Prohibiting new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods
 

I'm actually for the zoning law. I think food abuse can very much be put in the same category as alcohol or drug abuse, speaking as a person who battles her weight daily.

The first thing I did when looking at this article is to query for who the author is: William Saletan. Looks like he's a "liberal" Republican who doesn't discount that race could be a defining factor in someone's IQ. Yet, his article preaches about how our government is being too paternalistic in their treatment of poor people of south central LA (most of whom are not white). Hmmm...does he really believe that people of color have the brain capacity to think for themselves? That's debatable.

So then my next question is what are his motives in publishing this article.

I think what he's not saying and where his motives lie are in the belief that the free market will tell us what's best for us.

That is what I disagree with. As we have already established there is an epidemic of obesity in our country.
We can't just say, "if you don't like it go somewhere else."
Why, you ask?
Because we do not have freedom of choice, but an illusion of this freedom.

Look, there's a McDonald's on every street corner. I have so much choice.
I can choose to buy a salad at McDonald's. That means I have choice. Have you looked at the nutritional content of said salad? Is it actually good for you? What is it made of?

The free market does not have morals and it does not care if you are obese. The free market wants your money.

I applaud LA for admitting that there are corporations that are targeting the poor and that they as a city would like to protect them.

About damn time. Sure, many would be against being told what to do and what to eat, but it's a start in promoting a healthier lifestyle.

However, they should open up a Subway instead of a McDonald's in that area.

It is not LA's business to enforce dietary restrictions on their populace.

From the article:

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.

Because subway is healthier????

"SUBWAY is a registered trademark of Doctor's Associates Inc" It is owned by doctors and associates! It must be healthy!

Take a better look at their nutritional specs and you'll find they are not healtier by any stretch of the means for a majority of their food.

As far as them zoning, cities are free to do so. It doesn't matter, people do what they do because that's what they want. So they'll drive further out for McDonald's. I drove FAR to go to Carl's Jr. when I lived in LA because that's what I wanted when I could have easily gotten a McD, BK, or Jack in the Box.

This also doesn't address the small strip mall eateries that may also have "bad" food. So they penalize the large corporation.

Yep, when the cities and states don't get the taxes from the businesses, they'll scrambe to raise taxes on the individuals directly.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 02 : 20 : 38-----
yep. The Olive Garden, Chili's, TGIFriday's all them corporate restaurants are not better than McDs especially when the upsell the appetizers and deserts.

I see nothing wrong with the ordinance as long as it includes ALL chains like TGIFs, Applebee's, etc.
I wish someone in this county had the balls to place a moratorium on strip malls, at least 3 of which are going up right now in a 5 mile radius :mad:

Sure, if you eat a shit sammich like Jarred did with no condiments and one piece of meat.

But you might as well eat a salad. They should open salad bars.

Maybe being friendlier to supermarkets than fast food joints would be a good idea because supermarkets are more likely to generate revenue and attract people to the shopping areas. Ignoring the fact that fast food really isn't cheaper than healthy food, the economic opportunity cost of having a McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell instead of a Safeway should be obvious.

What makes Subway so much better than McDonald's? Subway's ad campaign that all their stuff is so great for you is BS. Look at their nutritional information. See the fine print:

So the sub that is so low in calories and fat is half the size for a normal meal AND it has no cheese or condiments. The nutritional information for the salads assumes you eat it without any dressing.

Essentially they are misrepresenting what a typical person is going to eat. To me that borders on false advertising. Get a footlong tuna sub and you are looking at 1100 calories, 60 grams of fat and 2000 mg of sodim. Add in the chips and you are up to about 1500 calories. Add the 32 oz soda and you are at about 2000 calories. It is the same as McDonald's.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 02 : 52 : 11-----
Supermarket food is really only better if you are going to cook your own meal. If the intent is to make people healthy then they need to ban supermarkets from selling processed frozen food crap.

People buy fast food because they don't want to cook. Period. If you remove that unhealthy choice they will just make another unhealthy choice.

I am for the government removing ALL unhealthy foods from restaurant food chains, grocery stores, whatever. I know what it's like to be addicted to unhealthy food and it was the worst time of my life. Combine low income or depression with it and game over, you're gonna stuff your face with HFCS and as much sugar and plastic food you can eat. I took my own initiative of declaring personal war against fast food places and I go out of the way to not eat at McDonald's, Burger King, etc. These places are out to make money, not provide good food. That means they're going to make addictive, fattening foods that are the worst substance you could put in your body all for the $$$$$.

Make it so number 1.

I would love to see everyone healthy. The world WOULD be a better place without unhealthy, morbidly obese people, and when I say a better place, I mean a better place FOR THESE PEOPLE. I know what it's like to be super fat and I know the absolute feeling of "I'm a lost cause" that people get. Once you get really fat it is unbelievably hard to get out of the routine. Way too hard for most people...so yes, I would support the government banning unhealthy food.

