food desert narrative when I started researching this. I wasn't looking to debunk anything.

The evidence, though, it took me somewhere I did not expect. So somebody who changed their mind because of evidence and not because somebody paid them or showed them a TikTok video, where am I? But if you don't have access to healthy food, you can't eat healthy foods. What am I missing? I mean, the logic seems incredibly simple here. It seems very logical. And when the concept made its way to the United States, the USDA eventually formalized it. The current official definition of a food desert is a low-income census tract where at least 500 people or 33% of the population live more than one mile from a large food store in urban area. areas or more than 10 miles in rural areas. One mile, that's a threshold. I used to walk my dog further than that when it was nice out.

I guess that's my way of saying, what's the big deal? You can't walk a mile. I mean, I guess with groceries, it's a pain, but still. Sure. And that's actually the first hint that something might be off here, because the UK context that gave us this concept looks nothing like the United States. So British cities, they're much denser and car ownership is lower. and walking to a local shop is genuinely how most people get their groceries.

So when you import that concept to the United States, where 45% of low-income households own a car, you might already be starting from the wrong premise. You know, it's funny. I know a lot of Brits walk to the store because I saw a horror movie where the killer stalked a bunch of people walking to the store, and they were all in the UK. What was that movie with Scarjo,

where she's like an alien eating people? Do you know what I'm talking about? I know exactly what you're talking about. It's not a good movie, by the way. It's super boring. Anyway, who cares? It'll come to me halfway through the recording. Right, exactly. It doesn't matter. Don't see it. It's lame. How many Americans are we actually talking about who live in these food deserts? It's about 20 million. Oh, wow. Yeah, that's over 6% of the population living in both low income and low access areas simultaneously or what you call food deserts. And using the 2000 census data and grocery store locations from 2006, the USDA identified more than 6,500 census tracks that met its definition of a food desert. So they have to be low income and low access.

So we're talking about rich people who live a mile up in the Hollywood Hills. They're not in a food desert because they send their housekeeper down in an SUV to go to the farmer's market and pick up food. Okay. So once the government defined the problem, it had something it could map, right? So you've got the metric and now it's like, all right, let's solve this by plunking grocery stores down in these food deserts, I guess. Sure. And on paper, that looked logical. and those maps became the foundation for a lot of federal policy.

The 2008 Great Recession caused more areas to qualify as low income, so more places met the definition. I see. And did the government respond? Well, in 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama announced a goal as part of the Let's Move campaign to eliminate food deserts within seven years. Let's move, preferably to another neighborhood with a grocery store. Right, right. But the Obama administration launched what's called the Healthy Food Financing Initiative,

offering federal grants and loans to encourage grocery stores to open in these underserved areas. And by 2018, that effort had driven about $220 million in direct funding and roughly a billion dollars in total investment. Wow. So, yeah, close to a thousand projects across more than 35 states. Oh my God. So a billion dollars of activity, a thousand stores, seven-year deadline. Did it work? Did they eradicate food deserts? Is it all, everything we're talking about outdated? Depends on what you mean by work. So the stores got built. The real question is whether people actually started eating healthier. I see. Okay. So that's the outcome anybody actually cares about. Ribbon cuttings are fun, but they don't really matter. They don't feed people. Yeah, exactly. And the theory sounded obvious, right? Make healthy. food easier to reach and people eat more of it. But when researchers measured what people actually bought and ate, the results were surprisingly underwhelming. Okay, so what did they find? Well, the first thing researchers discovered when they started looking at this carefully

was that people in food deserts were already shopping at supermarkets. And not just some, almost all of them. A massive Nielsen data set, about 60,000 households tracked over more than a decade, found that households in food desert areas were buying nearly 90% of their groceries from supermarkets. Wait, so the people in the food deserts were already going to supermarkets. I'm confused. Yeah, almost all of them. So they had access. It just wasn't close enough to count as nearby, per the definition of food desert. Exactly. And low-income households under $25,000 a year travel about five miles each way for groceries. In food deserts, it's closer to seven.

Even households without a car are still traveling about two miles. Okay, so they're not trapped. They're inconvenienced. I don't know. I feel like a dick saying that, but that's what it sounds like. No, and they're not isolated. People leave their neighborhoods for other reasons than to just go to a supermarket, so it just might be part of other errands or part of your commute.

But for most people, that's just it. they're just inconvenienced, and that's an important distinction. So if people weren't reaching supermarkets at all, then building one nearby should dramatically change where they buy. But if they're already making the trip, even if it's inconvenient, then a new store mostly changes where they shop or whether they have access in the first place. So then we build the stores anyway, what happens? Well, researchers tracked over 6,700 supermarkets, which opened across the U.S. between 2004 and 2016. And they measured diet quality before and after a store open nearby using the

healthy eating index. And the finding was almost nothing. Opening a new supermarket in a food desert improved nearby households diet quality by 0.021 standard deviations. Oh, I remember chat GPTing standard deviation a hundred times in the past couple of years. I don't totally get it, But it's supposed to be a whole number if it's big. And 0.021 is like basically zero, right? Pretty much, yeah. And what it translates to is about one and a half percent of the diet gap. That's the difference in overall diet quality between lower income and higher income households.

That is astonishingly small. So, yeah, that's... It's functionally invisible, right? Yes. Yeah, good way to put it. So we spent a billion dollars. to move the needle, 1.5%. 1.5% of the gap.

That is, after building a whole supermarket and all these, that's so depressing. Yeah, correct. That's being the rounding error, but it's a billion-dollar rounding error. So it's a rounding error in fixing the problem, and it's a billion dollars of just funds lit on fire, essentially. And that's the large-scale data,

but then you have the real-world case studies. So a real supermarket opens in a real food desert, and researchers go in to see what happens. It happens in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City. In Philly, a supermarket opened in a low-income neighborhood that had officially been classified as a food desert. Researchers measured diet quality six to 11 months after the supermarket opened. They found no significant change in fruit and vegetable intake, no significant change in BMI or body mass index, among the people living in that neighborhood. So even the success stories weren't really success stories. Not really. And New York tells a similar story. They have a program called Fresh Food Retail Expansion to Support Health. And it subsidized a new store in Morissania, which is a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx.

Researchers found that about 90% of residents were already shopping at supermarkets before the new one opened. So what actually changed? Well, when it did open, it just changed which supermarket they? drove to. It didn't really change their relationship with healthy food. Oh, I see. So all we really changed was which parking lot people pulled into to buy their Cheetos or pizzas or whatever. Pretty much. And the Pittsburgh case is genuinely fascinating and a little heartbreaking. The Rand Corporation did a long study of a new HFFI-supported supermarket that opened in a neighborhood called the Hill District. And they did find improvements in diet quality in the neighborhood after it opened.

And the results were real. People were eating better. Okay, so finally it works? I don't know. That's what it looked like until researchers looked closer. Diet quality improved by the same amount among people who regularly shopped at the new supermarket and people who never set foot inside it. Wait, the people who never even shop there improved just as much, I don't understand. Yeah, that's what makes this study so important. So if shopping at the new supermarket wasn't what distinguish the people whose diets improved, then the supermarket probably wasn't the thing improving their diets. I see.

