Planning for Food Security

There's an incisive article on food access by Tom Angotti, posted today on the Gotham Gazette web site. The piece examines the dangerous trend in supermarket disappearance and also the extent to which city planners can make a difference in providing access to healthy foods in city neighborhoods: "On retail strips all over the city, skyrocketing rents are forcing food retailers out. Instead of groceries, boutiques, banks and drug chains have set up shop. This alarming decline in supermarkets has reduced options for healthy nutritional choices, a recent New York Times article warned. In place of grocery stores, consumers often have to rely on fast food outlets that offer few healthy choices, or other retail outlets like chain-operated drug stores that sell a limited stock of packaged foods."

Angotti takes a look at the recently released City Planning report on supermarkets and is underwhelmed: "The study cites the public benefits that supermarkets bring to neighborhoods as well as barriers confronting food retailers... In light of the magnitude of the problem, the recommendations in the study appear a bit anemic, failing to take an in-depth look at the many ways land use planning can make a difference."

In particular, he points out that unilaterally removing the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation on supermarkets in industrial zones is unlikely to reverse the trend of supermarket loss: "For example, the report calls for removing the limit of 10,000 square feet for food retailers in light manufacturing districts. City Planning, though, proposed this in the 1990s only to see it defeated in the face of widespread concern that the measure would lead to a rush of big box stores and threaten the viability of industrial areas. After the department's recent spate of rezonings throughout the city, there is less industrially zoned land near residential neighborhoods than there was then, but still no guarantee that rezoning them would bring anything but big boxes and condominiums."

Since we were intimately involved in that particular zoning battle we would tend to agree with Angotti. That doesn't mean, however, that selective rezonings of targeted industrial sites won't be helpful in certain areas. We part company with Professor Angotti when he gets all romantic on us with his rhapsody on herb gardening and food co-ops. The key challenge is to provide space for new markets and to insure that the older stores can afford to remain.

As Angotti points out, and we agree: "Increasing the amount of land available for retail space and supermarkets is only a part of the solution. More - and larger -- retail space in no way guarantees that food will be more accessible to those who need it the most, especially if retail rents are so high that only gourmet stores will survive. While supermarkets may offer more choices, they too can become high-end boutiques. Unless the strategy of opening up more land is accompanied by one that increases the demand for and access to low-cost healthy food, all the stores in the universe won't solve the problem."

The need is to insure that the local supermarket can afford to stay as real estate values rise: "Any policy must also insure long-term access. Unless it can be sustained through periods of real estate peaks and troughs, we will not have community food security - an internationally recognized concept used to plan for food that, if incorporated into New York City's food and land use policies, would help overcome the epidemics of diabetes and obesity."

Supermarket operators must be given the opportunity to purchase their sites; leasing is only a short-term solution that has become problematic all over the city has old leases expire and landlords look to gain maximum value from their properties. Angotti, however, sees commercial rent regulation as the only possible solution: "There is one regulatory measure the city (and state) could use to stop the rising rate of decline in food retailing space in neighborhoods - commercial rent control. It is the perpetual bane of the city's powerful real estate industry, but is probably the only thing that will work to stem the loss of neighborhood retailers."

We're not convinced that rent control's the answer, but we do feel that the neighborhood retailers of all stripes are rapidly becoming extinct as the invasion of the chains squeezes the life and uniqueness out of all the city's local shopping areas. The next mayor will certainly have a difficult job ahead to meet the local supermarket deficit challenge. That is, if Mayor Mike doesn't find some solid short term solutions in the year and a half he has left..

Food Policy Focus

The DMI blog, a perspective that we often have our disagreements with, has a post today on the issue of access to healthy food in low income neighborhoods. While we might disagree with the observation- "Far too often, the neighborhoods where the working poor live gets the short end of the stick when it comes to many of the services so many take for granted...The problem is especially clear in the struggles of people in low-income communities to get access to healthy foods."-we do agree that a policy of incentivizing the building of more supermarkets makes some good sense.

In particular, DMI points to the Fresh Food Financing Initiative that was a brainchild of the Food Trust out of Philadelphia, and the Healthy Food Retail Innovations Fund, a bil that is being considered by the California legislature. New York City and New York State need to develop this kind of a strategy in order to not only improve food access, but to also encourage minority entrepreneurship, since so many of the neighborhoods in question do have store owners who reflect the neighborhood's demographics.

The city has created a new food policy czar at the behest of Speaker Quinn, and the development of a city food policy needs to include a strong economic development piece; along with incentives to encourage the stocking of healthier food options. As we have commented before, an important component of this policy thrust should be the inclusion of a creative marking initiative in low income communities. This is precisely what the Health Corps is looking to do; bring the young people into the equation as promoters of healthier eating alternatives.

Healthy Economic Development

Speaking of supermarket development-and the mayor's nonfeasance in this area-it was refreshing to see that Governor Paterson elevated this issue in his outline of of this health issue. As he said in his SoS mnessage: "Our five-point plan includes the Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative, which offers a new revolving loan fund that will increase the number of healthy food markets in underserved communities."

And, as the UFCW Local 1500 wrote in a press release issued after the speech:

"United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500, New York State's and New York City’s largest Labor Union representing supermarket workers, applauded Governor David Patterson today for his announcement in the State of State of a Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative. Such an initiative includes $10 million dollars for revolving loans to food markets interested in locating in “underserved” communities.“Today Governor David Patterson showed that New York State is prepared to get serious about the health and economic consequences of our disappearing Supermarkets,” stated Bruce W. Both, President of United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 1500. President Both also serves as a member of the Governor’s Council on Food Policy and the New York City Supermarket Commission."

Now the logistics of this fund need to be worked out, and the locating of sites is crucial here as well, but this is clearly moving in a positive direction; supermarket development is both an economic as well as a health concern: "UFCW Local 1500 has spent the last 2 years working with State, County and City officials on the growing problem of disappearing supermarkets and its affect on the health and economies of communities. New York City’s own Department of City Planning conducted a report that concluded that New York City alone is need of over 100 full service Supermarkets.“When responsible supermarkets owners/operators open in communities, they bring excellent wages, healthcare and an improved standard of living. The community also gets access to healthy food, a greater number of products available, as well as the type of competition that forces reasonable pricing and improved product quality," said President Both."

Now if we can only get the city and state to work together on this, we might begin to see some headway-with zoning restrictions needing to be lifted so that certain sites can be developed in a reasonable manner. We're hopeful that the city council will jump on this so that economic and land use barriers can be lifted, and more supermarkets built.

