Our class today dealt with two conflicting ideas of how lower income families manage their food, and its relation to a communities overall health. Our reading, Examining the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health in Chicago by Marie Gallagher, promoted the idea of Food Desserts and the correlation of these deserts to the years of potential life lost (YPLL.) Our speaker today, Catherine Gillis, shared with us her work titled Social Class and Cultural Meanings of Eating: Evidence from Chicago. Conversely, her study unsubstantiated the relation between Food Desserts and public health. This discontinuity prompted for an interesting discussion on the "yea or nae's" of piece.
The Gallagher piece found a connection between the level of public health in an area and its food desert status. In order to do this, Gallagher developed a formula which she labeled the food balance score; this score demonstrated the ratio of grocery to fast food establishments. Thus, the formula (distance from census tract center to the nearest grocery store (this was divided into even smaller sub-levels by distance to small grocer and chain grocer) divided by the distance to the nearest fast food establishment) represented a person's access to food. By using one as average (meaning it was equidistant to a grocer and a fast food restaurant), the ratio was scaled. Numbers far above one had an overall worse health outcome (closer to a fast food restaurant), than those below one (closer to grocery stores.)
Subsequently, Gallagher compared this Food Balance Score (FBS) to race, income, public health, and YPLL. She determined the Food Deserts occurred predominately in African American communities. When compared to the 2000 census data, these were also the communities with some of the lowest incomes. The subsequent racial groups in order from a lower to higher FBS were diverse, Latino, and white communities; however, all these communities were above the average (FBS 1) line.
In addition, she drew a inverse correlation between a communities food desert status and a communities health. This conclusion remained true when broken down into subsections of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and liver disease. As the food desert disparity went up, the level of health decreased. One flaw in the study developed during Gallagher's discussion of how body mass index (BMI) related to the food access scores (by zipcode.) As a result, Gallagher stipulated that the main cause of a communities public health level was its access to food.
As demonstrated on her map, several of the areas with the highest BMI's had the best possible food scores. This major discrepancy appears to have been overlooked, or at the very least unexplained, in her work and disproves some of her previous points. Thus, causing the reader to become skeptical of her findings.
Countering Gallagher's findings, Gillis determined that the main cause of a communities public health level was not its access to food. In reaching her conclusion, Gillis and her partner interviewed twenty-seven individuals at the local Women, Infant, and Children (WIC is a government subsidized supplemental nutrition program) store. By conducting semi-structured interviews, Gillis placed her primary focus on what low income people value about food, what they eat, and how their food choices are shaped.
She concluded that the general stereotype of lower income communities eating more fast, unhealthy food was inaccurate; in reality, she determined there was a wide variety in people's food decisions. However, several general patterns did emerge. Her findings concluded that lower income families establish an elaborate food network of friends and family (she also determined that food was embedded deep in family relationships) and that, contrary to popular belier, the majority of lower income families spend less of their food budget eating out. In the conclusion of her research, Gillis stated that proximity to healthy food was not the main determinant of community health as lower income residents health choices are too varied to account for a communities overall health.
One of the main disparities I saw between the two pieces was the research method. Gallagher placed her focus on mathematical formulas, statistics, and raw numbers whereas Gillis focused more on the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of food. This difference in methodology is most likely the root cause of their disagreement;however, it is impossible to determine, without further research, which study is more accurate.
Today is my last blog for this wonderful class. Alongside my classmates and amazing professors, I have gained a deeper appreciation for and understanding of the city of Chicago. In addition, I have gained valuable information on how communities are shaped and the role of Urban planners and sociologists in society.
No comments:
Post a Comment