A study called “Fast Food Restaurant and Food Stores” tested more than 5000 adults from the age 18 to
30 in different states. The study concluded that a) People consumed fast food because it was more
accessible and closer to their homes. This was noticeable in men with low-income and in situations
where the restaurant was located within 1 to 3 km from home but this trend was not applicable to
women. b) Being close to the grocery stores and supermarkets did not make any impact on the type of
diet and healthy nutrition c) on average men of every background ate fast foods 2 times per week and
women 1.6 times. The authors conclude that by “promoting greater access to supermarkets, several U.S.
policies aim to improve diets through provision of affordable healthful foods, particularly fresh produce
in underserved areas. Our findings do not support this initiative in young to middle-aged adults. Rather,
they suggest that adding neighborhood supermarkets may have little benefit to diet quality across the
income spectrum and that alternative policy options such as targeting specific foods or shifting food
costs (subsidization or taxation) should be further considered” (Larsen, 2011).
A study conducted in 2009 (Smith & Morton, 2009) also gave some clear differences in health, access to
food and social environment between the rural and urban areas. The study found out that the people in
rural areas with more restricted access to fresh food markets were less healthy with 12% of them
reported their health as poor or fair, where in urban areas that had ready access to food the percentage
was only 9%. Similarly, urban food deserts where markets are unreachable may suffer from similar
problems. Also most of the people very skeptic about food quality in their communities. The authors
concluded that beside the personal preferences the social and environmental factors that limit the
healthy food access (Smith & Morton, 2009). Another study made in 2010 finds a relation between the
distances of the supermarkets with overall health. (DataHaven, 2010) That was more significant in
elderly people where the lack of healthy food can cause other more serious problems. For them that are
underweight suffer from low nutrition the consequences are longer hospitalization, early, heart disease,
diabetes admittance in nursing homes and increased mortality (Martin, Kayser-Jones, Stotts, Porter, &
Froelicher, 2006).
2.1.1.2 The Role of Worker Cooperatives in Urban Food Production
Part of what defines a food desert is that the area is low-income. Worker cooperatives have recently
been looked at as a way for low-income workers to be a part of a fair democratic business. In the United
States multiple not-for-profit organizations have started up (including Worcester Roots) that aim to
promote Worker Cooperatives as a means of worker and economic justice. This is the Worker
Cooperative Movement.
A worker cooperative is a business that is owned and controlled by its members, who work in them (US
Federation of Worker Cooperatives, n.d.). They value “self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality,
equity, and solidarity” (US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, n.d.). In Massachusetts, to be considered
a Cooperative Corporation, among other things, members of the corporation must be employees,
members of the corporation all own exactly one “member share” (as opposed to owning varying
numbers of shares based on investment), and these “member shares” are the only capital stock that
give voting power. Members must be issued a membership fee, and net earnings must be distributed
according to patronage, or the amount of work put into the cooperative (Employee Cooperative
Corperations).
One of the most important driving forces behind the worker cooperative movement is the goal of
empowering the working class, to escape the economic hardships and to promote worker equality. In