Walgreen's Case

Until class on Wednesday I was not even aware food deserts existed. I assumed that people in poorer socioeconomic areas ate unhealthy food, because it was a cheaper and quicker option for people who work long hours and do not have time to cook. I had no idea that people in these areas were eating unhealthy food because it was their only option.

Through a quick Google search I was astounded that so many people do not know about this issue that affects so many people. From a CNN blog, I learned that 23 million Americans live in food deserts. From class, we learned that these are generally poorer urban areas, but the US Department of Agriculture defines deserts as a low income community (a poverty rate of 20% or higher or a median family income at or below 80% of the census tract’s median family income) where a substantial number of residents have low access (at least 500 people and/or 33% of the population live more than a mile from a grocer this increases to more then ten miles in rule areas) to a supermarket or large grocery store.

As a retailer, I would think that the rare supermarkets in the area would have already taken advantage of the market share they had and brought in the types of foods, fruits and vegetables that consumers wanted. While food desert consumers may not have to make a decision about where to shop, they can still decide what to buy, and fruit and vegetables seem like an item that could be helpful to these families. When people have options, more parents will choose to buy food that is healthy to prepare for their families. So I think food deserts can help retailers increase their profits.

However in a situation like this, retailers should not solely be looking for a profit, but rather take this as a secondary benefit to being a part of the Let’s Move program. The blog article said that SUPERVALU, Walgreens, and Wal-Mart have committed to opening or expanding 1,500 stores in the areas that need the most help. These stores