Okay, so what was improving their diets, I guess, is the obvious question here. I don't know. This is confusing because, like, I don't get how this is possible. It's confusing, but the researchers think the improvements may have come from the broader community investment that accompanied the store. Things like new housing developments came in. A community center was built. A workforce development center opened.

So the neighborhood itself was getting better. The supermarket was just kind of along for the ride. You know, the store, it just happened to arrive at the same time, but it wasn't the driver. Okay. So the supermarket got the credit for something the neighborhood actually did. That's weirdly hopeful, but it's so annoying. It's deeply annoying, actually, at the same time. Right.

I mean, that's public health. And here's the kicker. That Pittsburgh store closed in 2019. Why? That's such a waste. I know. Yeah. It just closed its doors because not enough people were shopping there to keep it viable.

It's almost like the market had already shown that a supermarket needed to be further away to be profitable. Right, right. There was just insufficient local demand. And a store that was subsidized by public money to serve a community closed because the community didn't care about it. They weren't shopping there enough to keep it profitable. So the store wasn't failing because it was a bad grocery store. It was failing because the economics of the area just never changed. Right. I mean, the irony of all of this is almost too much. That's what makes it so confusing. But the underlying issues haven't disappeared. No one addresses these signals, even though the evidence has been getting louder for about a decade. So there's something called Healthy People 2030, the federal government's big public health framework. And that quietly dropped retail food access as a priority from its nutrition and healthy eating objectives. It was in the 2020 version. It's gone now. No announcement, just they hit delete. It's Homer Simpson sliding into the bushes. Like, we're just going to pretend that never happened. Maybe nobody will notice, yeah. And the public often misses when policies just disappear, right? We only tend to see things that are implemented. So researchers have continued finding that simply improving retail food access produces much smaller dietary changes than policymakers originally hoped.

Okay, so if proximity to a grocery store isn't what's driving these health disparities, what is driving the health disparities? Because they're real. The disparities are real. Poor communities really do have worse health outcomes. That's not in dispute. So what's actually causing the disparities? I mean, it's not just like, oh, doctors are expensive so they never get health care, right? It's the diet thing is real. I hate to use anecdotal evidence because everyone's like, you're using an anecdote, which means you don't have real evidence. But when something you're telling me matches an anecdote, I'm going to tell it, which is that Nick Pell, who also contributes It's a skeptical Sunday all the time.

He's a gigantic meathead bodybuilder type guy. It looks like a dangerous biker criminal, basically. And he lives in some part of Arizona that's not near anything, basically. It's in a small town. And he goes to the store, and he loads up his cart with, like, frozen chicken breasts and steak and eggs and stuff like that. He's always complaining about what other people are buying, right? He's like, I can't believe people eat like this, right? Because they're eating frozen pizza and frozen lasagna and frozen everything.

And I was like, oh, yeah, that reminds me I'm doing an episode about food deserts. And he's like, ah, food desert, shmood deserts, right? Because it's Nick Pell. And he's like, I don't believe it. These people just don't make good choices. And I felt like, oh, that's kind of a mean thing to say. Like, maybe they don't know.

But he might be kind of on to something because he's like, look, you can get vegetables. You can get chicken. It's just that it's not as tasty as a giant sausage pizza. I get it. I mean, he's definitely on a better track than our policymakers. And this is where the research gets uncomfortable. The most comprehensive study on this came from a team of economists at Chicago Booth, NYU, and Stanford, who asked a simple question, what if low-income households had the same food environment as higher-income households? Would they eat the same?

And they use that same enormous Nielsen data set, 60,000 households, a decade of grocery purchases to try to figure it out. And? Well, equalizing food access and prices completely, the full intervention would only close about nine, maybe 10% of the diet gap. So 90% of the diet gap is still something else. So, okay, what is it? So 90% is what economists call preference heterogeneity. In plain English, differences in what people choose to buy. So high-income households were willing to pay nearly twice as much for the recommended daily ameliorior.

of vegetables and nearly three times as much for fruit. Lower income households, on average, spent more of their food budget on foods higher in sugar and saturated fat. People usually make the best decision they can inside the environment they're in. We'll be right back, after a few products delivered much more efficiently than federal nutrition policy. This episode is sponsored in part by Orion Sleep. I Sleep Hot. Gen prefers. what I'd describe is a cozy heat box, so we have very different ideas about the ideal sleeping temperature. For those that can relate, I recommend checking out Orion Sleep. Orion Sleep is a smart sleep system that fits right over the mattress that you already have

and adjusts your temperature to optimize your sleep, improve recovery. I can keep my side cool, Jen can keep hers warm, and everybody wins. Orion uses sensors to adjust the temperature throughout the night, and each side has its own sleep tracking. I haven't tried it yet, but I like the idea of those adjustments happening automatically. I'd want to see whether I wake up less, feel more rested, see that reflected in the data. Orion starts at $60 a month with no mandatory subscription. Comes with free shipping, 30-day free trial with a full

refund and a two-year warranty. Right now, Orion is offering our listeners 15 person off at orion sleep.com slash Jordan. That's O-R-I-O-N sleep.com slash Jordan for 15% off. Get better sleep. Backed by your own data at OrionSleep.com slash Jordan. This episode is brought to you by zero. That's zero with an X.

Running a small business means there's always something competing for your attention. Managing your finances shouldn't make your day more complicated. Zero brings accounting, payments, payroll, and analytics together in one connected platform. So you spend less time piecing together the numbers and more time actually building your business. We've been using Zero for nearly a decade now and honestly we don't know what we do without it at this point. That's meant clear reports, dashboards we can actually read, forecasts and AI-powered insights that help us understand our own cash flow and see how the business is really doing. It was simple and easy to use from day one, and it still is. In fact, 91% of customers surveyed agree that

zero is easy to use, and when you choose zero, you're joining five million customers worldwide, including us. That's zero with an X at zero.com. The 91% claim is based on a 20204-0 survey conducted in the U.S. UK and Australia. Don't forget about our newsletter, We BitWiser. It's a little gem from us to you just about every Wednesday. It's a great companion to the show. Highly practical and an under two-minute read. Really can't beat it. Jordan Harbinger.com slash news is where you can find it. Now, back to Skeptical Sunday. Were you the one telling me about $20 strawberries the other day? Or $19 strawberries? But it was a one strawberry. I did it. I bought the $20 strawberry at Arrow One because it was curiosity,

not because I thought it was going to be a miracle strawberry. Oh, my God. But you got taller, so it was worth it. Yeah. I know. I'm like 6'6 now. Yeah, that's actually insane. When you told me that, I was like, how rich would I have to be to buy a strawberry for $19? Like, at what point are you just like, screw it? I'm so rich, it'll never make a difference. I want to bucket of $19 strawberries. I just don't think I ever get that. I just want to be clear.

I bought one $20. Of course. That's worse, by the way. That's actually worse than buying a bunch of them. You actually just ate one. I mean, at least drop a grand and have like a strawberry cake or something. Spoiler, everybody. It was like a strawberry.

It didn't change my life. So on average, lower income households really were choosing those less healthy foods. And I know people are like, you're poor shaming or fat shaming, but it's like this is what the data says, right? I'm not just being a dick here. Sure. Yeah. I mean, this is this is a delicate thing to discuss. But I mean, at that moment in time, yes, that was true. But we have to really understand the nuance here that preference isn't the same thing as people naturally like junk food. So economists use the word different. than we do. Preferences are shaped by culture, advertising, prices, stress, time, and what food was available growing up, what we were used to eating. So they're learned. They're not fixed. That kind of data can lead people to some pretty bad conclusions, which leads to very bad policy, and it's exactly the kind of finding people here and immediately turn into, well, well, those people just don't care about eating healthy, but also that's kind of get why somebody might think that.

