Food Security and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers

Food insecurity, and its associated risk factors, is an increasingly prevalent issue in developed countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom (Cummins and MacIntyre 2006; Reeder 2000). Food security is defined as all persons obtaining at all times a nutritionally adequate and culturally acceptable diet through local non-emergency sources for an active, healthy life (Allen 1999; Gottlieb and Fisher 1996; Reeder 2000; USDA 2012a). Communities, households, or individuals that experience food insecurity do not necessarily experience hunger, which is defined as a reduced or inadequate intake of food (Opfer 2010; Reeder 2000; USDA 2012b). Instead, food insecurity is a lack of access to sufficient quantity and quality of food to maintain health and culture. Food insecurity is often increased by easier access to obesity-causing foods (Dietz 1995; Drewnowski and Specter 2004; Nord et al. 2010).

Food insecurity disproportionately affects low-income, homeless, minority, and rural populations (Morton and Blanchard 2007; Richards and Smith 2006; Schafft et al. 2009; Sharkey et al. 2011; Slocum 2006). Income is frequently cited as the primary barrier to achieving food security and poverty rates generally are positively correlated to rates of food insecurity (Cason et al. 2003; Nord et al. 2010; Radimer et al. 1990). Food access issues such as transportation, the geographic distribution of food retailers, language barriers, lack of culturally appropriate foods and minimal participation in federal assistance programs also all contribute to household food insecurity (Cason et al. 2003; Gottlieb and Fisher 1996; Reeder 2000; Richards and Smith 2006). Our research evaluates how food access issues affect minority communities of migrant and seasonal farmworkers in Oregon's Willamette Valley. To assess food access we use spatial analysis of proximity through GIS mapping of food retailers and migrant and seasonal farmworkers (MSFW) housing developments and labor camp locations, case study interviews in a migrant farmworker community, and food retailer surveys of prices, selection, and quality.

Food security research that factors in race finds that low-income minority neighborhoods have fewer healthy food options in restaurants, a limited number of full-service grocery stores, a higher prevalence of fast-food outlets, and higher rates of food insecurity than wealthier, predominately white neighborhoods (Blair-Lewis et al. 2007; Cummins and MacIntyre 2006; Morland et al. 2002; Zenk et al. 2006). Additionally, studies have found that African American and Hispanic households experience food insecurity at rates double the national average (Quandt et al. 2006; Sharkey et al. 2011; Shields 1995 as cited in Slocum 2006; Weil 2004). People identifying as Hispanic or Latino are the fastest growing and largest minority population in the United States, especially in rural areas (Guzman 2001; Lichter and Johnson 2006). While these communities garner considerable attention in food security studies (Cason et al. 2003; McClure et al. 2010; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007; Reeder 2000; Sharkey et al. 2011; Weigel et al. 2007), they are underrepresented in literature examining the root causes of that food insecurity.

Migrant and seasonal farmworkers, defined as individuals who travel more than 75 miles to find work (Weigel et al. 2007), are particularly subject to food insecurity. Despite their contribution to food production these communities experience extremely high rates of food insecurity in comparison with the general public (Cason et al. 2003; McClure et al. 2010; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007; Reeder 2000; Weigel et al. 2007). For example, Reeder (2000) found that in Newport, Oregon 72.7% of MSFW households experience food insecurity, in contrast to the 12.7% of households statewide. About 70% of MSFW in Oregon are foreign-born, a statistic consistent across ten years (McClure et al. 2010; Reeder 2000), and up to 97% of foreign-born workers come from Mexico (Weigel et al. 2007), which may present unique food security challenges such as overcoming language barriers and attaining culturally appropriate foods.

The availability of traditional foods is vital for the cultural maintenance and health of immigrant and MSFW communities. In Mexican culture, food preparation and consumption is an integral part of many religious celebrations and family gatherings (Christie 2004). Food can be seen as both the embodiment and maintenance of culture. Acculturation, the adoption of a new culture by immigrants evidenced by new values, attitudes, customs and behaviors, has been associated with increasing problems of obesity and diabetes in immigrant populations as they abandon traditional foods (Anderson 2008; Grigsby-Toussaint et al. 2010; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007; Reeder 2000). Many people are intimidated to try unfamiliar foods due to a lack of knowledge of how to prepare them, limiting food choices to prepackaged meals with less nutritional value (Engler-Stringer 2010; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007). Due to language barriers, immigrants may also experience difficulties in attaining healthier food options, such as requesting leaner cuts of meat from the butcher, or taking advantage of sales (Cason et al. 2003). Access to culturally appropriate food is especially problematic for MSFW due to factors including transitory residence, geographical isolation, language barriers, availability, quality, and price, all of which increase the likelihood of food insecurity (Cason et al. 2003; Fishman et al. 1999; Reeder 2000). For MSFW the risk of food insecurity and associated negative health implications may be increased by low levels of participation in federal food-assistance programs due to language barriers and discrimination (Cason et al. 2003; McClure et al. 2010; Minkoff-Zern 2014; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007).