City Food Policy Must Move Quickly

In today's NY Daily News, Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs outlines the city's efforts to address the public health crisis highlighted by the rising obesity and diabetes epidemics: "In spite of our success, we're still facing a public health crisis - but it stems more from poor nutrition than hunger. For example, obesity and diabetes are on the rise - particularly in low-income communities where access to fresh, healthy foods is limited. These diseases take a serious toll on individuals and families, as well as on our public health system, which is why Mayor Bloomberg has launched a coordinated campaign to improve access to fresh foods and to help New Yorkers understand the strong link between nutrition and overall health."

This is all much to the point, and we applaud the Bloombergistas recognition of the problem. And their focus on supermarkets is to be applauded considering the fact that so many markets have closed, as a recent City Planning report has underscored.

For instance, just yesterday we attended a rally in the North Bronx where local residents of Pelham Gardens rallied to keep their Met Food supermarket open. As NY1 reports: "A Bronx community is urging a landlord not to push out their supermarket to make way for a drug store chain. Council Member James Vacca says city records show Met Food in Pelham Gardens is in the process of being sold to Walgreens, who can pay higher rent. If the deal goes through, local residents say their area will be underserved by grocery stores."

And Councilman Vacca's right on point about the need for a city policy: "We want to keep people out of their cars, we want to give them access to fresh fruit and vegetables,” said Vacca. “This is citywide policy yet we have no policy to incentivize little supermarkets staying open. They can't compete against the big chain drug stores."

So Deputy Gibbs has a big job ahead. As she says: "We are looking at a variety of strategies to tackle the challenge, including using city-owned land for the development of new food markets and examining zoning in certain areas to ensure that we are not precluding the location of new food stores. In addition, the city's food coordinator will play a leadership role on the newly formed Supermarket Commission, a public/private partnership that will provide recommendations about how the city can get new supermarkets into neighborhoods."

And not a moment too soon, since the Bruckner Key Food is being pushed out and another Key Food in Bay Ridge will close in June. In addition, if NYU doesn't bargain in good faith, a Met Food on Second Avenue could soon become history.

So the city, as Gibbs tells us, feels that public health is a major priority: "Access to healthy foods is critical to the future health of all New Yorkers, and the Bloomberg administration will continue to play a leading role in advancing innovative new strategies that will make all five boroughs healthier places to live and raise families." If so, then it can't sit by while landlords evict supermarket tenants, and communities are stripped of vital food access.

We'll give the North Bronx's Met Food the final word here: “Sure, pain for ourselves as well,” said Met Food director of operations Fred Galella. “We've got a lot of senior citizens here and they've got some valid points, you know, they don't drive. There are drug stores everywhere.” And, if nothing is done, soon there will be more.

Food Geography

In the middle of the uproar over fruit and vegetable peddlers and the promotion of greenmarkets it is important to point out that there is a much better way to insure that all New Yorkers have access to healthy food. That way, pioneered by the Food Trust in Philadelphia and institutionalized by Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania, is the aggressive advocacy for the building of new supermarkets in previously underserved areas.

What all of the studies on the issue of health in minority neighborhoods indicate is that the situation could be dramatically improved by the public promotion of new supermarket development. As the Food Trust underscores, "Emerging evidence suggests that access to healthy food in neighborhoods is associated with a healthy promoting diet and that poor access is associated with poor health outcomes."

What is needed here is a public-private partnership on the lines proposed by Congresswoman Velasquez for the city's bodegas. The supermarkets and bodegas of New York City can play an important role in helping to educate its customers about eating healthier. At the same time, the city can do more to promote the economic health of these retail outlets and the development of new food outlets in areas that are identified as having health deficiencies (see a parallel discussion over at Gotham Gazette).

Eating Healthy in the Neighborhood

Once again the Gotham Gazette does a great service by focusing some attention on the problems of food access in low income areas of the city. As authors Josh Brustein and Gail Robinson point out there is a correlation between the high rates of obesity heart disease and diabetes in New York and the relative lack of good food options in some neighborhoods.. As they say, "These problems are particularly severe in low-income neighborhoods. The disparity of access to affordable, healthy food between New York's wealthy and poor neighborhoods is regularly cited as a factor..."

But how much of a factor is not something that anyone really has gotten a handle on. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a real good understanding of the supermarket industry in the city. Some of this stems from a continuation of the arguments that were made in the mid-nineties over the building of a Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem and Mayor Guiliani's mega store proposal.

According to the proponents of these two initiatives there were two unassailable truths: (1) low income neighborhoods had no real good quality supermarkets; and (2) the markets that they did have made "the poor pay more for less." Of course, this was the so-called study that was done by Mark Green's Department of Consumer Affairs that glossed over two even more salient facts: (1) prices of groceries in low income areas were lower than in the higher rent districts of wealthy Manhattan; and (2) there had been a veritable explosion of new supermarket expansion in many poorer neighborhoods of the city, an event that went unexamined in the face of all the hyperbolic victimology from some food advocates.

This mindset yields the following comment from Dr. Frieden, "It is not possible easily to get a healthy diet in many of the poorest neighborhoods of New York City." This is simply not true. As the Gazette story points out, bodegas are unlikely to carry fresh produce or things like low-fat milk but, "...almost every supermarket carries apples, oranges and bananas...supermarkets are also three times more likely to carry reduced fat milk." The story than goes on to say something that is so completely false that we'd have to question the entire underlying premise of the piece if we didn't know the underlying facts better.

Citing a study done by JC Dwyer the Gazette says, "Food stores generally lose money by carrying fresh fruit and vegetables, but supermarkets carry such products to attract customers." This is flatly untrue. Fresh produce is not a loss leader but a profit center. The problem lies with the demand side of the equation; people in low income areas are not buying the produce with the same degree of frequency that they are in wealthier areas. Supermarkets in the ghettos would love to reverse this trend and it would make a great deal of sense to develop a public-private partnership in this regard to encourage healthier buying patterns.

All of which doesn't mean that there is more that can be done to insure that greater access is made available. We continue to emphasize the need to incentivize further supermarket development in certain areas of the city that could use more stores and encourage advocates to work with the industry to accomplish this task.

Non-Kosher Food Fund?

The NY Daily News is continuing to report on the fact that a Kosher supermarket in Brooklyn has received $2 million to expand: "An angrily divided community board has voted to support a controversial tax break for a Midwood supermarket. Supporters and opponents of the $2 million tax break for Moisha's Discount Supermarket clashed at a raucous Community Board 12 meeting Tuesday night over the plan - and allegations district manager Wolf Sender lied to city officials when he said the board supported the subsidy, even though members had never considered it."

What's missing from the article, however, is the source of the funds-there is the city's Fresh Program that supports supermarket expansion; along with a similar state effort called, "Healthy Food and Healthy Communities Fund." It would be interesting to find out since the community here is not one that is typically seen as underserved.