I mean, of course, that's exactly right, but that's not what the research is actually saying. So the mistake is treating preferences as though they appeared out of nowhere and people just don't care about their health. That's not what happens. Preferences have causes. They're the product of decades of food marketing, agricultural policy, family tradition, economic constraints, and just the environment people grew up in. So when economists say, quote unquote, preference gap, they're describing the outcome, not assigning blame. So building a supermarket doesn't undo 30 years of learned behavior. You know, geography doesn't automatically change diets. Okay, but if the culture is really that powerful, what does that actually look like in the real world? So there's a real striking illustration of this that John McWhorter wrote about.

West Harlem has had a full-service supermarket called Fairway Market for over 15 years. It's well-stocked. It has great fresh produce, good prices, and it's right there in the middle of really dense neighborhood. It's not hidden. It's not hard to get to. Yeah, I've actually been there. My buddy lives in Harlem, and I always love to go up there and eat Peruvian food or Dominican food or whatever with him, because he's got that street cred to go into, like, the good place and get the good stuff

with the special treatment. And if somebody comes around yelling and screaming at people, he gives them the Harlem stink eye and they go away. But actually, Harlem is boozy now. When's the last time you were there? Some parts of it are bougie. I was there a couple years ago. I mean, I've been there since the after the pandemic, which is, I guess, how I, yeah, distinguished time now. But, yeah, it's different. It's definitely been, yeah, upgraded, I would say. For sure. I mean, when I lived in New York, it was in the early aughts, right? So like 2004-ish, you know, and on. So my buddy, I met my buddy, and he worked at the same law firm as me. He's like, come up to Harlem. And I was like, oh my God, Harlem. And he's like, chill out, dude, it's fine. And he's like, I'll meet you on,

I don't know, like 100, you know, 101 or something. So I was like, okay. And then I would walk up there. And I was like, okay, yeah, it's a little bit like, you know, I don't know. I probably wouldn't walk here alone at night, but it's fine. And he's like, it's also fine at night, to calm down. And then I walked up last year when I went to visit him and I was like, hey, what the heck happened to this place? He's like, oh yeah. Because he's like, meet me at Che Mama on 103. And I was like, uh, what? Because the last time I walked up there, it was like a little rough, a lot of bodegas and nail salons and stuff like that, like businesses, normal ones. Now it's like bougie coffee shop and another busy place of the valet and then a new housing thing

and a brand new this and a brand new that. And then we were having Dominican food and we were sitting outside. This guy is like yelling and screaming, not like violently, just like across the street at his boy. And I was like, I wasn't expecting that. He's like, oh, no, that guy's been here for a while.

You could tell. He's still got the old Harlem in him, right? Because he's like having a conversation with a dude across the street by screaming next to a cafe. And everyone's like, how dare you? And my buddy Kerwin's just like, nope, that's just kind of how I grew up.

That guy lives here. You can tell. Like, this is his neighborhood. So, yeah, Harlem's actually awesome. Like, I'm sure if you move to New York now and you get a chance to live there, it's probably one of the best neighborhoods, like one of the most interesting neighborhoods. Oh, it's so fun, yeah. But, yeah, 25 years ago, I don't know, you might want to be a little bit careful about where you live.

If you're like a blonde white dude running down the road to your stockbroker job, I don't know. Right, right. You might get the Harlem stink eye then. Yeah, exactly. You might be on the receiving end of that. Anyway, so, yeah, I've been to that fairway market. It's nice. But yeah, and you can see it in the obesity rates in West Harlem.

They remain dramatically higher than those in Greenwich Village, even though the neighborhoods have changed so much. And that's just a few miles downtown. That store is there, but the health gap still persists. Yeah, same access, different outcomes. So what is driving the difference? Because it's, like you said, it's not just the grocery store anymore. This thing is two blocks away. So what's the deal?

Right, not at all. And this is where John McWhorter's point is really important. So food culture is real and it's durable. McWhorter was writing about black communities, but this applies broadly. Southern black food culture was shaped by slavery and sharecropping, or salt and fat were lifestyle choices. They were survival. And those food traditions didn't disappear once circumstances changed.

They became family traditions just like they do in every culture. The same way Italian Americans still eat a ton of pasta three generations after immigration. Or Jewish people still eat gefilta fish even though nobody actually enjoys it. Right, right. You just have to do it. Yeah, exactly. And this is where the food desert narrative can just quietly go wrong. At its worst, it implies that low-income families just lack the knowledge or desire to eat well. What the evidence actually shows is that they face real economic constraints, real-time

constraints and deeply rooted, historically shaped food preferences that a supermarket does not override. What do you mean by time constraints? So this is the piece almost completely missing from the food access debate. For a working parent with two jobs, multiple kids, and no car, the binding constraint isn't always distance to a grocery store. It's time, right? Cooking a healthy meal might take 45 minutes if you've already bought the groceries, if you have a functioning kitchen, and you get home at a reasonable time with the energy. A frozen meal or fast food run takes five minutes. Yeah. So time is a form of privilege we often forget about and no grocery store, however close, will solve that problem. That is a really good point. So we've been solving the

geography of hunger when it's a clock problem sometimes. Yeah. And policy definitely. does not reflect that because it measures everything in miles to the nearest store. Yeah, it just seems like flawed economic theory. You know, it's interesting. When I worked in Detroit 30 years ago, I remember I drove my mom's, I think at the time, Ford Taurus down there. Every dad had a Ford Taurus. Yeah, I mean, everyone's dad at a Ford Taurus, right? So I would drive that down there and you'd see these women who are like outside of the bodeg of the convenience store or walking by and they go, hey honey, you driving? And I would be like, why?

And they're like, can you drop me off at the grocery store? And I remember that was, I thought that was like a weird pickup line until I heard it the 50th time going to work. And I was, I asked my boss, I was like, hey, who lived in the neighborhood. I was like, hey, why are these women constantly like, hey, honey, you driving? What are they trying to do? And he's like, I think they actually just need a ride because if you go to the grocery store, you have to wait for the bus with all your bags and then maybe stand.

So it's really nice to get a ride to. the grocery store or a ride back from the grocery store. Like it's really, really a luxury to not have to tote that crap on the bus and then walk from the bus stop to the, and I was like, oh, man, I'm so sheltered. Yeah, a gallon of milk's heavy. Yeah. So imagine what you have a bunch of people in your family. So you have four gallons of milk and cereal and chicken and pos, like you're carrying six bags in summertime and you're on the bus. Maybe you don't even get a seat. So yeah, that sucks. If I were braver slash more reckless, I probably would have given these people a ride to the grocery store. But something about giving a stranger a ride in Detroit in the 90s was not appealing to me.