Measuring Food Deserts

Food security research has begun to examine specifically how the physical and built environment may affect food access. Several studies have found that disparities in geographic distribution of full-service food retailers correlate with socio-economic conditions (Guy and David 2004; Richards and Smith 2006; Schafft et al. 2009). Richards and Smith (2006) found that distance to nearest grocery stores, selection and quality varied greatly across urban socio-economic landscapes. Low-income areas tend to have one-third less grocery stores, with less selection, less nutritionally dense and more calorically dense foods (Richards and Smith 2006). This situation is conceptualized by the term food desert, characterized by an area with a population that has limited food access, limited mobility, low income, a more calorie-dense diet, and a reliance on smaller food stores that have poor quality and selection at high prices (Guy and David 2004).

The prevalence of food deserts can be partially attributed to the consolidation of supermarkets that cater to middle-class and wealthy suburban areas, driving smaller independent grocers located in the city centers out of business (Morland et al. 2002; Morton and Blanchard 2007; Opfer 2010; Schafft et al. 2009). These supermarkets are often located near highways, which discourages alternative forms of transportation such as walking, biking, or public transit because of distance from residential areas and lack of sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus routes. Low-income populations frequently do not have access to personal vehicles, and depend on rides from family and friends, or alternative modes of transportation for grocery trips, making these supermarkets less accessible (Opfer 2010).

A review of the literature fails to provide a clear or consistent quantitative definition for what qualifies as a food desert. Measurements for food deserts vary depending on application to rural or urban areas and the mobility of residents. Some studies use distance to the nearest grocery store from a defined community, which can differ drastically between rural and urban areas, varying from 0.25 mile to ten miles (Guy and David 2004; Morton and Blanchard 2007; Opfer 2010; Richards and Smith 2006; Schafft et al. 2009). Others use census tracts (Morland et al. 2002), school districts (Schafft et al. 2009) or counties (Hendrickson et al. 2006) to denote communities, and measure density or distance to food retailers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 2011) measured a food desert as a low-income census tract (with a poverty rate of 20% or more) with low access to a large grocery store (defined as one-third of the census tract population residing more than one mile away for urban areas or ten miles away for rural). This standardization could serve as a potential tool for food desert research. However, measuring poverty and distances is not enough to understand the obstacles that communities face in accessing nutritionally and culturally appropriate foods.

Our research examines issues of food insecurity in MSFW communities in Oregon's Willamette Valley, through the lens of the food desert concept on two levels. First, we mapped all registered MSFW labor camps in the designated study area and the proximity of food retailers to test the predominate method for defining a food desert. We then conducted a more in-depth evaluation of a particular MSFW housing development to explore the potential barriers to food access, such as proximity, transportation, price, selection, quality, availability of culturally appropriate foods, storage and cooking facilities, and language barriers. While there has been increasing discussion regarding health status and food insecurity in migrant farmworker populations (Cason et al. 2003; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007; Reeder 2000; Weigel et al. 2007), there has been little discussion as to the structural barriers at the root of these problems.

GIS Mapping

Spatial representation of data is beneficial for recognizing patterns in the distribution of food retailers and identifying food deserts (Guy and David 2004; Hackett et al. 2008; Opfer 2010; Schafft et al. 2009). Through the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services website, we obtained a database containing information for all of the 289 registered farmworker labor camps in the state of Oregon in 2010. Using geographic information systems (GIS) technology (ESRI Inc. 2008), we mapped the locations of all registered labor camps that fall within the ten counties of the Willamette Valley (n = 62). We then used Google Earth to search and map the locations of food retailers nearest the labor camps (n = 215). Using Google Earth, we entered the address of the labor camps (ODCBS 2010) to obtain the coordinates and used the “find business” tab to search for “grocery store.” We also tested other keywords such as “supermarket,” “food retailer,” and “convenience store” and found that “grocery store” captured all of these results.

