A Forbes article titled “How Racism in Agriculture Built America’s Food Apartheid” asserts that systemic racism in agriculture has created a “food apartheid,” deliberately denying Black communities access to healthy food, as well as pushing black people out of agriculture altogether. This narrative leans heavily on emotionally charged language and unsubstantiated claims, ignoring economic realities, cultural factors, and individual choices. Below, we counter the article’s arguments, addressing the misuse of “food apartheid,” the complexities of food access, and the broader context of agricultural trends.
“Food Apartheid”: A Weaponized Term
The term “food apartheid” replaces the neutral “food desert,” which describes areas with limited access to fresh food. By invoking “apartheid,” a term tied to South Africa’s racial segregation, the article suggests White people are actively conspiring to prevent Black communities from eating healthily. This is a rhetorical overreach. Food access issues arise from a web of socioeconomic factors, not a coordinated racial plot. The term inflames division and racial hatred rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
Liberal Media Ditching "Food Deserts" Term For Far More Inflammatory-Sounding "Food Apartheid" https://t.co/xy1n7hJMUU
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 25, 2025
Gentrification Complaints and Food Access
The article overlooks a contradiction in the narrative: when high-end grocery stores like Trader Joe’s attempt to open in predominantly Black neighborhoods, they are often met with accusations of “gentrification.” In 2014, for example, protests in Portland, Oregon, led Trader Joe’s to abandon plans for a store in a historically Black neighborhood after community activists argued it would displace residents. Similar pushback has occurred in cities like Oakland and Boston. This resistance undermines claims that Black communities are uniformly denied access to healthy food options. It suggests a complex dynamic where cultural identity and economic concerns shape local responses to new stores.
Food Preferences Shape Local Markets
The prevalence of fast food and convenience stores in predominantly Black areas is often attributed to external forces, but consumer preferences play a significant role. Market demand drives what businesses offer. Studies, such as a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center, show that dietary habits in low-income communities, including many Black neighborhoods, lean toward processed, high-calorie foods due to cost, convenience, and cultural familiarity. While access to fresh produce is limited in some areas, the dominance of unhealthy options reflects what sells. Blaming “racism” ignores the agency of consumers and the economic realities of supply and demand.
Retail Challenges in High-Crime Areas
High-end grocery stores face significant barriers in low-income, high-crime neighborhoods. Theft and violent crime increase operational costs, making profitability elusive. Retailers like Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s often require secure environments to operate efficiently, as shoplifting and vandalism erode margins. For example, a 2023 report from the National Retail Federation noted that retailers in urban areas with high crime rates frequently resort to locking products in cases or limiting store hours, which disrupts the shopping experience and deters investment. These challenges are driven by local conditions, not racial animus from corporate decision-makers.
Black Entrepreneurship Is Unhindered
The article implies that systemic barriers prevent Black communities from accessing healthy food, yet no legal or structural obstacles stop Black entrepreneurs from opening grocery stores, farms, or farmers’ markets. Community-led initiatives, like the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, demonstrate that Black individuals can and do create their own food systems. Programs like the USDA’s Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Grants, which allocated $43 million in 2024, support such efforts, with no racial restrictions. The absence of more Black-owned food businesses reflects economic and cultural factors, not a racist conspiracy.
USDA Reparations and Diversity Funding
The Forbes article references historical discrimination in USDA loan programs but ignores recent efforts to address these claims. In 2024, the USDA distributed over $2 billion through the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program to farmers, including Black applicants, who claimed they were denied loans—often without requiring proof of prior farming experience. Additionally, the USDA has invested heavily in diversity initiatives, such as the $300 million Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Program, which prioritizes underrepresented groups. These efforts contradict the narrative of ongoing systemic exclusion.
Unsubstantiated Claims of Land Theft
The article’s assertion that Black farmers were chased off their land or had it stolen lacks concrete evidence. While historical injustices like sharecropping and discriminatory lending occurred, the Forbes piece relies on assumptions rather than documented cases. For instance, it cites no specific instances of land theft tied to modern food access issues. Historical data from the USDA shows that Black farmers, like many small farmers, sold or abandoned land due to economic pressures, not widespread racial violence or theft. Painting a vague picture of systemic dispossession misleads readers.
The Decline of Farming Across All Groups
The article frames the decline in Black farmers as a uniquely racial issue, but farming as a whole has contracted. According to the USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture, the total number of U.S. farms dropped by 7% from 2017 to 2022, driven by urbanization, consolidation, and economic challenges. Black farmers, who made up 1.4% of U.S. farmers in 2017, faced these same pressures. Many chose to leave farming for urban jobs or other opportunities, reflecting personal decisions, not racial persecution. Blaming White farmers for this trend is unfair and divisive.
White People in Agriculture Are Not the Culprit
The narrative that White farmers and others working in agriculture are responsible for Black communities’ food access issues or obesity rates is baseless. White farmers, who operate 95% of U.S. farms, produce the bulk of the nation’s food, including crops that supply both healthy and processed options. Obesity, which affects 49% of Black adults compared to 45% of White adults (CDC, 2023), stems from a mix of dietary choices, socioeconomic factors, and education gaps, not agricultural racism. Holding American agriculture accountable for public health outcomes in Black communities ignores personal responsibility and systemic non-racial factors.
Additional Counterpoints
USDA subsidies, totaling $20 billion annually, support farmers based on crop type and acreage, not race. Black farmers qualify equally, and programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) explicitly encourage minority participation. Urban agriculture, which could address food access in Black communities, is thriving in cities like Chicago and Atlanta, often led by Black growers. The article ignores these grassroots solutions, focusing instead on victimhood. While the article mentions the loss of Black farmland, it omits that White farmers also lost land during the same period due to farm foreclosures in the 1980s, driven by high interest rates and global competition.
Conclusion
The Forbes article’s “food apartheid” narrative oversimplifies a complex issue, weaponizing race to explain disparities in food access. Economic realities, consumer preferences, and crime-related retail challenges better explain the prevalence of food deserts. Black communities have agency and opportunities—through entrepreneurship, urban farming, and government programs—to address these issues. Blaming White farmers or invoking “racism” as a catch-all distorts reality and undermines practical solutions. Food access disparities require nuanced, evidence-based approaches, not divisive rhetoric.