That is such a great example because it is that travel cost. It is the time that's added waiting for public transportation. Or if you do have a car, the gas and just the hassle, you know, that acts like almost like a shipping fee. So if you're driving seven miles to a grocery store, that cost a price. applies to everything in your cart. So relatively speaking, the healthier, more expensive items get cheaper, which means people who travel farther may actually buy better groceries than people who have a store down the block because they're putting more thought and time and energy into their shopping list. I want to go back real quick to measuring everything by miles

to the nearest store because that just seems like flawed economic theory. Yeah, well, economists developed the theory in 1964, it's called the Alkean Allen theorem, sometimes nicknamed shipping the good apples out. So say regular coffee costs $1.50 a pound and premium costs $3. At the store, the premium costs twice as much. But now imagine both have to be shipped somewhere and shipping adds a dollar to each pound. Regular coffee becomes $250 and premium becomes $4. So premium coffee is still more expensive, but the difference between them suddenly feels smaller. Since you're already paying the same extra cost either way, spending a little more for the better coffee, it starts to seem worth it. So in some cases, the inconvenience is doing nutritional work? Yeah, in a way, yes. And if you remove that fixed

cost by putting a store right next door, you can actually make cheap, unhealthy food relatively more attractive again, that there's even some evidence of small negative effects on diet quality when the new store is open. I see. That's an interesting wrinkle. So we tend to think convenience is always a good thing, but convenience cuts both ways. Is it ever the case that the store is there, but what's inside isn't what we think? Like, maybe it's a food mirage to go off the metaphor here. Yeah, I mean, this is an important concept that the standard food desert metrics, they completely miss that, too. Of food mirage, it is a thing. And it's when a neighborhood technically has a supermarket, but the in-store environment is skewed and effectively stocked differently.

There could be fewer fresh options, more processed foods at eye level, and more aggressive junk food promotions. So the store counts as healthy food access on the government's map, but inside the store, not so much. I mean, I think we've all been to those little grocery stores where the produce section is just support. surprisingly small, you know. Yeah. Well, again, in New York, they don't have a lot of space. So you'll go to some bodegas and there's fruit and vegetables and you're like, oh, okay. But obviously, it's probably more bang for the buck space-wise if they just sell Doritos, right? So- Exactly. And it's easier for the store to stock because they don't have to worry about shelf life. Right, because Doritos last, they're like cockroaches. They're still good after 100 years. That's right. They'll survive the apocalypse.

The coloring will be faded off the package and it'll still be crunchy and delicious inside. So, okay, yeah, the maps as oasis and the aisles say Cheetos. Yeah, and there's research suggesting that large discount stores in low-income areas may promote less healthy food more aggressively because that's what sells. So the store arrives and brings targeted junk food marketing with it. So the desert was filled with a pool, but the pool is filled with Sprite. Oh, gross. Can you imagine? I know, right?

Man, the tinglingness, though. Do dollar stores make food deserts worse? I feel like we have a zillion of those around here, too, and there's an argument that they're making things worse. I feel like I've read articles where it's like, oh, the dollar general or whatever is the reason that there's no Kroger in this neighborhood. I don't know. The dollar stores are brilliant, you know? They are incredibly efficient businesses. They go into low-income areas.

They capture the staples market, like cleaning products, can goods, and snacks. But they carry almost no fresh food, no meaningful produce. There's really limited dairy. There's no meat counter. So you can get a can of something. You can't get fresh vegetables. You can survive there, but you can't really eat well there unless you're hamming it up on creamed corn and bacon bites or something like that.

Right. But if it's on your block, it's going to be. be much easier to forget about produce and buy the processed food. And once a dollar store moves in, it can siphon off just enough local spending to make a full-service grocery store financially unviable. Okay, right, because if they're selling all the junk food and the junk food is the highest margin or whatever, and then people only go to the grocery store for an onion, a grocery stores, look, man, we're not selling the stuff that we need to stay open. So they close and then nobody sells onions anymore. They're not filling a gap the dollar store. They're locking it in and

sort of locking out fresh produce business or the fresh food business. Absolutely. There's a report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which is a nonprofit research group that studies local economies and competition, arguing that dollar stores aren't just a symptom of economic distress. They can actually contribute to it. So cities have started responding. In 2018, Tulsa, Oklahoma created what's called a healthy food overlay district in North Tulsa, which is a predominantly black neighborhood where dollar stores had become so concentrated that some were less than a block apart from each other. That's insane to me to just even think about. And under the new rule, any new dollar store has to be at least a mile from the next one. So Birmingham, Alabama, adopted a similar policy the following year.

And since then, Oklahoma City, Norlands, Cleveland, and more than a dozen other cities have passed measures to limit how densely dollar stores can open. Wow. So not banning them, but spacing them out a little bit. Yeah, right. I mean, it's dispersal rules. One per mile, not three per block. Is that working? I mean, it's too early to know how well these policies work. My guess would be probably, you know, you know, If you can't go to one, then that's good news. But the idea is straightforward. Instead of spending public money trying to lure a grocery store into a neighborhood,

these cities are trying to stop dollar stores from crowding out grocery stores in the first place. I see. But dollar stores are popular. They're cheap. They're convenient. Who are you to take that away from people? I mean, that's a real concern. You know, dollar stores do provide value on staples.

But the argument is that they provide that value at a real cost by, by preventing something more comprehensive from taking root. So a grocery store would sell the same staples plus fresh food. So the question becomes, should local governments shape that tradeoff? It's like getting really good, fast, free shipping, but the only things you can buy are cigarettes and vodka. Some people would love that. Well, yeah, that's true.

Jessica 10 years ago, totally into it. Oh, my gosh. I'd be their best customer. Yeah. But there's also the racial dimension to consider, and this is where it gets complicated. So health disparities are real, and they're not evenly distributed amongst communities. So black and brown communities are disproportionately affected. Ah, okay.

So the food desert narrative was in part kind of a racial justice narrative. So if we're saying the mechanism is wrong, are we letting, what do you call, structural, racism or whatever, off the hook? No, and this is critical because the disparities are real, the structural causes are real. What the evidence challenges is which mechanism matters most. So, okay, what do you mean by that? So there's research looking at something called food swamps. So they're areas with a high concentration of fast food and convenience stores relative to healthier options. So in a cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 U.S. counties with the highest food,

desert scores. They did have significantly higher rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, but the association was even stronger in counties with the highest food swamp scores, about like 77 percent higher rates. That's huge. And those counties were disproportionately in the south and southeast with higher black populations. Before we restructure the entire American food system, let's hear from the companies currently subsidizing this conversation. We'll be right back. Quick break to tell you about a free podcast app worth checking out, available on both iOS and Android. If you're still using one of the built-in podcast apps, it might be time to upgrade to something better like CastBox. It's got a clean look, easy navigation, features that actually make listening

easier. More than 100,000 of our listeners already subscribed to the show there on CastBox. So a lot of you might already know how good it is. One thing I really care about in a podcast app is strong search. and CastBox does that really well. It makes it easy to find exactly the shows and episodes you want. I routinely use it for show prep to find specific episodes. Whether you're searching for a specific guest, a topic you're into, or an episode you want to revisit. You can also personalize your listening experience by creating playlists without downloading the episodes,

organize your subscriptions, save episodes for later. Best of all, it's completely free and ad-free, which makes the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Download CastBox today. Subscribe to the Jordan Harbinger Show, of course, and leave us a comment while you're there. This episode is also sponsored by Fly Kids. We're getting ready for a trip to Taiwan with both kids. I'm excited, but also bracing myself because we're tired on a normal day, add in a 13-hour flight, a 13-hour time change,

and two kids who don't care what time zone we're in. And jet lag is not just annoying. It's an emergency. That's why we're packing Fly Kit. It's a kit plus an app that creates a personalized jet lag schedule for your trip, when to take the supplements, when to wear blue light blockers, when to get light, when to caffeinate, when to nap, all to give you the best shot at beating jet lag.

