There is a proposed moratorium on fast food eateries as a way to cut down obesity rates in South Los Angles. But this idea has its taxpayers asking:
Is this really the right way for the government to “weigh” in?
Some residents are saying that it’s an infringement on their freedom to make their own choices – fatty or not! Other economists are saying that it is a move against the free market and a spiteful move towards more regulation. Other companies are saying that it’s against the law to zone against obesity. But some on the city council is saying it’s a way to deal with the growing obesity problem in their area and that’s why this fall, the City Council will consider a two-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles.
Supersize #'s
According to a Los Angeles county Department of Public Health study released in April, 30% of adults in South L.A. are obese, compared with 20.9% in the county and for children, the obesity rate was 29% in South L.A., compared with 23.3% in the county. Now take that into consideration and look at an analysis by the Los Angeles Times, of its city's approximately 8,200 restaurants. South Los Angeles has the highest concentration of fast-food restaurants and their franchises. South Los Angeles also has a far lower concentration of grocery stores.
When you take these obesity figures combined with the fast food saturdation of the area and you can see why Jan Perry had an idea and proposed an ordinance that said no to any additional fast food restaurants in the area. And I can see how many on the City Council believe the correlation they are making is clear but I’m not sold on how they are trying to fix the problem.
Poverty
When you look beyond the obesity – you find another correlation to cheap fast food in the area – and that is the poverty rate of South Los Angeles as well. In South Los Angeles, 28% of people live in poverty, compared with 16.2% of the county, according to Los Angeles county figures. So these residents in the area do not have the $12 to spend on a lunch so they look to cheap fast food – and let’s face in here in America we have it down when it comes to cheap fast food!
So to counter cheap fast food – one could argue that it’s cheaper than buying all the individual ingredients and making it yourself and making the dollar go even farther. With poverty stricken areas come a higher crime rate – more robberies and petty theft which are both a huge deterrent for grocery stores when picking their location. Also, if it takes two buses to get to the grocery store and just your feet to walk across the street to grab a burger and fries – chances are you are going to use the crosswalk instead of the bus.
What do you think?
Would you vote for a 2-year moratorium on fast food?
What would your idea be for curbing obesity rates like those we see in South Los Angeles?
Thank you for “weighing in” with your two cents for what could solve this very important question!
Laura
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 81
Thank you!
Mandate that all fast food chains have nutrition info clearly available, not hidden in the stock room that someone has to ask to see. They can even post the fat contents, calorie count, etc. on the menu! Another thing they can do is offer an incentive to legitimate gyms so that the gym can take in members on a sliding scale. They do it with rent. I have known of people who have to pay something like $5.25 a month in rent while the landlord gets the rest (or more like a set amount for UCR) from the Housing Department. Cooking and eating at home are usually healthier and less expensive than eating out, even fast food. Education is the key. If someone is receiving WIC or food stamps then they can offer or even mandate that the adult in charge take a class on nutrition, exercise, and the health problems associated with obesity.
The problem will be determining what constitutes fast food. A number of quick service restaurants like Chipotle and Panera probably aren't considered fast food but still sell fat ladened products (but it's so damn good).
Also where would Starbucks fall under this ban? A Venti Mocha Frappachino has more calories and only 2g less fat than a Quarter Pounder from McDonalds.
Laura
I would vote NO for the measure.
thought provoking article - thanks!
Is there no area of life left where "government" is off limits?
~Natalie Neal
Best in the Whole Wide World
I would like to see the calorie, fat, fiber, etc. information on all offerings available in the store. I generally have to go online to their websites to find such things.
The truth is, however, education is much more important than force. People will eat more fast food just to thumb their noses at politicians otherwise.
Some argue that all kinds of things should be prohibited, such as plastic bags, plastic drink bottles and fast food. Apart from obesity in the case of fast food and certain drinks, there are also environmental considerations, including concern about global warming.
I believe that taxes work much better than standards, regulations and prohibitions. I discussed the arguments in regard to global warming in: Global Warming - Tax or Standards?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977039808
The link between eating meat and global warming is such that I did include a tax on sales of meat in my 'Ten Recommendations' to deal with global warming, at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976952727
Importantly, the proceeds of such a tax should go towards the establishment of vegetarian restaurants, preferably in communities without roads where people use footpaths or bicycle paths to go to work, school, lecture rooms, shops, restaurants, etc.
What a power grab. Are we really that stupid and unable to take care of ourselves that we need the "oh so smart" people in government to mother us like this?
For instance, there could be a similar opposition / restriction on high-end condos being imposed upon a neighborhood.
Thanks so much for coming back and commenting – I'm a big fan of your icon as well!
You make a good point – cities make up their own zoning laws and just like they can zone against commercial truck traffic on certain streets, zone against bars that serve alcohol in certain neighborhoods and zone for certain sign ordinances – I can't see why they could not do this. But I don't think they could do it with the approval of the majority of their residents. When it comes to the zoning laws of a city – they are helpful (except for those no standing or unloading zones that eat up street parking) but is taking away choices at a low cost helpful and who really is to determine if there are already enough choices out there. Although the area seems saturated per the study – if these businesses are making money and others see room to get a piece of the action as well – that shows there is still a demand – that comes from the residents and that is who the city council serves….