Many MSFW lack United States driver's licenses or access to personal vehicles (J. Arredondo, pers. comm. Mar. 1, 2011; NORC 2011), limiting access to food, thus we defined the distance for assessing food deserts based on an urban definition as any community further than 0.25 mile from the nearest food retailer. This distance has been defined as easily walkable (Cerin et al. 2006; Walkscore 2010) and used in another food desert study (Guy and David 2004). We also included a 1.5-mile buffer radius, defined as the “maximum walkable distance” (Walkscore 2010), and five- and ten-mile buffers, based on rural food desert studies (Opfer 2010; Schafft et al. 2009). In our study we did not address bicycle use or access as an alternative transportation method.¹

We classified food retailers by store type, based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Other classification systems by Cassady et al. (2009), Guptill and Wilkins (2001), and Schafft et al. (2009) and self-identification were incorporated to further distinguish food retailers and used for the inventory section of the methods. Basic categories in order of decreasing selection included international-chain superstore, club-membership wholesaler, regional-chain superstore, ethnic warehouse, grocery store, specialty-food market, convenience store, and gas station with food-mart. To clarify spatial analysis, these classifications were consolidated into three broad categories: grocery store, specialty store, and convenience store. Grocery store includes superstores, wholesalers, warehouses, and grocery stores. Specialty store includes farm stands, meat markets, fruit and vegetable markets, and small-independent grocers with four or fewer employees. Convenience store includes gas stations with food-marts and convenience stores. Figure 1 displays an example of our methodology, for the 0.25-mile and 1.5-mile buffers for a select number of farmworker housing camps.

Figure 1.

A close-up from the map created to identify MSFW labor camps in Oregon's Willamette Valley and access to food retailers. Convenience stores and specialty stores are displayed with the same symbol because of their similar characteristics: limited selection, higher prices and seasonality or restricted hours of operation.

Interviews

The goal of the interviews was to better understand the food security challenges of MSFW in the Willamette Valley, which would not be evident in the GIS visualizations and results. To meet this goal we conducted interviews with residents of CL and the fund development director of FHDC. This community was chosen because of its past connections with local researchers, which increased our ability to gain permission to interview residents who represent a generally vulnerable population.

Questions for the semi-structured interviews with CL residents were organized around the following categories: 1) basic demographic data; 2) food shopping habits; 3) food consumption habits; 4) transportation methods; and 5) access to cooking and storage facilities. These categories were chosen based on studies conducted by Cason et al. (2003) and Richards and Smith (2006). The format of questions was a mixture of open-ended, multiple choice, and closed questions. For example, we asked participants: “Where do you shop most often?” “Which statement best describes how you feel? I (always, frequently, occasionally, never) have enough to eat” and “Are you able to buy the foods you would like to?” The interviews lasted about 30 minutes and were conducted orally in Spanish to overcome language or literacy barriers, and took place in residents' homes or in one of the offices of the CL community center. The number of people in the room and the number of respondents were not controlled for during the interview process, due to the difficulty in scheduling interviews, and varying comfort levels of participants. The CL community organizer (a native Spanish speaker) reviewed the questions to ensure clarity and cultural sensitivity.

Thirteen interview participants were recruited through voluntary sign-ups at community meetings, word-of-mouth, and with the help of staff at CL to achieve a convenience-based sample population. These non-probability sampling methods are appropriate for this population, given the difficulty of recruitment as experienced by other researchers (Cason et al. 2003; McClure et al. 2010) and because this portion of our research was qualitative in nature rather than quantitative (Bickman and Rog 1998; Patton 1990). All participants were at least 18 years old, a current CL resident, and the primary food shopper for their household. We also interviewed the fund development director for FHDC, J. Arredondo, as a key informant.

Food Retailer Inventories

The purpose of the food retailer inventory was to collect information about the price, selection and quality of food available at the stores frequented by CL residents. We conducted inventories at the food retail locations that were identified by CL residents as their primary source of food. These food retailers were classified according to the same methods set forth in the GIS mapping section above. For the food retailer inventories, we made use of self-identification to further distinguish food retailers, such as “ethnic warehouse.”