I was very skeptical to say the least when I first heard about this years ago. but after dozens of international trips, I don't travel without it ever. You enter your travel details, Fly Kit maps out exactly what to do and when. It's based on research with, of course, Navy SEALs, fighter pilots, and athletes. But hey, also with podcasters that are old

and get tired when they travel. Anyway, it helps a lot with jet lag and the inflammation that flying can cause. I've used it on brutal time zone trips, and it works every time. Go to FlyKit with2Ts.com. Use code Jordan for 15% off, and let me know how it works for you.

We've got a subreddit for the show if you want to complain endlessly. with other people who also like to complain endlessly and some very kind show fans. It's great discussions going on in there. Me and Gabriel are also in there if you want to discuss the show topics with us. That's the Jordan Harbinger subreddit. Now, back to Skeptical Sunday. Okay, so both limited access to healthy food and heavy exposure to unhealthy food

were associated with worse outcomes. That's what I'm understanding here. So the swamp effect is stronger. That's interesting that it's just like you're around it and it's so easy to get. It's like, all fine. This is what we're all eating now. Of course. You know, so the research doesn't say food deserts are meaningless. It suggests that focusing only on what a neighborhood lacks may miss something important. What's already there? How concentrated it is and how constantly people are exposed to it.

So the policy response can't just be, well, at a grocery store, everything's fine now. Because people aren't going to buy the healthy stuff. And that's the problem. Which is what seems so logical to us at the beginning. right? Improving access may still matter, but if a neighborhood is saturated with fast food, convenience stores, targeted promotions, and drive-thrus, adding one supermarket may not be enough to change the overall food environment. So the evidence suggests the concentration of unhealthy food may be the more important mechanism. And that changes the policy response. A food desert solution is to build a grocery store. A food swamp solution.

is to regulate fast food density, change marketing, and address targeted promotion. And fast food chains also tend to cluster more heavily in lower income neighborhoods, correct? But isn't that kind of just the market responding to demand? Like nobody forced McDonald's or Taco Bell to open up over there. If people are buying the food, what are policymakers supposed to do about that? I mean, you could regulate fast food, you could tax it, you could ban new restaurants, but where does the logic end? So, okay, we ban Taco Bell.

Okay, I guess we're all driving further to go to Taco Bell then. Like, if that's what they want, that's what they're going to get. Nobody's driving further to go to Taco Bell this week. That's true. Well, maybe not this week with the deadly lettuce explosive diarrhea lettuce that they've been placing on everything. I'm so locked into that story. But, yeah. Anyway, I mean, not necessarily.

So the point isn't that fast food restaurants shouldn't exist. It's that demand. It doesn't develop like we're thinking. It doesn't develop in a vacuum. Companies don't survive by selling food nobody buys. But if one neighborhood has twice as many fast food restaurants, they have constant promotions, billboards, and drive-thrus on every major road,

that's a different food environment than another neighborhood where healthier options are just as visible and just as convenient. I see. So the relationship goes both ways, right? Businesses respond to demand and the environment shapes which choices are affordable, familiar, and practical in the first place. If you grow up next to a Taco Bell, you're going to most likely go there while you're growing up. If you grow up next to a farm stand, you're probably going to grow up eating more apples, you know?

Yeah, so you're saying it's not either or it's not simply exploitation and it's also not simply a choice. It's feedback. businesses open where they expect strong sales. So once they're there, they make those foods more visible, more convenient, and more familiar through sheer repetition. That, in turn, encourages more sales, which attracts more businesses selling the same kinds of food. And over years, supply and demands start reinforcing each other. So it's less about blaming Taco Bell and more about recognizing that the environment itself nudges behavior. Nobody's arguing people. Nobody's arguing people. people lose free will when they drive past a Burger King. The point is that environments influence

behavior. So the research finds worse health outcomes in neighborhoods where fast food is much more common than healthier options, not because one burger changes your life, but because those cues and choices add up over time. Okay, that makes a lot more sense than just saying fast food causes obesity and you have no choice but to eat a ton of it. So sorry. Yeah, and that's one reason researchers have shifted from talking about food deserts to food swamps. So the evidence suggests the concentration of unhealthy choices may matter more than simply the absence of a grocery store. And there's also a measurement issue here, right? The definition of what counts is like a healthy food store is built around a USDA framework that I'm not super confident is going to be complete,

right? It could be missing some things. Actually, do you know anything about this? Because I feel like that's also always flexible, right? Like, it must sell produce so they keep an onion. on the counter and they're like, here's your Cheetos. I don't know. I mean, well, the standard definition looks for large supermarkets aligned with USDA guidelines, which they change too and they're not perfect. But a Vietnamese fish market with fresh veggies, a Mexican taco stand with fresh meat and produce, or a West African grocery carrying plantains and fermented fish and greens, these offer fresh, nutritious food and still might not qualify under the official definition, even though they provide real nutritious, culturally appropriate food.

So a neighborhood could be counted as a food desert while actually having rich, healthy food options that the government maybe doesn't see because they're measuring with the wrong ruler. Exactly. Because it doesn't look like whole foods. And if your map ignores farm stands, farmers markets, and other local food sources people actually rely on, it's going to miss parts of the real food environment. And those blind spots aren't culturally neutral. So now we've got misdiagnosis, mismeasurement, and misdirected policy.

That is a tough combo. Yeah, it is. And the result is communities getting these ribbon cuttings instead of solutions that actually make an impact. What would make a real difference here? Because now we just subsidized the problem and that's it. Yeah. So in 2024, the federal government spent about $9.3 billion. on commodity crop subsidies. Corn alone accounted for about $3 billion, roughly a third of the total.

Soybeans were next at $1.9 billion, followed by cotton, wheat, and rice. And what do those crops become? I mean, you know, we all pretty much know corn becomes high fructose corn syrup or livestock feed, corn starch, corn oil, and ethanol. Soybeans become soybean oil, which is another major ingredient. in processed and ultra-processed foods and livestock feed, and the most heavily subsidized crops in America are the raw ingredients for ultra-processed junk food and cheap meat. And what happens to the prices of this?

From the mid-1980s through the 2010s, the real price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose substantially, while the real prices of sugar-sweetened beverages and other processed food ingredients generally fell. So at the exact same time, we're building grocery stores to improve diets. Yeah. Oof, we were making unhealthy food cheaper the whole time with federal policy. That is, that's terrible. Oh my gosh. Yeah. And fruits and vegetables receive less than 10% of farm subsidies. Wow. What? Why? I know. The crops that become junk food receive most of it. So we've engineered a system where the unhealthy choice is often the affordable one, then spend more money trying to fix the consequences through programs aimed at the resulting

health crisis. This is interesting because I went to Norway, I've been to a bunch of European countries and stuff like that, Germany, France, Italy, whatever. And I was young. So I would go to McDonald's because I'm like, I don't need to eat at a fancy restaurant, but I'm hungry right now and I'm getting what I know because I'm in high school or college. and it's freaking expensive over there, man. Norway, everything is expensive,

but I remember going to McDonald's, and I spent like $28 on the big value meal. It wasn't called a value meal there, but it was like the Big Mac thing. And I remember going at the checkout, I go, what? Oh my God, and the checkout girl goes, oh, yeah, you're used to American prices, Han. I was like, yeah, I can't believe it.

