When the Supermarket Is a Mile Away Re "Studies Question the Pairing of Food Deserts and Obesity" (front page, April 18): It is best to avoid simplistic terms like "food desert" when solving complex social problems. The Agriculture Department's definition is based on proximity to supermarkets with at least $2 million in yearly sales, suggesting that large stores are the answer, when co-ops, produce stands, farmers" markets, community-supported agriculture and food hubs are a critical part of the solution. Focusing on the absence of supermarkets also detracts from the substantial racial, social and economic inequality at the root of disparate retail environments, making it harder to advocate for substantive policies that create lasting and equitable solutions. Moreover, the term "desert" stigmatizes low-income communities by suggesting a drought of human and physical capital, ignoring the people and organizations working to create healthier environments. Indeed, as a new growing season gets under way, urban farmers and gardeners throughout the country are making these so-called deserts bloom. The writer is an assistant professor of environmental studies at the New School. Discussion of the problem should acknowledge that healthful produce, especially vegetables, is mostly not ready to eat. The healthy food grocery basket needs to be transported home, a reasonably equipped kitchen is needed for preparation, and the preparer needs a modicum of skill, time and inclination to prepare this healthful food. Your article quotes a RAND Corporation analyst who is the author of one of the "food desert" studies as saying that within a couple of miles of almost any urban neighborhood "you can get basically any type of food." This is the basis for questioning the connection between obesity and urban food deserts. The assumption seems to be that all city dwellers can hop into their cars and drive a mile or two, thus gaining access to "any type of food" and good nutrition. But this assumption is false; many if not most low-income city dwellers do not own cars. What are these carless people to do? Should they trudge a mile or more to the supermarket and trudge home again carrying two heavy grocery bags? Factor in a small child or two and the absurdity becomes apparent. Attributing middle-class suburban resources to low-income city dwellers invalidates the studies" assertions and misleads the public about an important failing in our food system. The writers are, respectively, co-director of the Taft Institute for Government at Queens College, CUNY, and a cookbook author and food professional. Two studies do not rule out that limited access to healthy food may contribute to obesity. But policies that drain food swamps awash in high fat, sugar, salt and calories also warrant consideration. These products are primary causes of the most serious illnesses, including diabetes, heart disease and stroke and are also main sources of profit for America's industrial food system. In recent decades, television and Internet food advertising to children, the number of outlets selling unhealthy food, and the size of portions of these products have grown sharply. Policies to restrict unhealthy food advertising, limit the number of outlets that sell unhealthy food, and reduce portion size have shown promise in some countries. While market enthusiasts oppose such measures, leaving children's nutrition to the food industry ensures that high rates of diet-related diseases and the premature deaths they impose will continue. The writer is a professor at the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College.