We inventoried selection as categorized by dietary guidelines set forth in the food guide pyramid by the USDA (2010a). The prices were recorded and compared to the market-basket prices (MBP) for “West urban” gathered from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), available through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), and to the national average retail prices recorded by the USDA (2010b) to determine relative price (Cassady et al. 2009; Richards and Smith 2006). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) gathers information regarding seasonal and annual changes in the CPI and defines the categories of U.S. city average, Northeast urban, Midwest urban, South urban, and West urban, as well as selected local areas. “West urban,” which includes all states west of the Rocky Mountains, was the most regionally specific data found, and therefore used in this study. The national average retail prices (USDA 2010b) were used to fill gaps in CPI data when possible. Quality of food was determined qualitatively by noting expiration dates and perceived freshness of produce. We determined culturally specific foods through the interview process and included all that were mentioned. Availability of culturally specific foods such as corn tortillas, beans, chile varieties, tomatillos, roma tomatoes, nopales, and tropical fruits, such as mangos and papaya was noted. A few additional chiles were also inventoried that were not specifically mentioned by interviewees because of their common availability, in order to provide another price comparison.

GIS Mapping

As noted in the methodology section, 289 MSFW labor camps were registered in Oregon in 2010 (ODCBS 2010), dropping from 341 in 2006 (Farquhar et al. 2008). Out of the total number of camps in Oregon, 62 were located in the Willamette Valley, a 30% decrease from 2006 (ODCBS 2010). Marion County had almost double the number of labor camp occupants than any other county and about twice as many MSFW live in Marion County than any other county in the Willamette Valley (see Figure 2 for the 2010 labor camp population of MSFW by county in Oregon's Willamette Valley).

Figure 2.

The 2010 labor camp populations of MSFWs by county in Oregon's Willamette Valley (ODCBS 2010).

The NAWS (2010) reported that 68% of farmworkers lived off the farm in non-employer housing, and 40% lived greater than nine miles from work. This is a shift in settlement patterns from MSFW living primarily in farmer-owned labor camps. However, the drop in registered labor camps in the Willamette Valley may indicate an underreporting of labor camps by the owners. One expert estimated that there are probably as many unregistered labor camps as there are registered ones, due to understaffing and under-enforcement from the regulatory agency (J. Arredondo pers. comm., Mar. 1, 2011). The low percentage of MSFW living in labor camps may also be attributed to the trend of farmworkers becoming less migratory due to government policies that make border crossings and travel more dangerous and costly, thereby encouraging MSFW to establish more permanent residences in towns or cities in order to be closer to services (J. Arredondo pers. comm., Mar. 1, 2011; Nelson 2007). By investigating the proximity of food retailers to registered labor camps, we are able to compare this living situation to the housing developments overseen by FHDC, which reflect historical trends of residence.

The food retailers that we mapped were defined by the three broad categories of grocery store, specialty store, and convenience store because of similar characteristics that govern price, selection, and quality at a basic level. Within the largest of the buffers we analyzed, a ten-mile radius from the registered Willamette Valley labor camps, there were 81 grocery stores, 78 convenience stores, and 56 specialty stores. Convenience stores and specialty stores are displayed in Figures 1 and 3 with the same symbol to enhance readability and because of their similar characteristics, such as limited selection, higher prices, and seasonality or restricted hours of operation, which limit their potential as sources of a variety of healthy food options (Guy and David 2004; McEntee and Agyeman 2010; Schafft et al. 2009). Our categorization makes assumptions based on the scholarship of others regarding the price, quality, and selection differences at convenience stores (Cummins and MacIntyre 2006; Hendrickson et al. 2006; Opfer 2010).

Figure 3.

Locations of registered MSFW camps and food retailers in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Convenience stores and specialty stores are displayed with the same symbol because of their similar characteristics: limited selection, higher prices and seasonality or restricted hours of operation.

Only one MSFW labor camp had a food retailer within a 0.25-mile walkable radius. The food retailer near this labor camp was a farm stand, which does not carry many staple foods, and is only open seasonally. This means that essentially, for MSFW labor camp residents without personal transportation, the entire Willamette Valley is functionally equivalent to an urban food desert. The rural locations of many of the camps and the reportedly low mobility of the population (J. Arredondo, pers. comm., Mar. 1, 2011) effectively constrains the distance easily traveled to that accessible by foot. Even if this distance is expanded to 1.5 miles, the maximum reasonable walkable distance (Walkscore 2010), only 46% of MSFW camps have access to a food retailer. Of these, 10% have access to a grocery store, 59% to specialty stores, and 45% to convenience stores (Note: these do not sum to 100% because some locations had access to multiple types of stores). Thus 95.4% of all labor camps in the Willamette Valley do not have access to a grocery store less than 1.5 miles away as a reliable source of produce and healthy food options (see Figure 3 which illustrates the registered MSFW camps, including CL, and food retailers in the Willamette Valley).