She's like, everything here's expensive, but your fast food is so cheap. I guess she had gone to visit the United States with her cousin or friend or something. I forget the story, the woman working at McDonald's. And she was like, I couldn't believe that this meal was like $6 in America. I just couldn't believe it. And I thought, how is this possible?

But it never occurred to me that, oh, yeah, the raw ingredients are basically free because they're subsidized into oblivion in the United States. And they have to pay real prices for everything over there theoretically, right? And they have to import a bunch of stuff, too, probably. Yeah. I mean, you've probably seen all the. The reels and things of people coming from overseas for the World Cup, just amazed at what's going on with our food supply and costs and choices. I have seen that. I've seen a lot of reels also where they're asking them, like, do you think Americans could handle the heat wave that's going on in the UK right now?

And they're like, no way, no way. The Americans could never handle it. And then the guy's like, do you realize that it's 10 degrees to 20 degrees hotter in America right now and every year that it is right here? Because it's like 84 in London and everyone's like, oh my God, it's so hot. And it's like, yeah, I'm in Austin, Texas right now. And it's 104. Right. But they don't have air conditioning like we do either. They don't. Or even in the Pacific Northwest here, Seattle, the air conditioning business is booming because

nobody used to have it. Yeah, global warming. Good for the HVAC guys. Yes. So let me make sure I understand this. The federal government spends billions of dollars making jobs. making junk food cheaper. Then it spends millions trying to undo the consequences by building grocery stores in neighborhoods where junk food is still the cheaper option. So a pint of blueberries

cost more than a family-sized bag of purple tachies or whatever. I don't even know what those are. I've seen them. And then we're surprised that people buy the purple tachies. That's not a nutrition policy. This is an administrative nervous breakdown that failed Econ 101. Right. Exactly. And what makes it worse is that the food desert solution, it's politically easy. You fund a supermarket, you get a ribbon cutting, a press conference, a grateful mayor, maybe the first lady. Reforming the farm bill means taking on some of the most powerful agricultural lobbying interests in Washington, corn, soybean, and sugar producers, the commodity crop associations, the people who've been shaping agricultural policy for generations. They don't lose. And then the general

public who doesn't take this deep dive into research like we are just thinks, oh, food desert, build a store. That's the solution, you know? Sure. Oh, they can't drive to the whole food. So get them one that's closer. Yeah. Problem solved. So we do the easy visible thing that doesn't even work rather than the hard invisible thing that might actually make a dent in the problem. I mean, that seems to be the pattern of a lot of public health policy, unfortunately. Totally. So if building grocery stores is not the answer, what is the answer? What is the answer? What actually works? Price.

That's the clearest answer. Studies found that subsidizing healthy foods for low-income households, specifically, like making fruits and vegetables financially competitive with junk food, could close the nutrition gap entirely. Their estimate was about $11 billion a year, roughly 15% of the SNAP budget at the time. SNAP is, that's food assistance in the United States. Can you define SNAP for anyone listening who might? not know. I don't even, I just call it food stamps. Is that even a thing anymore? Probably not.

It is food stamps. It's just we don't use the physical stamps anymore because, you know, tech took over. So SNAP is the supplemental nutrition assistance program, but yes, essentially it's food stamps. The USDA says federal SNAP spending was about $99.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year. So we're talking about a meaningful number here, but not some unamese. imaginable number, especially compared with years of spending on place-based retail strategies that produced tiny effects. That is not a hard calculation. It's not.

And there's another intervention here that I think is genuinely promising. Online grocery purchasing with SNAP. So instead of building a store and hoping the people who face the biggest mobility barriers can get to it, you let them use benefits for pickup or delivery. The SNAP benefits traditionally could only be used at physical stores. The USDA has recently allowed online SNAP purchasing to expand nationally, and both DoorDash and Instacart now supports SNAP and EBT purchases with participating retailers. This targets the mobility constrained, the car-free, and low-income households who face the most real geographic barriers.

So instead of hoping they will come to the new service, store, you can bring the groceries to them. Okay, but online grocery shopping isn't some futuristic government innovation. My neighbors are all using Instacard that my kids could use DoorDash. I don't let them, but they could. And people use Uber eats. Grocery delivery already exists. Target comes over a bunch of times when my wife isn't like, I need to go to Target. And I'm like, I have them drop it off. And she's like, I need to leave the house and go to Target for one hour. And I'm like, ah, okay, got it. But why isn't that just the answer? Does that not exist everywhere? Am I just living in some sort of weird delivery bubble? No, definitely not, but access is not the

same thing as affordability. So one Brookings Institution study looked at grocery delivery in 2021 and found that 93% of Americans, including about 90% of people living in these USDA to find food deserts, had access to fresh groceries or prepared food through at least one of four major delivery platforms, Amazon Fresh, Instacart, Uber Eats, or Walmart. And that's actually a higher share than households with broadband internet, which is only about 86%. So yes, the digital reach for delivery is real. Wait, more people could get groceries delivered than had internet to order them. Yeah, right. Now delivery markets have changed since 2020. 21, with some areas expanding and others contracting, so those exact numbers have almost certainly

shifted. But the broader point still holds. For many Americans, physical proximity to a grocery store is no longer the only way to access one. I see. Okay. So problem solved by Silicon Valley and apps, Pat's self-on-back, I guess. I don't know. I mean, not quite, but here's where it gets complicated, of course. Yes, the delivery zone coverage is extraordinary. DoorDash alone says it reaches over 11 million people living in USDA defined food deserts. And then you look at what it actually costs and see a price problem. Here it comes. Yeah, so Instacart says directly on its help pages that some retailers charge higher item prices on the platform than they do in stores. What I've read, that seems to me to mean every store charges higher.

And then you have the fees we've all seen on these apps, and that applies on top of the higher prices. So SNAP can cover eligible food items, but it does not cover delivery fees, service fees, or tips, which means a SNAP recipient using delivery is actually spending their food budget on food and spending their limited cash on fees. So when researchers and journalists have done,

side-by-side comparisons of the same grocery cart bought in store versus ordered through Instacart. The total comes out to roughly 35 to 50% more expensive all in. So the groceries are covered, but the logistics still aren't. And a $30 grocery run turns into 50 bucks, which is probably the same as an Uber or round-trip public transit to the store anyway. Yeah, I mean, it's probably cheaper. And that all matters because those logistics costs hit low-income housing. households hardest. Sure, of course, yeah. A delivery surcharge is annoying if you're affluent. Yeah, if I notice it, I get angry. That's why I just have Jen order. And you might tip the driver a little

less because you're paying all these fees, but it doesn't, it's prohibitive if you are living paycheck to paycheck. So the people with the strongest reason to use delivery are the least able to absorb the extra cost. So what we really need is a federally subsidized dash pass. Is that a thing? Yeah, I mean, that's a good idea. It's not exactly a thing, but some SNAP recipients can get discounted memberships through certain delivery services, but there isn't some universally federal funded dash pass. And even with those programs, delivery fees and markups, there's still a barrier. Yeah, that's not really solving the problem. It's just changing who gets charged for it. Right. And to be fair, the platforms are not

completely indifferent to this. DoorDash does have a program called Project Dash. where it partners with food banks and charitable organizations to deliver food to food and secure households at no cost. And since launching in 2018, they've powered more than 5 million deliveries and more than 100 million meals. They did a lot of really good work during the pandemic. Instacart offers a discounted Instacart Plus membership for eligible SNAP users. So when the federal government briefly threatened to freeze SNAP payments in late 2025, Doordash and Instacart both stepped up with emergency fee waivers and discounts for SNAP users. But those are patches.