It's about offering a healthy choice. Some people will eat junk food no matter what, but if you're only close to a fast food restaurant, then you're forced to go hungry or eat rubbish. If you don't want to cook, but you're hungry, there are plenty of healthy options at your average supermarket. Grab a piece of fruit and a ready-made salad. Grab some cold cuts. The possibilities are endless, even for an individual who doesn't want to prepare food. And many supermarkets have a deli, which can serve up any number of choices that are healthier than a Jack in the Box or Pizza Hut.

WTF ever happened to individual accountability?

If you don't want to eat fatty food, STOP EATING AT PLACES THAT SERVE IT!

Everything within 5 minutes walking distance of my work is fast food: McDoands, Jacks, Pizza my Heart, Ben and Jerry's, Iguana's, etc. The closest supermarket is a 15 minute walk or a drive in downtown traffic. I like to bring my lunch from home, but there are times when unforeseeable circumstances mean that I have to fend for myself when 12:00 rolls around. I'll occasionally get a McDonalds salad sans meat and dressing, but I still get the feeling I'm eating crap.

Well, shit, don't get the Coke and chips. There's an idea. Subway also has juices and water for sale.

They're not misrepresenting anything. You can plainly find all info on their site if you want to.

So you have to plan ahead, or walk farther, god forbid.

Why you want the government telling you what you can and can't eat is beyond me.

This is fairly "Mommy Government", even for me.

I'm still very very liberal, I promise!

You make it sound as though it's an either/or choice. I think that a lot of people eat too much fast food. Hell...myself included, for that matter. But, I don't think that there are very many people that subsist entirely on fast food. There may be a McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and a Long John Silver's on the way to the grocery store...but the grocery store is still there. Just because Wendy's is the closest thing to your house doesn't mean that if you don't eat there you go hungry.

My thoughts, exactly.

It's proper city planning, not the government telling you what to eat. Instead of only having fast food within a 1 mile radius of my office, why not have at least one market? It doesn't need to be a super-gigantic Safeway, just something that doesn't have a clown promoting it's deep fried menu. And I don't always have time to devote 40 minutes to getting lunch.

Then open one yourself. The market demand obviously isn't that high, and most people are content to pack their own lunch, or eat fast food.

If it were economical viable, there would be.

I really don't know to many people that go to a grocery store for lunch. Lunch is usually a cafe, diner, cafeteria, roach coach, street vendor, fast food, chain restaraunt, or even brown bagging it. But, unless the grocery store has a restaraunt in it, I don't see people going there for lunch. Most people use the grocery store to stock up on food, not eat an individual meal.

That's why you see quick restaraunts around the business districts, and grocery stores closer to the residential areas. Of course there will be some overlap, but you get the gist.

There are also healthy restaurants that could be moving in, though. Maybe people are just too stupid to self regulate.

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.

Yeeeeaaah...that's where natural selection should kick in. Not the government.

I always thought that was the reason for the railroad tracks near El Camino Real, small way to let CalTrain thin out the herd a little.

I am all for legislating whatever the heck the community wants on a city level.
Go for it.

I just hope that people from the poor neighborhoods that will be affected were adequately represented in this decision.

I guess the unemployed people in those neighborhoods will just have to go somewhere else and find a job....

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.

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.

Go ahead and ban fast food in low income areas.

How many Nature's Ways and organic food markets are going to pop up and accept WIC?

Fast food places thrive in low income areas, because its what people can afford.

Healthy food is cheaper than fast food, bc.

Maybe out your way it is. $14 in fast food could feed me for a week, eating twice a day. As it is, I can barely squeak by at $60 for reasonably healthy groceries. If you can get me seven days worth of healthy food for $14, by all means.

Mango: If things worked that way, the world would be such a lovely place. Unfortunately, driving the poor out of the ghettos typically results in turning decent neighborhoods into slums, rather than encouraging them to be a positive influence in the work force.

Well this is just plain wrong. Even getting the most efficient food at McDonalds so far as mass to cost, double cheeseburgers, you're looking at only eating 2 double cheeseburgers a day. Unless you're not human, you can't survive on that.

Here's something funny, though:
1 head of lettuce: $1
4 apples: $2
8 Chicken thighs: $5
Broccoli: $2
1/2 gallon of milk: $1.50
1 dozen eggs: $2.00
1 pound of lentils: ~$0.50

$14 total. This could possibly feed someone for 5 days (assuming you also have unlimited water). 14 cheeseburgers? I doubt you'd make it past 3 and you're going to be very sick.

If you want your food, you're going to WAIT FOR IT!

thse are cali prices....

