Language evolves, but sometimes changes in terminology say more about politics than progress. The Associated Press and progressive activists have increasingly shifted how issues are framed, often replacing neutral terms with ideologically loaded alternatives. One recent example is the replacement of “food desert” with “food apartheid”—a term now being used to describe grocery access in parts of Seattle.
Seattle Times columnist Naomi Ishisaka recently used her platform to promote this reframing, arguing that the scarcity of grocery stores in south Seattle is a symptom of systemic racism. According to her, “food apartheid” reflects the idea that limited access to healthy food in some communities isn’t random or natural, but a result of deliberate choices rooted in discriminatory policies like redlining and underinvestment.
A Loaded Term With a Political Agenda
The problem with this narrative is that it often overlooks more immediate and practical explanations. Ishisaka, for instance, briefly mentions that one of the few grocery stores near her own home in Rainier Beach has been the site of frequent gun violence. But rather than explore this critical factor further, she returns to the assumption that racism alone is to blame.
Also Read – Seattle Police: Man Threw Keg, Groped Women in Violent Outburst
Grocery chains operate on tight profit margins. Safety—both for customers and employees—is a key part of the equation when deciding where to open or maintain stores. Neighborhoods plagued by repeated violent incidents aren’t just less appealing—they’re often unworkable from a business standpoint. Calling this dynamic “food apartheid” dismisses these complex realities in favor of a simplified racial narrative.
Ignoring the Consequences of Local Policies
Seattle’s political climate has become increasingly hostile to proactive policing and accountability, resulting in rising crime and deteriorating conditions in certain neighborhoods. While activists call for dismantling what they view as oppressive systems, businesses quietly retreat from areas where basic public safety isn’t guaranteed.
The irony is striking: the same activists pushing for the recognition of “food apartheid” are often those opposing the very measures—like increased policing and community investment—that could help make these areas more viable for business. It’s a contradiction that goes largely unaddressed in the mainstream conversation.
Beyond Rhetoric
Seattle residents deserve thoughtful solutions, not just rebranded buzzwords. Addressing food access in underserved communities is an important goal—but real change will require more than slogans. It will take tackling the root causes of crime, improving infrastructure, and creating an environment where both residents and retailers feel safe and supported.
Until then, terms like “food apartheid” may generate headlines, but they won’t fill shelves—or stomachs.