They're not a structural fix. Of course, those are charitable gestures. But charity from big tech companies is not a sustainable policy. Of course not. And there's another issue coming fast behind this one. If more low-income households are getting groceries through delivery apps, then the app itself becomes part of the food environment. So DoorDash's own data shows that lower income consumers use the platform at similar rates to wealthier ones.

What does the algorithm show you first when you open the app? What gets promoted on the home screen in a low-income zip code versus a wealthier one? You know, are the sponsored products, chips and soda or produce? What gets discounted? You know, is it buy one, get one free candy or is it fresh fruit? And it's just like any other algorithm. it's based off, if you're only door dashing fast food, it's always going to promote fast food, not, you know, produce at the market. I'm looking at mine right now, and it's basically just stuff I've recently ordered, and then it's like clearly targeting me for Asian food because we order a bunch of that for my kids.

So it's like, oh, you haven't tried this Udon place. You haven't tried this place. And then if you scroll a little further, the constant advertisers are 7-Eleven and McDonald's and Burger King and stuff like that. And then, yeah, there's a lot of like, hey, did you forget? And it's like, order some Twizzlers. But I think everyone probably gets that because I've never DoorDash anything like that in my life. But they're the ones who have these huge chains are the ones that have a budget to advertise nationally on DoorDash. Think about that. Seven and Eleven's already more expensive than a regular grocery store. So then all those fees on top of it, I mean,

they're making bank, I bet. So we basically taught the food swamp how to use an algorithm. That's not good. Yeah, that's exactly the concern. We may be moving from a physical food swamp to a digital one. You can survive on dollar store food. You just can't live that long. Here are some healthier financial decisions. We'll be right back. Thank you for listening to and supporting the show.

All of the deals and discounts are searchable and clickable on the website at Jordan Harbinger.com slash deals. Please consider supporting those who support the show. Now for the rest of Skeptical Sunday. So the old problem was at the store, was too far away. Then it turns into the store that comes to you, but only if you can afford the fees. And now it might be that the store comes to you, charges you extra, and the algorithm may be nudging you towards junk and crap food the whole time. That's worse, actually.

Yeah, it is. It's hard to design policy for a world that didn't exist 10 minutes ago, though, you know. But all of this kind of assumes people can even get online. Broadband, is that universal now? I remember my cousin who lived up north in Michigan didn't get it. He took it like 20 extra years to get internet that wasn't dial-up? I think it's still about 15% of the United States doesn't have broadband, which is shocking. I mean, it sounds small maybe at the surface, but that's a shockingly large amount of people who don't have... But how big of a problem is that?

Because don't most people then have smartphones in those areas? So, yeah, they can't play call of duty at a reasonable speed on Xbox. But, like, their phone still works for internet and ordering, right? Of course. But it also changes every day. I don't know, actually. They don't know what the connection is between crummy Wi-Fi service and broadband and your ability to get groceries delivered. I'm not really sure if there's any research on that whole connection.

But, you know, it's the last mile problem of the last mile solution. We've dramatically expanded delivery coverage, but Internet access hasn't always kept up the pace in places. So while 93% of Americans have delivery coverage, like I said, I think only around 86% have really good broadband. And it's significantly lower in certain low-income urban and rural communities. So you can live in a food desert where Instacart delivers, but 25% of households might not reliably access the app. Okay. So but still delivery works for the people who can access it. smartphone, reliable internet, a payment method, and enough extra cash to absorb the fees.

Right, but take away just one of those and the solution becomes theoretical. You know, it's kind of a gated solution. Yeah, okay. All right. So what about the other political instinct here, which is just to restrict what people can buy with SNAP? You can't buy soda and junk food, problem solves. And I know people get really angry about that, but like, okay, how else are we supposed

to nudge behavior? We don't want kids smoking, so we make it illegal for them to buy the cigarettes. Right. And a lot of people look at it the same way because it does seem like it's almost a compassionate kind of logic, right? But the evidence there is very mixed. Some studies show modest improvements. Other show substitution. People just shift how they spend. And overall diet doesn't improve much. There are the tradeoffs like stigma, administrative complexity, and the basic question. question of whether restricting choices works if you haven't changed the underlying drivers of those choices. I don't know. I'm kind of torn on this one. On the one hand, it feels really, it does feel paternalistic to tell adults what they're allowed to eat. And on the other hand, I don't know, man, if taxpayers are funding a nutrition program, isn't it reasonable to expect that the money goes towards nutritious food? I mean, I don't, maybe I care less about what adults eat, but like,

it's child abuse, what you're feeding your kids at this point. You know, maybe I'm I don't let you buy that with my tax dollars. I don't know. We already limit SNAP to food purchases, right? You can't buy smokes and stuff with SNAP. So why not limit it to healthier food? I understand why people hear that and think, yeah, what's the problem? Come on, man.

But it assumes the problem is the shopping cart. Okay. Well, forget politics for a second. If SNAP recipients could only buy healthier foods, would that even improve diets or is that not also going to work? It wouldn't improve diets very much. According to the evidence, the shopping cart is the end of the story, not the beginning. So if unhealthy food is still the cheapest option, it's the easiest option, the most heavily marketed option, and the most familiar option.

Restricting a handful of products doesn't change the forces that got people there in the first place. Plus, you're telling people what not to buy while leaving everything that made them want to buy it in the first place intact. Okay, but we got to start somewhere. So what does shake things up on something like this? It really all comes down to education and education done well. Not generic nutrition advice, but culturally competent programs that work without people actually eat. So you don't tell someone to abandon their food. You help them adjust it, ingredients, methods, substitutions. You teach someone why olive oil is different from corn oil. Some people don't understand the difference

of when they're looking at the shelf of what all that is. And then you show them how to make the food they already love slightly healthier. You may get further than any supermarket ever could because knowledge shapes preference over time and preference is the thing the supermarket never touched. What about community input here?

Because one thing that keeps coming up is that maybe people didn't actually want the solution. we built for them. Yeah, I mean, that's a big blind spot. Some communities have pushed back on chain supermarkets, not because they oppose healthy food, but because of what those stores bring with them. So profits leave the neighborhood. Local businesses get displaced. The store stock's national brands instead of the food people actually prepare locally. Meanwhile, the local bodega, imperfect as it is, knows the community. They often extend credit. They stock culturally relevant foods. That matters and it matters a lot. This all reframe something like the

Pittsburgh store closing. Maybe it wasn't just a failed intervention. Maybe it was feedback. Right. The community was saying, this isn't what we need. We never asked for this. It's a familiar pattern with policy, right? The problem is diagnosed by people far outside the environment in the community and they prescribe the solution and then they act all surprised when people don't use it, even though the community was never part of the conversation. I feel like we have this conversation about mass transit and stuff, too. It's like, oh, we need more buses. We need more trains.