The Karma Brooklyn Blog gives us an answer: "On February 3rd, the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA) held a hearing on an application to FRESH by Moisha's Kosher Discount Supermarket. The Project Description reads

Moisha’s Kosher Discount Supermarket, Inc. (“Moisha’s” or the “Company”) currently operates a 7,000 square foot retail supermarket in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. Moisha’s is seeking assistance through the Agency’s FRESH program to expand this facility to create an approximately 15,000 sq. ft. supermarket with parking for 45 cars."

As the Daily News pointed out in an earlier story, the grant to Moishe's is controversial-with CM Barron being the most vocal critic:  

"A politically connected Brooklyn supermarket is getting a $2 million tax break intended for neighborhoods desperate for grocery stores - even though it's got plenty of competition.Moisha's Kosher Discount Supermarket is to receive $1.93 million to double its size on Avenue M in Midwood. The money comes from the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health program - which targets neighborhoods in Central Brooklyn, northern Manhattan, the South Bronx and other neighborhoods where fresh food is hard to find. Even though Moisha's is outside the target zone, city officials say the neighborhood counts as "underserved."

To us, this means that the entire Fresh Program needs to be re-evaluated. Our own view-devloped from the experience of some of our good friends in the supermarket business-is that the effort is woefully inadequate, and will little to help assuage the city's loss of over 300 supermarkets in the past decade. The dominant question here, is how has the Fresh Program helped those areas most in need. Midwood is not one of those neighborhoods.

As the News points out, "The Daily News counted 10 markets within 5 blocks of the store, all selling fresh fruits and vegetables. Owners Moisha and Barry Binik and their families have doled out at least $41,690 in contributions to local pols in the last decade. "This is not an underserved neighborhood," said Louie Mancuso, 60, who lives across the street. "That's a fraud."

With Walmart poised to enter the city, and using the underserved food desert argument as part of their propaganda, it is important to take a look at all of the city's efforts to address the problems that local supermarkets face in their efforts to expand and become more profitable. The fact that Moisha's may have used its political influence to unfairly influence the selection process, raises questions of both equity and efficacy. In a strange way, Walmart's appropriation of the food access issue could become a catalyst to examine how effective-or not-the Bloombergistas have been in meeting the need for better access to fresh food.

Korean Cart Attack

In yesterday's NY Times City Section, the paper focuses on the growing Korean opposition to Intro 665-the Green Carts bill. The bill has thrown city hall into a larger turmoil than anyone could have predicted, owing to the haste and lack of due diligence that went into the crafting of the bill, and the failure of the sponsors to even consult or consider the impact that the measure would have on local stores. As we said in the paper: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small retailers, said the proposal, known as the Green Carts bill, would “cannibalize existing business.”

As this is being written, As Kirstin Danis highlights in yesterday's NY Daily News, the bill is undergoing a considerable makeover; a revision process that reflects concerns that were brought up by our lobbying effort, and the need to win over recalcitrant council members who had balked at the bill's original provisions. As Danis points out: "Not everyone likes to eat vegetables, but the City Council doesn't even want to vote for them.Council Speaker Christine Quinn and the city Health Department are working furiously to salvage a proposal that seemed like a slam-dunk when it was announced by Mayor Bloomberg and Quinn in December: putting street vendors in poor neighborhoods to sell fruits and vegetables."

In all likelihood, the revised bill will be brought to a vote this Wednesday, but the process has been unnecessarily arduous because greater care wasn't given to examining the merits as well as the impact of the legislation: "Privately, Council members complain the city didn't do its homework. Advocates assumed people don't eat vegetables because they can't get them. While that may be broadly true, the lack of block-by-block specifics gave Council members little ammo against a food industry that claims vendors will set up right outside established markets."

And while we are pleased with the concerned response of many council members we're kinda bemused by Danis' observation on the power of the "grocery lobby:" "The grocery lobby went nuts, and term-limited Council members got nervous about angering a richly financed opposition just as so many of them are angling for new jobs." This is quite an overstatement in our view. The reality is that the bill was poorly thought out, which made the case against it fairly easy to make.

What the controversy underscores, however, is the need to have a much greater degree of industry and labor collaboration before legislation is drafted that impacts the viability of neighborhood stores. The city appears ready to embrace this idea in the form of a supermarket commission that has been promoted even prior to this green cart fight by Ben Thomasses, the city's food policy coordinator.

The commission or task force, we're not sure what the final nomenclature will be, needs to be inclusive as well as diverse; and should be made to include all neighborhood food retailers not only supermarkets-particularly the Korean green grocers who have been so offended by the substance and process involved in the promotion of Intro 665.

Some of this is reflected in the Times piece: “This bill is totally unnecessary,” Sung Soo Kim, president of the Korean-American Small Business Service Center of New York, told a half-dozen reporters for Korean-American news outlets at a news conference on Thursday. He added: “There is plenty of access to produce. Why should we worry about access?”

This belief is central to the disagreement over the issue of access to fresh produce. Here's the health commissioner's view: "According to Dr. Thomas Frieden, the city health commissioner, the city is trying to encourage store owners to sell more produce, but many merchants have found that alcohol and cigarettes have higher profit margins. Noting that there were “very few greengrocers at all” in the proposed police precincts, Dr. Frieden said, “The carts might actually have a salutary effect on competition in these areas.”

Besides the fact that Frieden conflates green grocers with bodegas, his comments elide the fact that the areas that are designated in the bill are expansive-with neighborhoods that have a full complement of stores and those that don't. The Korean rejoinder is instructive: "Kangchul Park, director of the Korean Produce Association, acknowledged that few Korean grocers were in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, two areas that would be affected by the legislation. But he predicted that licensed vendors would stray into forbidden areas with a higher demand for fruit. “Eventually,” Mr. Park said, “they’ll find out the reason why there are no grocery stores where they are. And sooner or later, they’ll be tempted to move to where there are other grocery stores.”

The reality is that in the past three decades the 2,000 plus green grocers the arose in the city revolutionized the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in neighborhoods that had never seen them. If there are neighborhoods where they have yet to venture, than the odds are that those are areas where demand doesn't exist-and if Intro 665 had simply targeted these "food deserts" by the use of census track data rather than use police precincts as demarcation points, much of the uproar might well have been avoided. Danis observation is right on point:
"Advocates assumed people don't eat vegetables because they can't get them. While that may be broadly true, the lack of block-by-block specifics gave Council members little ammo against a food industry that claims vendors will set up right outside established markets."

As it stands now, we believe that the Danis point is the likelihood and that Mr. Park is probably correct. The desert neighborhoods in the designated access areas will likely be by-passed in favor of peddler saturation of shopping strips where the stores that sell produce already are located; an eventuality that would defeat the intent of the legislation.