If we define the MSFW camps as rural, and use a ten-mile buffer common in rural food desert studies (Morton and Blanchard 2007; Opfer 2010; Schafft et al. 2009) all 62 locations have access to a grocery store. In fact, all MSFW labor camps still have access to a food retailer within five miles. However, within this five-mile buffer, only 71% of MSFW camps have access to a grocery store, whereas 90% have access to a convenience store, and 92% have access to a specialty store. If specialty stores and convenience stores are combined, together they represent 62% of food retailers within ten miles of MSFW camps in the Willamette Valley (see Table 1 for selected data from the GIS analysis). These results may represent a more optimistic estimation of food retailer access for those with motorized transportation options as the buffers are based on linear distances. The addition of roads necessary for access to the food retailers as well as physical barriers to access, such as freeways, rivers, and the grid of farmers' fields would likely result in even fewer MSFW camps having access to food retailers, based on previous rural food desert studies (McEntee and Agyeman 2010; Morton and Blanchard 2007; Opfer 2010; Schafft et al. 2009). We feel that when the transportation challenges of MSFW are taken into consideration these rural communities are more appropriately assessed using urban food desert distances of measurement.

Table 1.

Selected data from the GIS analysis showing the percentage of MSFW labor camps in Oregon's Willamette Valley with access to different types of food retailers within the specified distance.

Interviews

Colonia Libertad was chosen for the interview portion of our research because of its past contact with university community members and our ability to gain permission to interview residents. Our ability to gain access to and interview residents in other parts of the Willamette Valley was limited due to the circumstances of MSFW housing being located on private land and the probability of large numbers of residents being undocumented and unwilling to speak to us. Much of our information regarding the conditions on other MSFW sites came from our key informant and others' scholarship (J. Arredondo pers. comm., Mar. 1, 2011; Nelson 2007). Due to the difficulty of accessing other MSFW sites, we are uncertain how far our results can be generalized, given the urban location, support staff and resources available to residents of CL that are inaccessible to many other MSFW. However, the interviews provide insights into the unique food security issues of MSFW.

The results of the semi-structured interviews are categorized by the themes outlined in the methodology section: demographics, shopping habits, food consumption habits, transportation methods, access to cooking and storage facilities. Of these, shopping habits and food consumption habits revealed the greatest food access issues for the interviewees. Out of the 48 households at Colonia Libertad, 13 participated in the study, representing 27% of the households. Low recruitment partially reflects low community attendance at the residents' meetings where we recruited the majority of the participants.

Shopping Habits

The questions that structured discussions of shopping habits included the frequency and locations that people shopped, average grocery expenses per week, availability of cultural foods in the locations where they shopped, participation in government sponsored food-assistance programs, limitations on purchasing, and what they would purchase if those limitations were removed. Eight respondents bought groceries once every week, and five indicated buying groceries every 15 days, corresponding with pay periods. Respondents spend between $75 and $200 (U.S.) dollars per week on groceries, depending on how many family members are living with them, and how frequently they shop. Ten indicated that an employee-owned superstore was their primary food shopping location. The top reasons cited for shopping at this store included price, proximity, and convenience. Other stores mentioned included an ethnic warehouse, an international chain superstore, a club-membership wholesaler, and another ethnic warehouse in Woodburn, OR, which was far outside the distance interviewees normally traveled for groceries, but was close to the individual interviewee's employment site.

In addition to grocery superstores, participants indicated acquiring food from alternative sources. Participants mentioned borrowing food from neighbors, receiving food from the food bank at CL, and planting in the community garden on site or at their employer's property. While these sources diversified food access, their reliability was limited in the types and amount of food available, making grocery stores still the major food source. Nine of the 13 respondents participated in some form of government-sponsored food-assistance program. This is a much higher proportion than reported in other studies (Cason et al. 2003; Pérez-Escamilla and Putnik 2007), and may reflect that living at CL provides greater opportunities to connect residents with services. All of these are invaluable alternative food sources when budgets are tight and most would be considered “emergency” sources, an indication of food insecurity (Allen 1999; Gottlieb and Fisher 1996; Reeder 2000; USDA 2012a).