Thanks so much Poliwonk, Laura
Good article. I would not vote for this, my concern is what's next. Yes obesity is a problem. But no one is forcing any to eat it. You are right it's cheap, and that has a lot to do with it. Also the hectic schedules most people have. But in my opinion it' pretty tasty too. MMMM...Big Mac
When I look back to high school one of the best lessons that applies to so much in life – is when I learned about supply and demand. (I was much better at the ideas than the actual math). In this case there is a demand for the fast food – it's cheap and it's easy and it's close. This means for folks without cars – they can still access food, for folks with low incomes they can afford it and for folks that are running to a job or multiple jobs as well as dealing with family obligations – it's fast. And that's what the area's demographic seems to be and wants – they demand food that is fast, cheap and in walking distance. You've got supply and demand – I'm sure that these other fast food chains that want to come in have studied the spending habits and demand in the area – and honestly I trust their assessments – you don't see a lot of McDonald's shutting down due to lack of demand do you?
Thanks for weighing in! Laura
And how many times do I really go to McDonald's for the salad shaker?
Cheers, Laura
You are absolutely right. These businesses will build a block over the district line and then that district's tax base and revenue will increase where as it could have increased South Los Angeles'. I have an idea for an alternative to a two - year moratorium that 'd like to throw out there. Instead of banning restaurants – allow them to come in and set aside the tax revenue that the city gets off of the new fast food restaurants to build an obesity education fund.
A fund that can be used to create free healthy eating classes, free health cooking classes or a city sponsored walk at noon just to name a few educational/action options. These walk at noon programs have worked in other cities. Where employees were given time by their employers to walk at Noon for 30minutes everyday. The city even gave out free t-shirts to the employees that participated. After the (I believe it was 3month) run of the program companies extended it because it showed improved energy and work output. This not only helped the health of the employees – it helps the health of the business too!
What do you all think?
Thanks so much - please keep the comments and ideas coming!
Laura
Thank you!
Congress is about to approve a new transportation bill full of fat and not enough of it spent on bridges!
And no one in congress seems to have a problem with it.
How about this to spice up the political banter!
This is not to tax any company MORE! I want to reassert - We do not need to add taxes here - just use those from the additional fast food places that come into the district which would go to a normal tax revenue base anyway and currently so - and set them aside to combat obesity through city programming instead of the general coffers as a weigh to pay for health and education. Thanks
There is currently no monitary risk or return of living a healthy lifestyle until it is too late and the effects of poor living habits(fast food, smoking, etc) take their effects. We it food that is bad for us because their is no risk/reward for living that way!
This is a Pro-Choice issue, you have the choice to eat fast food or not.
You are Pro-Choice, right Laura?
On this one my conservative side comes out in that the purpose of government is not to limit people to only "healthy" choices! We have no moral right to impose our values on others even if we "think" it would make them live longer and healthier. To provide people with information to make informed choices is appropriate, to rule such by law is over the top.
Your second premise is not fully correct. From living through some very "poor" years I can tell you that you can still feed a family cheaper at home than at a fast food restaurant if you are willing to try! Why are we even studying the relative number of grocery stores to fast food joints with government money?
It is true, as someone mentioned, that many of the chains now have numerous healthy choices on their menus, but it up to people to choose these items and many do.
Sam Carena,
If it wrong for government to control something by regulation it is equally wrong to control it by taxation. And I believe this is just plain wrong. You do like your "solution by taxes" methodology, don't you?
Dale,
Although I'm in full agreement with you on this issue, the direct answer to your question is that the last time I looked the preamble to the Constitution contained the line "Promote the general welfare." I believe this would qualify. However, I also believe that to exercise this control would be discriminatory and wrong! Follow this line of thinking and next we'll legislate what positions one can use while engaging in sex! Don't cross that line.
Please re-read the past entries, thank you.
I read your entries and completely understand and I value you for putting an idea forward on the issue.
Thank you!
Ashley
And what about resteraunts that sell massive portions? Can they be banned too?
It is about time that we Americans stopped defining freedom by what all we can do to kill ourselves and cost our fellow citizens more money and grief and started to get real about how f*ed up we are in terms of our health.
One thing that I think would be positive would be to have socialized health care, wherein when anyone gets sick ... meaning millions and millions of people getting diabetes or cancer it becomes a cost, and hence a concern for all of us to take seriously instead of just blabbing over and over for decades the same old platitudes about blah blah blah.
Let's get some of these things done. If the fast food places were all selling organic healthy cheap fast food ... we Americans would be a healthy powerhouse in the world ... why can't we do that? Oh, yeah ... we soooo freeeeee!!!! ;-)
I heard on an NPR interview with residents of a poorer area of CA that the fast food restaurants do not offer salads on their menus in those particular locations as they do in wealthier areas of the state. What does THAT tell you?
I think the moratorium approach is pretty ridiculous as it is not enforceable. However, a community still has the right to decide what their zoning laws are. I have seen many communities fight against letting in fast food outlets or chains and win. If people want to try to reverse the obesity trends, there is going to have to be a multi-faceted approach of general education, supplier responsibility, individual responsibility, medical professional focus on prevention and education, and government responsibility (specifically, as Chive points out, stopping the massive subsidies on corn production that produces cheap, non-nutritive food additives that contribute to this end).
Anyway, you just want to attack at me, so that is where I draw the line.
Thank you so much for commenting - you offer great insight and i appreciate your participation!
I like your idea of somehow supporting unprocessed, fresh foods, though. Somehow I don't think the big processed food producers with multitudes of lobbyists would appreciate that in DC.
Look, the insurance industry and government set the groundwork for chasing down the tubbies to make them PAY--- you only THINK you have control over what you eat.
Well, maybe you do NOW, so you should enjoy it while you can, believe me, they're coming after all of you fat slobs *chuckle*