The lesson is clear: city government needs to move quickly to create a climate of collaboration with all local business on the issue of access to healthy food. The locus of policy making needs to shift away from the department of health-an agency that appears to operate, not only with a callous disregard for the well-being of food retailers, but in an information vacuum as well when it comes to the importance of the local economies of the city's neighborhoods.

If we are going to have a successful food policy going forward, then the policy making process must begin with the input of those retailers, food wholesalers and the men and women who work in these outlets. Any other method is truly self-defeating, and literally puts the carts before the horse.

Hungry for Action

As Albor Ruiz is reporting, the city is experiencing a real hunger crisis: "Soon, if things keep going in the same direction, only the really rich will be able to live in New York City. For the rest of us, it may be wise to start considering other options. "C'mon, this guy is an alarmist," you may be thinking. But when it is no longer only the poorest among us who cannot afford food but also middle-income families, the time has come to, well, be alarmed."

Everything's going up, and all New Yorkers are feeling it. As one immigrant worker tells us: "The landlord raises the rent, the gas company raises the cost of gas, the supermarkets raise the price of food, the MTA raises the subway fare. ..." Durán said." All of which makes the disappearance of the local supermarket that much more compelling. The bodega and drug store are expensive alternatives that most folks with low incomes or fixed budgets can't afford.

The reality is that the local supermarket also can't afford the city either. Our friends at the Food Bank are charting this crisis: "And low-income workers are no longer the only ones struggling, as made clear by NYC Hunger Experience 2008, the fifth in a series of Food Bank of New York-commissioned reports tracking the difficulty city residents have affording needed food. The report was released last week at City Hall. "While the hardest hit are our city's poorest and most vulnerable, record numbers of middle-income families are joining the ranks of New Yorkers who are having difficulty affording needed food," said Lucy Cabrera, president and CEO of the Food Bank."

Middle class New Yorkers are feeling the squeeze: "Those middle-class New Yorkers making $50,000 to $74,000 - many of them highly educated - are supposed to be, if not well off, at least not in major financial straits either. Yet they were among the hardest hit. In that group, 27% said it was difficult to afford food - a dramatic jump from 14% in 2003. Those middle-class New Yorkers making $50,000 to $74,000 - many of them highly educated - are supposed to be, if not well off, at least not in major financial straits either. Yet they were among the hardest hit. In that group, 27% said it was difficult to afford food - a dramatic jump from 14% in 2003."

One solution is greater access to the Food Stamp program, something that Speaker Quinn, to her credit, is spearheading. Our good friend Triada Stampas of the Food Bank makes the point here: ""The city needs to do greater outreach at the local level for more people to enroll in the Food Stamps program," Stampas said. "Right now, there are about 500,000 New Yorkers eligible but not enrolled."

As the Daily News reports today tens of thousands of Bronxites are eligible for food stamps but aren't getting them: "Thousands of Bronxites may be eligible for food stamps without even knowing it, says a new citywide study..."This is something that impacts a tremendous number of New Yorkers and Bronxites," City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera said at a news conference Tuesday at Part of the Solution, a soup kitchen and food pantry in Bedford Park. The study found that more than 635,000 New Yorkers may qualify for food stamps, with nearly 120,000 living in neighborhoods such as Williamsbridge, Morrisania and Highbridge."

So let's get cracking. More food stamps and more supermarkets for New Yorkers. City Planning's on the case, now we need the economic development people to get energized, and stop fixating on things like green roofs. Access to healthy and affordable food should be the city's highest priority.

NYU and Vornado: Imperfect Together

We need to add NYU to our pantheon of heroes when it comes to an insensitivity to the health of New Yorkers-and this is the university where Marion Nestle hectors the world about the need for healthier food and better nutrition. NYU is looking to evict the last remaining affordable supermarket in its East Village neighborhood.

If you don't believe us, just check out her what to eat blog. Here's what Nestle says about supermarkets and healthy eating: "Obesity is more common in low-income areas. Why? It may seem intuitively obvious that lack of adequate income, transportation, cooking facilities, supermarkets, and opportunities for physical activity would make it difficult for people to eat healthfully and be active, but intuition is one thing and evidence is another. My NYU colleagues Jennifer Black and James Macinko now provide the evidence in a most useful review paper. Want to improve the “built environment”? This is a great starting place."

And here's what the two professors tell us about the importance of neighborhood supermarkets: "Access to stores that sell healthy food, especially large supermarkets, may also contribute to between neighborhood dietary differences. Four cross-sectional studies have demonstrated a positive association between access to food stores and improved dietary choices.18,73–75In Detroit, Michigan, women who primarily purchased food at supermarkets, consumed more fruits and vegetables than those who relied on independent grocery stores.73 Whereas, participants in the US Food Stamp Program who lived over five miles away from their principalfood store, consumed significantly less fruit than those living within one mile of stores." NYU's own tell the story. Why does the university ignore the research of its own?

So, once again, a university harbors all sorts of progressive sentiments while at the same time, as a corporate business, it acts in ways that threatens the public good. Shame on NYU! As the Villager has pointed out, the neighborhood's not reacting well to this insensitivity to its needs: "For more than a decade, East and West Villagers have seen New York University snatch up land and existing buildings for new dorms and facilities. But, when the school tried to jack up a beloved supermarket’s rent in a building it owns on Second Ave., residents rebelled."
And as one neighborhood resident tells the paper: "“If Met Food is pushed out of here, I’m going to have to get on two buses to go to the stores on 14th St.,” said Gertrude Freeman, 84, who lives at the Evelyn and Louis Green Residence, a senior home on E. Fifth St. “And as you can see,” she added, “I’m in a walker.”

The entire community's up in arms, much like Soundview is over the possible loss of its Key Food: "Residents’ displeasure was evident during a raucous public meeting late last month, when a roomful of 60 East Villagers aimed barbed comments at Hurley and Parker over the school’s reported offer of a two- or three-year lease at triple the rent. Though neither side will disclose the current rent, Rel Lavizzo, a broker for Tungsten Property, said the going monthly rate in the area is $100 per square foot. Met Food occupies 3,700 square feet."

So now we have too large real estate entities, Vornado and NYU, spitting in the face of the public interest, unconcerned about the health of New Yorkers; yet at the same time both of these behemoths are constantly lapping up public benefits. Oh, and one other thing about NYU. The building that it owns where the supermarket's located, it was donated to the university and cost the good folks at Washington Square not one farthing. Nice, no?

A Labor Lament on the City Hall "Waffle House"

We just received the following from Pat Purcell, a key labor figure who works for Local 1500 of the UFCW. Pat is extremely disappointed with Mayor Mike, and his perceived failure to stand up for the supermarket workers of NYC. He reminds us that his comments are his alone, and don't necessarily reflect those of his union:

Richard,

Is this turn around on term limits any different than the turn around we have begun to see on other issues. Rally support for congestion pricing but then support a Warehouse Club in midtown? Release a report that says we need more Supermarkets but refuse to lift a finger to help the 70 workers who will lose their jobs when Key Food closes because Vornado is squeezing them out with impossible rent demands?

