Friday, July 25, 2008

South LA to Ban Fast Food Restaurants?

I don't care what anybody says, eating at fast food places probably isn't good for you. Yes, I know there are articles out there suggesting that consumers can make rational choices at the drive-thru window, but how many people are actually having the four chicken nuggets and small fries option at McDonald's for lunch?

City Council members in Los Angeles don't think people are making health-conscious selections either, so they voted unanimously to allow a proposal banning new fast food restaurants in a 32-square mile area to be presented to the Los Angeles City Council for a full vote.

If passed, the ban would go into effect for one year with two renewal options at six-month intervals. The ban would focus on South LA where 45% of all eateries are fast food establishments and the concentration of grocery stores is the city's lowest.

7 comments:

John said...

Speaking of inner city grocery stores: Did Tesco open up in south LA yet? I know they're starting to appear farther inland. There's one opening up in Yucaipa (San Bernardino County side of the SB/Riverside Co. line). Not sure why because that small city of 40K people is in no desperate need for new supermarkets.

I'm looking at the new fast food restaurant ban as a good thing. I mean if almost half of all restaurants are of the fast food variety in LA - even if they are the delicious ones like In N' Out and Baker's and Del Taco - they really don't need anymore. Would go well with that trans fat ban that the Eureka State has in the works.

Dan said...

John: Can't say I disagree with the ban myself. Especially in these areas that don't have a lot of grocery stores. Would it kill these towns to provide opportunities for people to find and cook good food for themselves?

I am so wise said...

Would it kill you food imperialists to treat these people as adults and let them eat in peace? Just because poor people did it does not make it bad.

Seriously, in the 1890s you would be railing against Italian food because it was bad for you. Now that the Italians have established themselves, well gee, miracoulously the food because high quality.

Besides, if mcDonald's was really that bad, nobody would buy it. As you guys prove, all the advertising in the world cannot make people buy stuff they dislike.

Besides, McDs are usually locally owned, and in Baltimore, use many locally sourced ingredients, while employing dozens of local residents.

Dan said...

Normally I'm all for letting people make their own choices but if you don't give them the ability to make a choice I don't know that it's all that fair.

fdextro said...

Opening up a can of worms... I don't like the idea of government telling us what we can eat, but I also don't like... Ahh, forget it. Doesn't fit the forum.

Dan said...

"Besides, if mcDonald's was really that bad, nobody would buy it. As you guys prove, all the advertising in the world cannot make people buy stuff they dislike."

Just because people buy it doesn't mean the food is good. And I disagree... I buy all sorts of stuff I know I won't like because of the damn advertising. See STEAKHOUSE BURGER, LOADED.

"Besides, McDs are usually locally owned, and in Baltimore, use many locally sourced ingredients, while employing dozens of local residents."

Great, chains use local ingredients and employ local residents. So do independent restaurants. And wouldn't a grocery store employ more local residents and use more local produce? And meat? And other products?

Again, I'm not typically in favor of something like this and prefer that people be left to their own devices and make their own choices. But if all you're not giving people the tools to make those choices aren't you dooming them and their children to a lifetime of poor choices, poor diet and potential health issues?

Corey said...

The types of restaurants in an area should not be determined by a legislative decision. Perhaps other avenues should be used for trying to get people to eat healthier.

I'm sure the existing establishments are ecstatic now that the competition has been legislatively limited. Now that it appears that food education has been abandoned (hence making this silly law), so opening a salads'r'us won't make the people flock to the healthy alternatives since there was no demand for it in the first place (at least by the residents).

Also, how is 'fast food' defined? If LA isn't careful they could be trading in fast food for fatty food serving sit down restaurants.