Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
This is such crap. A sit-down restaurant is not a healthy alternative to fast food. Escpecially when we are talking about the chain restaurants that would be looking at this area as a potential market. If you compare the calorie, sodium, fat contents, etc. in a typical meal from a sit-down restaurant to a meal from a fast food joint, the fast food joint wins easily.
|
I agree that a "sit-down" restaurant is not necessarily a better choice. The spokesperson for the city council also mentioned that they hoped to attract grocers through this ordinance as well.
But even sit-down restaurants engender a different eating atmosphere than their fast food counterparts. You're not guzzling down a burger in one hand with your other hand on the wheel, mindlessly stuffing your face before you run to your next obligation.
I think the main point I was trying to convey, and that the LA city council was trying to convey, is that they would like to see more options besides fast food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonGirl
On the one hand, I like the idea. On the other hand, this makes me cringe. A little too much government in my personal life, y'know?
And really, they're just treating a symptom, not the disease. If they're really concerned about the health of citizens, why not step up nutritional education, and add more physical education classes? Start younger, don't try to change habits of people that have been unhealthy for years.
I have to admit it would be nice to see more health food stores than fast food places. But I'd also like to be able to eat French fries on the rare occasions I indulge.
|
This is a great point. I think that the ordinance is probably one tactic of fighting this beast.
In the larger picture, this alone will not solve the obesity problem, but its a start.