Use eminent domain to remove the businesses at Willet's Point but ridicule it for the purpose of taking the Bruckner Blvd Development to assure the residents access to healthy foods, prevent a dramatic rise in the number of pedestrian accidents that will occur by sending thousands of shoppers across the Blvd to buy food and also save 70 good paying jobs that provide health care to many people?

Encouraging the use of Green Carts but not willing to ensure they end up in front of Burger King instead of businesses that already sell fresh fruit and vegetables? Saying lower income communities need more fresh food and supermarkets but supporting the development of warehouse clubs that charge $50 a year admission and will not take food stamps in these communities?

Too busy to meet with the Key Food workers but found time in his schedule to meet with Brett Favre on one day notice? Those of you that know me could imagine how happy I was to find out City Hall had been turned into my favorite southern restaurant, "The Waffle House." I speak from the horrible experience of having been a supporter of some of the Mayors initiatives and now feeling the shame of having been mislead to think they really wanted to do what was right on healthy food access, congestion pricing, responsible development etc.

After all, what I am I to think when I testify in Staten Island at the request of the Administration in favor of congestion pricing and then have them publicly support a retail model that will bring thousands of cars into mid town? On term limits? As the band "The Who" sang...I wont be fooled again. Elected's who support over turning term limits by way of legislation and not the voters will have the right to do so. However, please do not try to justify to anyone with a fourth grade level of education or higher that your reasoning is anything more than a power grab.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe they they just don't want to give up the comfortable chair they have in their office? The pens, staples and paperclips they now get for free? By all means, take them with you when you leave. Make it a lifetime supply if necessary. Pass that law. Free office supplies for exiting elected officials. Consider them parting gifts. Please, just leave under the same laws that brought you here. Perish the thought that others may be elected and do what they think is right for electorate and take this City in another direction?

I guess to those who favor extending turning term limits by legislative means and not by the voters this is the equivalent of the inmates taking over the asylum. How could they allow such a thing to happen? Could there actually be someone else out there who could be Mayor? A Council member? I'll throw caution to wind and assume somehow society will go on with elected officials who come to their position under the guidelines prescribed by the voters under a Democratic process.

And we actually wonder why people have such a negative and cynical view of politicians? Unless they have removed all of the mirrors in City Hall, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the reason. Everyday, parents in this City teach their kids that in life you take the high road to happiness and success. What road would those who support extending term limits without the voters consent be taking? Thanks for reading this rant and rave but doesn't this whole idea just piss you off.

Happy Labor Day,

Pat Purcell

Fat Not Fit: The Need for a Better Public Health Policy

In today's NY Sun, James Knickman, the CEO of the NYS Health Foundation writes about the epidemic of diabetes in NYC: " In the last decade alone the number of people with diabetes in New York State has more than doubled. Right now, 1.5 million New Yorkers — roughly 7% of the state's population — suffer from some form of the disease. Diabetes now stands as the fifth leading cause of death among adults between 45 and 64 years of age. More disturbing is the fact that diabetes is the only chronic disease that continues to grow in prevalence, and at a faster pace than both heart disease and cancer."

What's clear from all of the research is that the diabetes prevalence is a direct result of increasing rates of obesity-and in both cases there are remedies available that involve prevention and social intervention strategies: "Type 2 diabetes is preventable and brought about by poor nutrition, lifestyle choices, and environmental factors that can be controlled. Most experts believe Type 2 diabetes is becoming more prevalent because our lifestyles are becoming ever-more sedentary and our diets are evermore dominated by high-calorie, high-fat, and convenient food choices."

But while we know that lifestyle is a key variable, we're not sure to what extent some of the various intervention strategies suggested make sense; that's where good public policy analysis is needed. For instance, Mr. Knickman suggests that, "We can no longer deny the effects of junk food and fast food that are the sad staples of the American diet — especially in low-income communities. Yet, the battle to curb the obesity and diabetes epidemic cannot be fought solely at the dinner table."

In response, Health Commissioner Frieden has devised a number of public health interventions that we find to be questionable-falling apart as soon as a decent immanent critique is offered. Certainly, the proposed use of calorie postings at fast food restaurants is a case in point; it sounds like a good idea until it is revealed that the methodology makes no sense and the efficacy of posting calories has no backing from any public health research.

That doesn't stop the Friedens of the world from plowing ahead, utilizing the real seriousness of the public health issues to bogart any reasonable gainsaying. Case in point was the resignation of Dr, Allison from the presidency of the Obesity Society when he had the gall to suggest that the emperor had no clothes-and there's no evidence in support of the efficacy of calorie posting. Supporting public health orthodoxy is more important than actually devising effective public policy.

Which brings us to another initiative-the promotion of fruit and vegetable peddlers. As Mr. Knickman points out; "True prevention requires much more than good lifestyle choices. It involves the social will to create environmental conditions that support healthy living. Our governments and employers can be more health-friendly by creating places to safely exercise — walking paths and bike paths — and by ensuring that healthy food choices such as fruits, vegetables, and low-fat foods are available in our schools and neighborhood groceries."

Putting peddlers in the street is simply no substitute for insuring that the city's neighborhoods have a plentiful supply of good food retailers-and in fact it can be seen as a real impediment, since no overhead peddlers compete with small produce stores and bodegas and diminish their profitability. The real solution in this area is the development of a policy that promotes the profitability of supermarkets and produce retailers in all of the city's neighborhoods.

This is a matter of public health and it deserves to be made a centerpiece of the mayor's final 18 months in office. With rents forcing out existing neighborhood markets, and development policies ignoring the central role of supermarkets in providing access to healthy foods, the city is facing a crisis.

We need to have public hearings on this, and the Central Labor Council, active on accountable development issues, needs to elevate supermarket siting to a central place in its development platform. But we can't stop there. We're at the crossroads of the "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," dilemma.

Providing access to healthier foods and exercise venues doesn't mean that folks are going to change their behaviors. We need an aggressive social marketing campaign that goes right after the hearts and minds-something that has been started by Dr. Oz's HealthCorps, a Peace Corps variant that is currently in 28 city high schools.

Public policy must be supplemented by good grass roots awareness efforts-and everyone needs to be enlisted in a campaign to generate healthier lifestyles in the city. Policy edicts that aren't accompanied by social marketing campaigns will not have the desired impact. Public health professionals need to collaborate with food businesses and community leaders in a campaign that addresses the city's serious health issues. It's about time that we all rowed together.