And then they build a subway in L.A. And people are like, we got a subway in L.A.? Right, because no one uses it. It looks, it's like so clean you could eat off the floor because it's had three passengers in the past three days. Right, exactly. Yeah. Isn't actress slash comedian Tiffany Haddish? Isn't she kind of a champion for building grocery stores where she grew up?

So she kind of gets what the problem is. Yeah, she is. And that's actually just a terrific example of someone who seems to intuitively understand what all this research is saying. So her loyalty to Compton led her project called Diaspora Groceries, and it's not just a grocery store. She wants it to become a community hub in South Los Angeles. She's talked about cooking classes because, as she points out, Home Depot teaches people how to use power tools, but grocery stores don't teach people. how to use healthy food.

She wants financial literacy classes attached to the store, offer housing advice, and then just have shelves stocked with products from local and minority-owned businesses. So more of the money stays in the neighborhood. You know, it's a much broader vision than simply saying, here's a supermarket. That's interesting because it sounds like she's solving

more than a food problem. She is. She's trying to build community, education, and economic opportunity alongside access to healthy food. Whether her project succeeds or not, say whatever you want about her, what she's doing,

it's much closer to where the evidence points than the old idea that you can just drop a grocery store into a neighborhood and everyone's diet will change for the better. Yeah, that's cool. She's trying to build the conditions that make a grocery store matter in the first place.

Another thing policymakers get wrong is time. Most of the evidence we've talked about looks at outcomes over a few months or a few years. But there's a researcher named Stefan Hutt who used 11 years of data plus a retrospective survey going back several decades. And he found something remarkable. People who move into healthier food environments do change their behavior. But it takes decades. We're talking 30 to 40 years. Great.

Okay, well, wamp, womp. That actually makes a ton of sense, though. I mean, we know environments can nudge behavior over time. Cigarette smoking did not collapse overnight. It took decades of changing prices and advertising and social norms and availability before the culture really shifted. And that still hasn't even happened everywhere. Right. Right. And it's a bit like we've known smoking was bad for you since the end of World War II or something. I mean, come on, man. So yeah, that's kind of bad news. Like, hey, nutrition. education, yeah, okay, tell your grandkids not to eat that then. Oh, that's awful. Right. Well, we just know culture changes slowly, habits form slowly. If you grow up in a neighborhood where buying fresh food is normal, expected and easy, that may become part of how you eat as an adult. But easy isn't just about distance. Like we said, it's also about time. You know, if you're working those rotating shifts and two jobs or you work overnight hours, the grocery store might be closed when you're off work while the gas station, waffle house, or drive-through is still open. So there's short-term evidence

says simply opening a supermarket doesn't meaningfully change diets. But over a generation, as those environments and routines change, it's possible we're measuring just too early to see the full effect. So we might be right that supermarkets don't change behavior in the short run, but then in the long run, they might actually change behavior? It's so complicated. Yeah. The short and medium term evidence says that access alone doesn't meaningfully change diets. But long term, it might be.

It's plausible. But we just don't have definitive answers yet, which is a problem because policy runs on election cycles. So a lot of these programs have four years to show results. And that might be the single biggest driver of bad public. health policy in American history, the mismatch between the pace of political timelines and the pace of social and biological change. But it could take 30 years to see the changes. Democracy is not optimized for slow moving problems, right? What can we say to somebody who cares deeply about food justice and sees that these solutions don't work? You were right about the problem. You were right

that it's structural, that it's unjust, that it demands a response. With the evidence challenge, challenges is not the diagnosis. It's the prescription. So the system is still driving poor health through subsidies that make junk food artificially cheap, through fast food saturation, through targeted marketing, through retail environments that steer people's behavior, and through business models that just block better options like the dollar stores. I see. So those are the levers, but they seem harder to pull and they don't come with fancy ribbon cuttings. You don't get a plaque for that. Right, but they're the ones that matter. So if you could change one thing tomorrow based on all your research here, what would it be? Well, I think I would change a couple things if I could.

So first, restructure the farm bill and reform agricultural subsidies. So healthy food is the cheap option, not the expensive one. Second, expand and support delivery access in a way that actually works for low-income households, not just theoretically, but financially. And third, invest in community-driven, culturally grounded nutrition programs and give communities real authority over what gets built in their neighborhoods. Stop making these decisions in D.C. and make them with the people in the community. And not one of those involves building a supermarket, and that's coming from somebody who used to think building supermarkets was the solution. Okay. Yeah, this data changed my mind, and it should change our policy.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to think a lot harder the next time somebody says, Oh, just build a grocery store there. There's a food desert over here. It turns out that changing what people eat is a heck of a lot more complicated than changing where they shop. Thanks, Jess. Those who are hungry for knowledge on this topic should find themselves quite full at this point. And thank you all for listening. Topic suggestions for future episodes of Skeptical Sunday to me, Jordan at Jordan Harbinger.com.

Advertisers, deals, discounts, ways to support the show, all at Jordan Harbinger.com slash deals. I'm at Jordan Harbinger on Twitter and Instagram. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn. Jessica is on her substacks between the lines and where shadows linger. We'll link to those in the show notes. Her work is also on Instagram at Never Met Jessica's, plural. And this show is created an association with Podcast 1. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jace Sanderson, Tata Silaluskis, Robert Fogarty, Ian Baird, Gabriel Mizrahi,

and our advice and opinions, they're our own. And yeah, I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. Also, we try to get all this stuff as right as we can. Not everything is gospel, even if it is fact-checked. So do consult a qualified professional before applying anything you hear on the show, especially if it's about your health and well-being. Remember, we rise by lifting others. Share the show with those you love.

If you found the episode useful, please share it with somebody else who could use a good dose of the skepticism and knowledge we doled out today. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show so you can live what you learn, and we'll see you next time. You'd never obey a stranger who called you and told you to commit a crime, right? Javier Leva uncovers how ordinary, intelligent people were manipulated by fake authority into doing the unthinkable and why the certainty that you'd never fall for it could make you the perfect target.

This is the con, because I interview a lot of con artists. What they do is they overwhelm you. They raise your sense of urgency, which now you're bypassing all your common sense. Things that would normally make sense to us, we're not even thinking about that, right? Because we're like in a state of alarm. We're hardwired to trust people. People obey because we're taught.

to respect authority. I found case after case of people impersonating ice agents and doing all kinds of stuff, not just rape or violent crime, extortion, like all kinds of stuff. And I was like, you know what? You could go to a Baspro shop and buy your ice uniform, right? And you could pull off whatever you want, because people respect authority.

People are afraid of authority, and they will most likely do what you say. And you might fall for it. This is just the tip of the iceberg, man. When somebody causes a sense of urgency and you bypass your logic, just slow it down, pause it, give yourself some time to think. Because when you're acting out of fear, you're making bad decisions. And I think just doing that will save you a lot of grief. This stuff is insane and is probably the most extreme examples.

But I think that just have that in the back of your mind that some people are looking to take advantage of you. just have a healthy dose of skepticism. Find out how to recognize the trap before your judgment and your life unravels on episode 1330 of the Jordan Harbinger Show.