The locations where respondents attained food varied strikingly from where they previously acquired food in Mexico. Respondents mentioned mercados (markets), puestos (small street vendors), tiendas de abarrotes (small corner stores), and foraging as their usual means for purchasing or attaining food before coming to the United States. However since coming to the United States participants largely prefer shopping at larger grocery stores. This is consistent with findings from Guy and David (2004), who cited the assumption of lower prices and better selection as a reason for this preference. The changes in locations where respondents acquired food may result in not only changes in purchasing habits but challenges when facing new systems and languages.

Participants were also asked to respond to questions regarding culturally and regionally specific foods, their perceived availability, and barriers to purchasing preferred and healthy foods. All respondents replied that it was easy to find fruits and vegetables where they shopped but that the produce was not always affordable. Respondents identified red meat, chicken, fish, fruits and vegetables as foods that they would like to purchase more of if they cost less. All of these foods are essential parts of a healthy diet according to the USDA (2010a). Eleven of the 13 participants responded affirmatively to the question, “Do you worry about your ability to buy enough food to feed your family?” Eight responded affirmatively to the question, “Are you able to buy all the food you need or want?” This may indicate food insecurity without hunger, as they do not have to restrict food intake, however the number of respondents who indicated that they participate in some form of food-assistance program may suggest that ideas of food insecurity are relative and complex.

Nine participants thought that it was easy to find cultural foods where they shopped. However, one participant mentioned that while cultural foods were available, she would not buy them because of their poor quality. The cultural foods listed by respondents were quite extensive and varied, and a full list is included in Table 2 as part of the food retailer inventory. Examples include beans, rice, 11 different varieties of chiles, nopales, tomatillos, guayaba, mango, salsa, and queso fresco. The variation in responses reflects the participants' hometowns, located in eight different Mexican states, and the relationship between cultural diversity and food preferences regionally in Mexico.

Table 2.

Cultural foods listed by respondents and price inventories of respondents' preferred food retailers.

Table 2.

Continued.

Food Retailer Inventories

Our inventory of the three food retailers that were identified by three or more CL residents as their primary shopping location revealed that all stores carried the majority of items surveyed, of mostly good quality food at relatively low and comparable prices. All of these were classified as grocery stores based on the NAICS coding (U.S Census Bureau 2007). These stores were previously referred to in this paper as the international-chain superstore, the employee-owned superstore, and the ethnic warehouse. None of the food retailers that were inventoried fell within 0.25 mile of CL, reported as the ideal walkable distance (Cerin et al. 2006). However they all fell within 5 miles of CL, which was the maximum distance to a food retailer for any registered labor camp in the Willamette Valley.

A comparison of prices among the three grocery stores, as well as the market basket prices (MBP) for western states, revealed these stores had comparable and relatively low prices, while selection and quality of cultural foods varied. This inventory supported the interviewees' claims of good availability of produce and relatively low prices (as compared with the MBP). It also supported the respondents' observation of poor or variable quality and selection of cultural foods. The ethnic warehouse had comparable or higher prices than either the international-chain superstore or the employee-owned superstore, however, qualitatively it did compare favorably to the other stores. The ethnic warehouse appeared to cater to the local Mexican population based on its greater selection of cultural foods, stocking 27 of 32 cultural items inventoried (see Table 2). It also carried Mexican specialty items such as pigs' feet and chili-spiced candies, and had bilingual signs and announcements. Most of its produce was also ripe, or borderline overripe, which might actually be more familiar to Mexican consumers. While the employee-owned superstore offered almost as many cultural foods (25 of 32 listed in Table 2), and had greater selection and quality of produce at lower prices, it did not have bilingual signage, as the other two stores did. However, due to its proximity to CL, the majority of respondents bought groceries there. Overall, the prices from all three stores were more or less comparable to each other, and less than or comparable to the MBP for West urban. For a complete inventory with prices noted for each of the stores, and comparisons with the MBP for West urban (BLS 2010), see Table 2. The results from the food inventory supported findings from the interviews, as well as previous studies indicating that grocery stores are reliable and less expensive sources of healthy and good quality foods (Cassady et al. 2007; Morland et al. 2002; Morton and Blanchard 2007; Opfer 2010; Schafft et al. 2009).