Town Hall Meeting in Soundview

This evening there will be a town hall meeting in the Soundview section of the Bronx to inform the community about the growing campaign against the eviction of the neighborhood's one large supermarket. This meeting is the first step in actions being taken against Vornado Realty and Trust, the landlord of the shopping center where the Key Food supermarket operates.

More aggressive actions will follow if Vornado fails to hear the community's call for it to cease and desist-and a rally and protest in front of the store is planned for next week. Here's the NY Daily News' take on this evening's event: "With urban supermarkets becoming an endangered species, Bronx residents will meet Wednesday night to try and save one of this dying breed.
A recent report from the Department of City Planning highlighted the importance of local grocery stores to public health while showing a recent wave of closures has left large swaths of the city - including much of the Bronx - underserved. Nearly the entire South Bronx was found to have a "high need" for more supermarkets."

Given this high need, the actions of Vornado are a slap in the face to the residents of the Soundview neighborhood: "In a borough where few people own cars and public transit coverage is less than ideal, closing a major grocery store could mean a difficult trek to the next-nearest supermarket, or force the least mobile to rely on higher-priced local grocery stores. "A lot of the people who patronize Key Food walk there," said Francisco Gonzalez, district manager for Community Board 9. "The only other supermarket in the area is across the highway and not as accessible to this neighborhood - especially for senior citizens."

And, as the DCP report on supermarkets points out, the neighborhood supermarket is a key for public health: "The report linked local markets and access to fresh produce to public health, showing that underserved areas of the Bronx have high rates of diet-related diseases like obesity and diabetes. The area around Key Food at Bruckner Plaza is one of the few places in the Bronx deemed to have adequate supermarket access, according to the report. Residents gathering at tonight's meeting convened by the Neighborhood Retail Alliance and City Councilwoman Annabel Palma (D-Soundview) will discuss ways to try and keep it that way."

Here's the full press release for this evening's meeting:

Press Advisory
Town Hall Meeting in Soundview to Save Our Supermarket

Where: IS 131 885 Bolton Avenue
When:Wednesday, May 14th
Time: 6-8 PM

A community town hall meeting, organized by Councilwoman Anabel Palma and Community Board #9, will be held today to inform the community about the potential eviction of the Key Food Supermarket in the Bruckner Boulevard shopping center in Soundview. The reason for the possible eviction is because the landlord, Vornado Realty and Trust, is seeking to charge the store $50 per square foot in rent. This kind of rent would make it impossible for Key Food, or any supermarket in this income community, to be able to offer the neighborhood good healthy food at affordable prices.

The purpose of the town hall meeting is to alert and activate the Soundview community in order to get Vornado to support the extension of the supermarket’s lease at a price that is realistic for the neighborhood. The plan is to hold a rally in front of the store a week later on the 22nd of May.

The organized outrage of the Soundview community is important so we can empower the elected officials to put the kind of pressure on the real estate company that will make a difference. Vornado has received millions of dollars of public benefits from the city and needs to behave like a good corporate citizen.

In addition, we will be calling on the mayor to use his good offices to intervene on the community’s behalf. Soundview has been identified as a community where diet-related diseases are epidemic, and where access to fresh fruit and vegetables is way below the city wide average-exacerbating the health problems in the community.

Because of these health issues, the Department of Health has targeted this neighborhood for the introduction of produce vendors. The Key Food sells over two million dollars worth of produce every year, vegetables and fruit that are essential for the health of Soundview. Clearly, the store’s demise is not good for the health of the community, and that’s why the City Council Health Committee Chair Joel Rivera, and Councilman Jimmy Vacca, will be joining with the community tonight..

We will be calling on Mayor Bloomberg to act on behalf of all of the residents of Soundview in the name of public health. As the mayor has said on countless occasions, no economic concern is as important as the health of New Yorkers.

Healthy Food Access

The DOH has just released a report that tells us that it is harder to get healthier food products in Harlem and East Harlem. Frankly, we don't really think that this is news. We have been commenting on this issue for years, and there have been any number of studies that have been done to demonstrate that food options are not as plentiful for low income neighborhoods as they are for higher income communities.

The real issue in all of this is the underlying cause for this disparity. There are some who like to place the blame on the stores themselves; for their failure to adequately stock shelves with healthier foods, opting instead for cheaper unhealthier stuff. Clearly, this perspective fails to understand the demand side of the food equation. As a corollary to this, it also underestimates the role of income.

Taking income first, the Daily News reality series on the food stamp follies of Councilman Eric Goia underscores just how difficult it is for low income people to eat healthier-more expensive!-food items. The lower incomes militate against local groceries carrying healthier, but more expensive foods.

The second feature on the demand curve is that lack of nutritional awareness. Here, the DOH report makes an important contribution. One of its major recommendations is: "Promoting consumer demand for nutritious food at affordable prices through education and social marketing."

This is a point we have been trying to emphasize for years. If consumers begin to become more aware of what's good to eat, they will demand that local stores stock these foods. And guess what? The stores will respond to these new demands, as they do when formerly low income neighborhoods begin to gentrify and consumer preferences change.

So there' good news here and we're ready to praise the department's actions and directions. Beginning with the "Healthy Bodega" initiative DOH has recognized that it needs to partner with the local stores and restaurants; and that partnership needs to encompass an aggressive community nutritional awareness plan. The department's convening of the Harlem Food and Fitness Consortium is a major step forward.

We'd also like to see the Health Corps concept integrated with the department's efforts. Getting young people activated on health is a crucial variable that needs to be brought into play, something that the HC definitely does. The fact that the DOH has already met with the HC folks on the bodega initiative bodes well for the integration of these various good policy approaches.

East Harlem Update

The Runnin' Scared Blog at the Village Voice covered last night's supermarket task force meeting: "Is it sinister racism or a misunderstanding of markets that shapes food policy in the city's poor neighborhoods? The Harlem Food & Fitness Consortium was looking for answers on Wednesday. Yesterday evening the group held a town hall forum to discuss the dearth of supermarkets in Harlem and other communities like it. Local and citywide food activists addressed a crowd of more than 100 attendees on the importance of expanding supermarket access in their neighborhood, and how that expansion could lead to healthy eating."

While we don't always agree with the underlying views of those who see the dearth of markets as some sort of racist conspiracy, the absence of supermarkets is a real problem-and we see the rising cost of real estate as the crux of the issue: "James Subudhi (pictured) of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, which helped organize the event, said that the market argument is a fallacy, and that the lack of healthy vegetables in Harlem and elsewhere can be attributed to three reasons: "Classism, free markets, and racism." Subudhi offered the numerous street vendors that peddle fruits and vegetables along 125th Street as proof."

