Sugar consumption in the U.S. is not evenly distributed. Low-income communities, Black and Hispanic communities, and food-insecure households consume more added sugar on average than higher-income, food-secure counterparts. This disparity reflects structural factors in the food system, not individual choices made in identical circumstances.

What a Food Desert Is (and Its Limitations)

The USDA defines a food desert as a low-income census tract where a substantial number of residents have low access to a supermarket or large grocery store (more than 1 mile in urban areas, 10 miles in rural areas). The USDA estimates that 23.5 million people live in food deserts.

Food deserts, or the preferred academic term “food apartheid” (coined by community activists to emphasize the structural and historical dimensions), are characterized by:

  • Few or no full-service supermarkets
  • Higher concentration of convenience stores and fast food
  • Higher food prices at smaller stores
  • Limited fresh produce availability

However, the “food desert” framework has been challenged. A 2014 study by Ghosh-Dastidar et al. in PLOS ONE found that opening a new full-service grocery store in a food desert did not significantly change residents’ diets. The finding pointed toward other structural factors: time constraints from multiple jobs, lack of transportation to carry groceries, limited cooking time and kitchen equipment.

The Dollar Store Effect

Dollar stores have expanded aggressively in low-income communities over the past 20 years. Dollar General and Dollar Tree operate over 35,000 combined locations in the U.S., more than Walmart, Target, and CVS combined. They’re concentrated in lower-income zip codes where traditional grocery stores have exited or never located.

Dollar store food inventory is dominated by shelf-stable processed foods high in sodium, fat, and added sugar, because these products have long shelf lives that fit the lean inventory model. Fresh produce is available at some locations but not systematically. For families in communities where the dollar store is the only food retail, the available food supply is nutritionally limited.

A 2021 study by Singleton et al. found that the opening of a dollar store in a neighborhood was associated with a decline in fruit and vegetable consumption in that neighborhood over the following 3 years.

The Price Argument: Is Healthy Food Really More Expensive?

On a per-calorie basis, unhealthy food is cheaper. White rice and bread, vegetable oil, sugar, and processed snack foods deliver cheap calories. Fruits and vegetables are expensive per calorie — a bag of chips provides 10x the calories of an apple for similar cost.

On a per-nutrient basis, some healthy foods are competitive. Dried beans, lentils, frozen vegetables, canned sardines, and oats are all nutrient-dense and inexpensive. But they require cooking time, equipment, and culinary knowledge, none of which are equally available.

A 2016 analysis by Drewnowski and Darmon in Nutrition Reviews found that diet quality, measured by Healthy Eating Index, was significantly correlated with income across a U.S. nationally representative sample: each additional $1/day in food spending was associated with a 0.8-unit increase in HEI score on a 100-point scale.

The Marketing Dimension

Communities with lower income and minority populations receive higher concentrations of fast food and sweetened beverage advertising. A 2015 study by Harris et al. found that Black and Hispanic youth saw 63-90% more fast food ads than white youth. Outdoor advertising (billboards) in lower-income neighborhoods is more heavily concentrated with sweetened beverage and fast food content than in higher-income areas.

Targeted marketing specifically promotes sugar-dense products to populations with limited alternative food access, not because of malicious targeting per se, but because advertising is deployed where it’s most effective and least contested.

Policy Approaches

SNAP (food stamps) and SSBs: A long-debated policy is restricting SNAP benefits from purchasing sugar-sweetened beverages. Proponents argue this could reduce SSB consumption; critics note it’s paternalistic, hard to implement, and ignores the structural food access problem. Pilot programs have had mixed results.

SNAP incentives for produce: “Double up” programs that match SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables have shown effectiveness. A 2018 RCT by Olsho et al. found that a 30% produce incentive increased fruit and vegetable spending by 18%.

Sugar taxes and lower-income households: Sugar taxes are sometimes characterized as regressive — disproportionately burdening lower-income households who spend a higher proportion of income on food. Evidence from Berkeley and Philadelphia shows that lower-income neighborhoods showed the largest reduction in SSB consumption after the tax, suggesting behavior change is possible, though the burden of the tax itself falls disproportionately on those households.

Sources & Citations

  • USDA Food Research Atlas: ers.usda.gov/topics/food-choices-health/food-access
  • Drewnowski A & Darmon N. “The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost.” AJCN 2005
  • Harris JL et al. “Targeted marketing of junk food to minority youth: formal conclusion and implications.” American Journal of Public Health 2019