SUPERMARKET REDLINING

Understanding Supermarket Redlining
An Analysis by Dayna Pham

             Supermarket redlining is the term used to describe the occurence of major chain supermarkets being disinclined to build their stores in low-income neighborhoods, and relocating existing stores in these areas to more affluent suburban neighborhoods, starting in the 1960s. It is interesting to note that this act is not influenced by municipal planning, but completely led by the supermarket chains themselves. Supermarket companies state that their disinclination is due to urban obstacles, such as low profitability and high crime rates (Zhang and Ghosh 2015).
             For example, between 1968 and 1984, approximately 85% of the supermarkets left Hartford, Connecticut, one of the cities with the highest crime rates in America. In addition, between 1978 and 1984, over 600 Safeway stores were closed in “inner city neighborhoods,” a euphemism for low-income residential zones with minority-dense populations, often located in downtown or city centre districts (Meehan 2020).
            Looking deeper, supermarket chains’ disinterest in locating in these areas is rooted in more than just profitability and crime rates; it is also rooted in discrimination and implicit biases towards marginalized communities. 
In the analysis of historical patterns of residency, these low-income neighborhoods have been predominantly housed by People of Color. You might recognize the term redlining, the government practice that the phrase “supermarket redlining” is based off of. Redlining began in the 1930s, the process by which metropolitan areas were color-coded by the government to determine which neighborhoods were “red,” or unsafe to insure mortgages -- neighborhoods occupied by Black individuals and immigrants. When comparing redlining maps with today’s neighborhoods, “red” communities align with the areas that feel the wrath of supermarket redlining: food apartheids (Miller 2016).
            As a result of supermarket redlining, individuals living in food apartheids lack access to fresh produce and healthy food options. Individuals living in food apartheids are met with some difficult choices – travel 30+ miles to a supermarket, travel 1 mile to a fast food restaurant, travel 1 mile to a liquor store, or starve. The most accessible options are to purchase food from a fast food restaurant or from a liquor store – fast food restaurants of which use packaging that contain endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as BPA and phthalates, and liquor stores which sell packaged food items also contaminated with similar EDCs. At face value, these restaurants and stores seem  “convenient,” but beyond the convenience, these establishments sell products that have the potential to greatly harm individuals’ health. Read more about the health outcomes of EDC exposure here.
            Therefore, supermarket redlining contributes to a larger issue: the phenomenon of lower health outcomes for individuals of marginalized communities. Individuals living in food apartheids have no say in the food economy surrounding them, the fault lies in the hands of higher powers, from supermarket property teams determining where grocers are located, to the government propagating the narrative that profit matters over people. 

            In addition, this is another point showing how food apartheids are not natural, but created by years of government neglect, as these areas lack funding and support from higher powers in order to uplift their community. Food apartheids are a manifestation of systemic racism and oppression -- read more about the importance of considering intersectionality here.
            Transformative Food Solutions is committed to facilitating connections between policymakers, government officials, local farmer’s markets, corporations, and community members to undo the damage that supermarket redlining has caused on individuals living in food apartheids.