ETH 316 Week 4 Analyzing a Social Issue Example

Food Deserts From Four Viewpoints: A Social Issue at the Center of a Grocery Chain's Decisions

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

ETH/316: Ethics and Social Responsibility

Week 4 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Crossroads Fresh Markets, its stores and the people quoted are composites written for a model paper; the research cited is real.

Earlier weeks examined whether Crossroads Fresh Markets, a composite 42-store chain in central Indiana, should close its money-losing east side Indianapolis store, which would leave about 9,000 residents more than two miles from a full-service grocer. Behind that decision lies a wider social issue: limited access to healthy, affordable food in low-income neighborhoods. This paper analyzes that issue.

The Issue and Its Scale

The U.S. Department of Agriculture identifies low-income census tracts where a significant number of residents live more than a mile, in urban areas, from a supermarket. Millions of Americans live in such areas. In Indianapolis, several east and near-north side neighborhoods meet the definition, and residents without cars depend on buses or convenience stores. Concerns center on diet and health: if healthy food is hard to reach, people may eat more processed food, contributing to diabetes, obesity and heart disease, which are more common in low-income communities.

What the Research Says

Walker et al. (2010) reviewed U.S. studies of food access and found that low-income, minority and rural neighborhoods often had fewer supermarkets and more convenience stores than wealthier areas, and that the evidence linking access to diet and health was suggestive but inconsistent. Later studies tested whether opening stores changes behavior. Cummins et al. (2014) studied a new supermarket in a Philadelphia neighborhood and found that residents' perceptions of food access improved, but their fruit and vegetable intake and body mass index did not change compared with a similar neighborhood. Allcott et al. (2019) used national purchase data and found that when households gained a new supermarket nearby, their healthy eating changed little, and that most of the nutrition gap between high- and low-income households reflected differences in demand, shaped by preferences, knowledge and habits, rather than differences in store access.

These findings do not mean access is irrelevant. Residents without cars still spend more time and money reaching food, and convenience stores charge more. But they suggest that stores alone will not close the gap in diets.

A store two miles closer makes groceries easier to buy; it does not by itself change what people choose to cook.

Four Viewpoints

Residents. Residents interviewed for the composite case see the issue as one of fairness and dignity. An older woman who walks to the store said losing it would mean "a bus and a half to buy milk." Many value the store as a place where staff know them. For residents, access is about time, cost and community, not only nutrition.

Grocers. Grocers operate on margins of 1 to 3 percent. Stores in low-income areas often have lower sales per square foot, higher theft and higher costs. From this view, staying open at a loss is unsustainable, and asking grocers to subsidize neighborhoods is unfair when other businesses face no such expectation.

Public health advocates. Advocates see food access as part of a larger set of conditions shaping health, including income, education and transportation. Given the research, many now argue for combined approaches: stores, nutrition education, incentives for buying produce with food assistance benefits and better transit.

Government. Cities and states have offered financing programs to attract grocers, including Indianapolis's support for stores in underserved areas. Government's view emphasizes public-private partnership, though budgets are limited and results of past programs are mixed.

The Price Question

Access is not only about distance. Research on food prices shows that healthy food often costs more per calorie than processed food, and households on tight budgets stretch dollars by buying calorie-dense items. A family receiving food assistance benefits may live a mile from a supermarket and still find fresh produce hard to afford. This is why several cities and states now offer programs that match food assistance dollars spent on fruits and vegetables. For a grocer, taking part in such programs is one of the few ways it can affect what customers buy, not only where they shop.

What Crossroads's Own Data Show

The east side store's sales data tell a similar story. Its customers buy produce at about the same rate per visit as customers in suburban stores, but they make fewer visits and spend less per trip. Store managers report that many customers shop on the days food assistance benefits are loaded and buy less later in the month. Closing the store would add travel costs to these trips, but keeping it open does not by itself change the monthly budget pattern that shapes diets.

Applying Ethical Theories

A utilitarian analysis asks which actions produce the most benefit. Given the research, the greatest benefit likely comes from combining access with affordability and education, not from stores alone. A justice-based view, drawing on the idea that basic goods should be fairly available, holds that residents should not bear greater burdens to obtain food because of where they live. Care ethics emphasizes the relationships a long-standing store maintains. Each supports some role for business, but none suggests that one grocer alone should carry the burden.

Position

Grocers like Crossroads should not abandon low-income neighborhoods when stores become unprofitable, but they also cannot solve food access alone. Crossroads should pursue the alternatives proposed in Week 1, a smaller store format with city financing, and partner with health organizations to offer produce incentives for customers using food assistance benefits. If it must close, it should support transit and delivery options. The strongest counterargument is that no business should be expected to run unprofitable operations for social reasons. That is fair, which is why the position calls for shared action and public support, not unlimited private subsidy.

Conclusion

Food deserts are a real social issue, but research shows that access is only part of the problem. Residents, grocers, health advocates and government each see the issue through their own concerns. Ethical theories support a role for business within a shared response, which for Crossroads means staying engaged with the east side through partnerships rather than either leaving abruptly or carrying the full burden alone.

References

Allcott, H., Diamond, R., Dubé, J.-P., Handbury, J., Rahkovsky, I., & Schnell, M. (2019). Food deserts and the causes of nutritional inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 1793-1844. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz015

Cummins, S., Flint, E., & Matthews, S. A. (2014). New neighborhood grocery store increased awareness of food access but did not alter dietary habits or obesity. Health Affairs, 33(2), 283-291. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0512

Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16(5), 876-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013