This LA Times piece is more on point, and it's a situation that impacts both supermarkets and bodegas: "Across the city, a food crisis is unfolding in low-income neighborhoods, as one-third of New York's supermarkets have closed over the last five years, according to a recent city report. Most New Yorkers don't own cars; having a nearby store is important when grocery shopping means traveling by foot, cab or subway. Well-to-do residents who don't live near a supermarket can pay extra to order groceries online and have them delivered; poor residents must turn to the closest bodegas. "The sales have been down for the last nine months," said Jose Fernandez, president of the Bodega Assn. of the United States, which claims membership of 7,800 of New York's 11,400 bodegas. A weakening economy and rising rents and food prices have forced many to close, he said; the number of bodegas in New York has decreased by nearly 1000 from two years ago, according to his organization's most recent tally."

Whatever the reason, however, the compelling need for a government intervention is indubitable, since the issue is a public health challenge: "Advocates for increasing supermarket reach in low income neighborhoods, such as Harlem, complain that a lack of real food stores forces neighborhood residents, typically minorities, to do more of their shopping in bodegas. Those stores usually lack healthy foods like green vegetables and fruit, though they have no shortage of pre-packaged snacks and sugary drinks. Residents have to buy what is available, and are forced to make less than healthy food choices."

And, as we said in our previous post, a government solution is at hand. The proposed redevelopment of 125th-127th Streets on Second Avenue could be used to insure that a new market is available to the East Harlem and South Bronx community. This should become the number one priority of Council member Viverito, BP Stringer and let's not forget the mayor and health commissioner who have made this a putative priority of the administration without devoting any real resources to some immediate remedy.

A Stamp of Disapproval

One of the issues that we haven't mentioned concerning our opposition to the proposed Costco on the West Side: food stamps. The store doesn't accept them, effectively redlining the folks that might be most in need of the putative bargains being offered. Here's what our friend Joel Berg, head of NYC Coalition Against Hunger wrote to us: "One other key point about Costco: their stores refuse to accept food stamp benefits. Given that one in eight New Yorkers use such benefits to survive, Costco seems to be excluding a whole lot of people from their stores."

In fact, when we helped to defeat the store in 1999, the food stamp issue helped to galvanize local community opposition. The NY Times captured this at the time: "But John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition and one of the leaders in the anti-Costco campaign, said Mr. Brotman was missing the point. ''He didn't understand New York,'' Mr. Fisher said. ''It's not that people don't want lower prices.'' He said opponents were concerned about the traffic the stores would generate, the impact they would have on smaller stores, the $40 membership fee, the policy against accepting food stamps and Costco's nonunion labor force."

Council member Eric Gioia, one of the leaders of the fight to raise the food stamp allotment for the poor, has even petitioned Costco to change its policies. Here's the item from Berg's Hunger Blog: "City Councilman Eric Gioia recently wrote a letter to the president of Costco, the large discount warehouse retailer, asking the company to start accepting food stamps. After taking the Food Stamp Challenge and living on the average weekly allotment of $28, Gioia is even more sensitive to the fact that poor New Yorkers are unable to eat nutritious, balanced meals on such a meager budget. By getting discount retailers, such as Costco, to accept food stamps, poor New Yorkers will have access to healthy food at more affordable prices."

Costco said that it was considering it, but that was almost one year ago. We also need to remember that BJs, with a no food stamp policy, changed it for its Gateway Mall store in the Bronx in order to cobble the support needed to get the store approved.

One last point here. When the food stamp issue was first raised the last time, we highlighted the comments contained in one of Costco financial filings. The company pointed out to its shareholders that the food stamp policy helped it to reduce "slippage,' implying that by keeping the poor out it advanced the company's bottom line. Nice.

Truth in Menu Labeling

We were forwarded, by the inimitable Matt Lipsky, a notice of a new book, written by Michele Simon, titled Appetite for Profit: How the food industry undermines our health and how to fight back. Ms. Simon was on the campus of Duke University for a seminar at the law school on health and public policy.

Simon heads a group called Center for Informed Food Choices that, in spite of its felicitous title, is an entity that has little good to say about this country's food industry, accusing it of all kinds of perfidy and seeing it as the major cause of the country's obesity epidemic. The CIFC follows in the anti-business tradition of Center for Science in the Public Interest and finds that any attempt by food businesses to defend their interests must, ipso fact, be seen as an attack on the public good.

Nowhere do we see from the likes of Simon or CSPI's Michael Jacobson any awareness that the food industry not only employs millions of Americans, but through its innovations provides access to healthy food at reasonable prices. Their criticisms, particularly of the fast food restaurants, is dripping with venom and class anatgonism. Tofu and arugula or bust is the motto of these elitists.

We can see some of this hostility and absence of reasoned arguments in Simon's discussion of menu labeling. In her view the McDonald's opposition to menu labeling is, quoting a political sponsor of a bill that was defeated in Maine, "Because they're worried that it will work...That people would change their behavior based on the information."

What a Kroc! Food labeling hasn't led to any diminution of profits for food manufacturers who are content to find innovative ways to market new products for changing customer tastes. But this view underscores the innate hostility of the food zealots to the food business. They are simply unwilling to evaluate the merits of their proposal from any unbiased cost benefit standpoint.

This bias is highlighted by Simon's discussion of the policy of the Ruby Tuesday restaurant chain. The company had initially changed its entire menu to supply its customers with extensive nutritional information. "But just a few short months later, the company rescinded the policy for reasons that are unclear. Depending on who you ask, it was either too expensive to maintain or sales of the company's unhealthy items fell; in other words it worked."

Yes, depending on who you ask. If you ask the company it will tell you that the constantly shifting menu items and changing ingredients made it impossible to continue to provide this nutrition information without constantly altering its menu, a costly procedure that didn't make sense. But to the advocates, without offering any proof whatsoever, this about face came about because of the fact that the menu labeling worked!

To which Simon concludes, in her typically anti-business ranting fashion, "That's why laws are needed to require companies to change their practices." In her mind it is a zero-sum game between business profits and the public health. Missing from her "analysis" is any clearheaded discussion of the efficacy of the menu labeling policy. In her mind the fact that the fast food companies oppose the policy is sufficient enough reason to conclude that it is in the public interest.

And the only reason the measure hasn't passed in any legislature is due to the malevolent opposition of the National Restaurant Association. Which is precisely why the CSPUI had to convince the NYC DOH to introduce the policy by regulation. In the light of day, and after clear-cut evaluation by legislature after legislature, this policy has been found to make no sense. The advocates, however, know best what's good for Americans and if they have to end-run the legislative process, well, its in the public interest, isn't it?

Poor Food Choices?