1 head of lettuce: $2.99 (very small pathetic little head of lettuce)
4 apples: $2 (these are really small pathetic little apples)
Broccoli 1/2 head $2.50
1/2 gallon milk $2.50
1 dz eggs $3.49
1 lb lentils: $1.00

chinese food roast pork over steamed rice: $3.50 enough for 2-3 meals
4 meat dumplings $1
1 bowl hot sour soup $1.50
carne guisado, rice, beans $6.00 enough for 2-3 meals.
slice of pizza $2
hot dog $1.25

here it's cheaper and easier to eat out....

Things are definitely cheaper in your neck of the woods, Will. The only thing on that list that is comparable to prices around here was the lettuce. Hell, 5 skinless chicken breasts strips cost me $14.97 this evening before tax, and that was the cheaper store brand. 1/2 gallon of the cheap skim milk, $2.49 this evening before tax. Mind you, this was also with the grocery store discount card.

As for the fast food, I must not be human then. Between Wendy's and Taco Bell, that's about what I spent weekly for a few semesters of college. And I'm no small guy, either.

I've been researching the food industry for the past 2 years as I believe that is the direction my career will be moving in, if not directly at least where I will be starting a business.

This is another area you have no idea what you are talking about. There are many studies that show that healthy food is in fact more expensive than "junk" food. This isn't endemic to the US it is also similar in other countries.

So poor folks buy more junk food because they've counted the calories?

I don't know about that. $4 to buy some hot pockets fills me up just as much as $3.50 for an organic frozen burrito and a plum.

Ah, but you've made a rookie mistake: basing everything on calories. Compare my menu to the McDonalds menu on calories and I've had my ass handed to me, but it's not that simple at all. My diet featured variety, vitamins and minerals, fiber, healthy fats, and not even the whisper of a preservative or artificial additive. What does this mean? This means a more balanced diet will mean a better metabolism and better general health.

For anyone in school, test my theory. On test day, have a McDonalds Sausage and egg abortion sandwich with hash fried so deep that you can taste gasoline. And shoot, for kicks, wash it down with a diet cola. Next test rolls around have a small bowl of shredded wheat in soy milk and some heart healthy eggs with mushrooms, peppers, and a glass of water (which washes down a multivitimin). Roughly the same caloric count (plus or minus). In addition to getting more than twice the volume of food, you're going to have more energy. BUT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?! It's the quality of the calorie, of course.

Not only that, but the fact that you've had a substantially higher mass of food also means you feel more full and aren't hungry for a while longer. This is why people who count calories don't starve.

Until you compensate for quality of calorie and the mass of the food, you're missing a lot of the equation and you're presenting an incorrect answer.

Maybe for you, but the average consumer doesn't buy an organic frozen burrito or a plum. I doubt the fellows in South Central LA are eating organic frozen burritos.

again, you don't know what you are talking about. While there is something to the nutrition values, there isn't when it comes to the cost of the nutrition versus the total cost of food. Healthier food costs more to produce and costs more to purchase. It is that simple.

I've been spending alot of free time talking to nutritionists, food scientists, food service workers, food manufacturers for the better part of my spare time in the past 3 years.

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/...ce_of_food.pdf

Man this thread is getting good http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/16.gif

(I can still use a smiley like that, right?)

Uh huh.
Corn costs more to produce than high fructose corn syrup? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Oh, and I'll bet oats are REALLY expensive when compared to aspartame.

Your article fails in a major way: it's not put together by people who are budgeting.
HA! I've been on a low calorie diet for years and I only spend that much a day when I eat out or have a formal (read: splurge) meal. I'll bet I could spend half that on low calorie food and have a wonderful day of food that is slightly over 2000 calories.

Smart consumers, or consumers who are aware that an 80 calorie apple that costs $0.59 will leave you just as full and energized as a 440 calorie Double Cheeseburger from McDonalds that costs $1.00, would be able to sit down for a few minutes and figure out how to eat healthy on a tight budget and manage to be much more efficient than someone who eats fast food.

Yes, HFCS is a by product that has become monetized. HFCS is easier to sustain constant costs than SUGAR which is what it was meant to replace. HFCS is not cheaper to produce than corn, cheaper to predict and hedge profits. Sugar is quite expensive as a commodity which is why you see HFCS as a replacement in cheap foodstuffs wherein sugar is not required such as cakes, cookies, candies.

ERS/USDA Briefing Room - Sugar and Sweeteners: Data Tables

An alternative organic you'll start seeing this year is agave nectar as an organic sweetener. It's not cheap and isn't really all that healthy for you either.

ummm yes it is put together by people who are budgeting. It is put together by people who are monitoring how people SPEND their money. It may not be the way that YOU budget, but it is how other people budget.