There is an effort afoot to paint the bleakest possible picture about the food choices that poorer New Yorkers have in certain neighborhoods of the city. If you listen to some of the advocates, it certainly appears that, aside from a few unappetizing bodegas, the residents of East Harlem or the South Bronx are simply out of luck if they are looking for a decent supermarket. It is precisely why Council Speaker Quinn has launched her greenmarket initiative to bring fresh produce to the low income areas.

In today's NY Daily News this theme is continued in Lisa Colangelo's story about "poor" food choices "in some of the city's lowest-income neighborhoods." It appears that the story was prompted by a report that has been just released by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. The report's conclusion: "It shows that large supermarkets are few and far between. And while some have greenmarkets, they are often too pricey for people with fixed and low incomes."

Some of the impetus behind this push comes from the serious incidence of obesity in these very same low income neighborhoods; clearly availability of good food choices is part of any overall effort to combat the expanding waist lines in the inner city. The effort, however, needs to have a dose of realism since the advocates so often don't have any real good understanding of the economics of the food industry.

In the first place, the report of the hunger coalition describes a paucity of "large supermarkets' in low income areas. Other reports like this one talk about the fact that there are more markets in upper income areas than there are in the poorer neighborhoods, as if this was symptomatic or correlative with the rising obesity rates in the poorer nabes.

The reality is that independent supermarkets are an economic success story in New York, something we have been pointing out ever since a similar demonization campaign lead to the subsidizing of the East Harlem Pathmark in 1995. While it is true that there might be fewer markets per capita in these areas this is obviously a function of less disposable income.

In fact we'd be surprised if the statement attributed to a Brownsville activists would prove, on inspection, to be accurate: "In Brownsville, there is just one supermarket in a 15 block area, according to Ed Fowler, executive director of Neighbors Together, a soup kitchen on Fulton street." What is unassailable, however, is that food access is a legitimate public issue and that is precisely why Pennsylvania has launched its "Supermarket Initiative" program.

What is needed here is for advocates, food industry representatives, and elected officials to come together to device an access policy that addresses the underlying health issues surrounding obesity, heart disease and diabetes. As we have pointed out, Congresswoman Velasquez's "Healthy Bodega" bill is a step in the right direction.

A New York supermarket initiative should also be considered in order to improve healthier food access. Ways to incentivize the consumption of fresh produce need to be considered as well. This shouldn't run into any opposition from the supermarket folks since, as we told Commissioner Silver at the DOH, produce is a profit center for all supermarkets and there is nothing store owners would like more than to sell more veggies.

Clearly, there needs to be a general policy discussion here, one that includes the industry. If we are going to create a healthier citizenry it can be done if the effort is collaborative, one that recognizes the crucial economic development variables that are in play in the overall policy development.

Co-oping Food Policy

In this week's Gotham Gazette there's an article about the prospects that food co-ops can address the public health issue of access to healthy foods: "As the city confronts the health effects of the "grocery gap," many see food cooperatives as way to improve access to fresh food and think government should do more to encourage the businesses. "Like supermarkets, Green Carts, farmers' markets and bodegas, food co-ops can be a great way to get affordable, nutritious food into neighborhoods where fresh produce can be hard to find," says Ben Thomases, the city's Food Policy Coordinator. Holtz thinks the city could help co-ops succeed in underserved neighborhoods. "If the city had a low interest loan program, that would help clear the biggest hurdle," he says."

"Kumbaya mi'lord, kumbaya." What a bunch of romantic nonsense-and the "let one thousand flowers bloom" approach is only going to distract the city from the real essence of effective public policy: insuring that neighborhoods have good food and good jobs, in other words, supermarkets. Wasting time and energy on the evanescent phenomenon of food co-ops will simply divert us from what should be the city's the main goal; and giving financial support, except in the most rare of circumstances, would be a waste.

Our friend, Ben the Food Czar feels a bit differently on all of this: "Indeed, the supermarket report suggests providing financing for private supermarkets and grocery stores in high-need communities as one of its solutions. "Any financial incentives the supermarket commission recommends to encourage supermarkets to locate in underserved communities should be made to food co-ops as well," Thomases said in an e-mail."

We disagree. If a community is so motivated that it wants to create a food co-op then we should say, "Go in good health." But to pledge public monies when it hasn't even been determined what kind of financial incentives for supermarkets make sense, is not a sound suggestion in our view.

And the co-ops, just like the fruitty peddlers, do compete with the stores. But where the stores thrive, the co-ops often don't: "To the adherents, co-ops offer many advantages -- and face challenges -- the more conventional supermarkets do not. The East Village's Fourth Street Food Co-op was started in 1995, replacing another that started in '73. As its neighborhood has thrived, the co-op has fought to survive in the face of intense competition from two nearby Whole Foods, a Trader Joe's and health food stores."

We did, however, get a kick out of the fact that the East Village co-op has its own ethics committee. If a neighborhood has enough folks who believe that a food co-op should have an ethics committee, then there's a good chance that such an enterprise can survive without any public money.

As the Gazette highlights: "Our ethics committee goes through products we currently and potentially will carry in order to ensure the company is a small business with sustainable practices and pays workers a fair wage," says Cassandra Flechsig, a membership coordinator. "None of our products are tested on animals and we purchase organic, local, and fair trade, whenever possible." She also notes, as do other co-op members, that the issue is about more than shopping - it is also about forming community. "It's easy to get lost in a city as big as New York City," Flechsig said. "The co-op provides a nurturing environment that welcomes new members and makes them feel they belong to something bigger than themselves."

"We are the World," indeed. Let's not get diverted by all of this romantic commune ambiance and keep focused on more substantive, real world concerns.

The Greenmarketing of NYC

Last week the NY Times ran a long paen to the city's greenmarkets. The piece is written without any regard for the notion of competing equities: the fact that the public subsidizing of the expansion of these outlets puts them in direct competition with tax paying store owners. Where is the worthwhile promotion of a private-public partnership, one that would bring more fresh produce to New York's neighborhoods with the helpp of existing food store owners?

The promotion of these greenmarkets is part of a long tradition in this city. It is a tradition that led to the promotion, and subsidizing, of a Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem. It is a tradition that, because of its ignorance of inner city economics, fails to see the incredible contribution of immigrant entrepreneurs to the provision of good inexpensive food to low income New Yorkers.

It is a tradtion that is exemplified by Marcel Van Ooyen, the head of the Council on the Environment (the chief promoter of greenmarkets). Here's the Times and Marcel: "One question will be how to make greenmarkets wotk in what Mr. Van Ooyen calls 'food deserts'-parts of the ncity where access to freh food is limited and nutritional needs great."

Food deserts? How does Marcel know? Is this a dispatch from the front that has been sent to him by an emissary? What we need is for the City Council to convene a summit on food issues, one that includes the food retailers and their suppliers. This summit should focus on how to use the existing distribution network to improve the access to healthy food for all New Yorkers.