New Fast Food Outlets Banned in South L.A.

This is kind of old news, but I just saw it on TV like two seconds ago. What do you guys think about this?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/1166 93.php

(Don't know how to post the link)

great! i think its a step in the right direction definitely.

yay, my hometown.

oh boo hoo carls jr! cry all you want they are not hurting the restaurant industry if they are trying to attract more varied restaurants. pfft!

maybe its a step in the right direction but i think people need to be held accountable for their own food choices. We can't blame the fast food places just because they're there. We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

Original Post by girlfighting27:

maybe its a step in the right direction but i think people need to be held accountable for their own food choices. We can't blame the fast food places just because they're there. We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

Well, though that is true - children eat what a) is in front of them if b) it tastes good. If fast food chains weren't so readily available to children/teenagers, they wouldn't aquire such a taste for it in the first place, especially if they have healthier alternatives that are just as good if not better (so that when they ARE educated and grasp why it is important to be healthy, they would not already be at a huge disadvantage by being overweight). Child obesity happens because a lot of the time they just do not know any better, so it may not be such an obvious option to them when their entire city is filled with these food chains and stuck onto every corner. So in that aspect, I do blame the industry (and its marketing).
I absolutely think that adults should be held accountable, education about healthier lifestyles are readily available - but maybe if they had better alternatives when they were little, maybe the transition could be easier now. People are picky, and people hate change. *Shrug*

Original Post by girlfighting27:

maybe its a step in the right direction but i think people need to be held accountable for their own food choices. We can't blame the fast food places just because they're there. We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

 yes true, i completely agree with that. but if you have 5 mc's, 5 jrs, 5 bk's for every 1 restaurant, its not much of a choice when you want to go out. i know its some what of an exaggeration but i personally perfer to have a nice varied selection of where to eat when i want.

Original Post by girlfighting27:

We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

 Or even choosing some of the less objectionable things on the fast food menu (grilled chicken sandwiches, salads, etc.)  How many threads do we see on CC about how to make decent choices when your only option is fast food?

Banning fast food does nothing about the availability of unhealthy choices in different venues.  Are they going to ban every 7-11 and Quicktrip that carry Ho-Ho's, potato chips, and mega gulps?  Are they going to monitor the grocery stores for the amount of Ben & Jerry's and chicken pot pies that leave the door?  Is Chili's and the awesome blossom just a-okay?

And I've said it before - a person can still be obese and eat healthy food.  While 1,000 calories of pasta, chicken and veggies is inevitably healthier than a monster burger, it's still 1,000 calories.

Original Post by girlfighting27:

maybe its a step in the right direction but i think people need to be held accountable for their own food choices. We can't blame the fast food places just because they're there. We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

I kind of agree. But they were also saying that there is a lack of grocery stores around that area. You're right, people need to be accountable for what they put in their bodies, but this new law isn't really going to hurt anyone. It's really not going to affect fast food business's that much (it least the ones that are already in the area) it just prohibits any new ones, which I think is great. I mean, really, there are entirely too many fast food restaurants. There was a time that I would complain because there were only 3 down the street instead of 4 or 5 but now I see how bad that crap is for you.

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by girlfighting27:

We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

 Or even choosing some of the less objectionable things on the fast food menu (grilled chicken sandwiches, salads, etc.)  How many threads do we see on CC about how to make decent choices when your only option is fast food?

Banning fast food does nothing about the availability of unhealthy choices in different venues.  Are they going to ban every 7-11 and Quicktrip that carry Ho-Ho's, potato chips, and mega gulps?  Are they going to monitor the grocery stores for the amount of Ben & Jerry's and chicken pot pies that leave the door?  Is Chili's and the awesome blossom just a-okay?

And I've said it before - a person can still be obese and eat healthy food.  While 1,000 calories of pasta, chicken and veggies is inevitably healthier than a monster burger, it's still 1,000 calories.

People who are knowledgable about eating healthy are far and few in between, and though the ultimate solution of more education IS needed, I think that taking the step to ban these unhealthy places (for the most part)  might make people more aware that its actually a bigger concern than they think.

Obviously we can't mandate food, unhealthy food will always be in demand. But education, less supersizing and more choices will inevitably be better for America.
I say less supersizing in hopes of these fast food industries changing their habit of giving inaccurate calorie information by doubling their serving sizes. And maybe even putting not just a select few healthy choices on their menu so that they can promote "healthy living" in their commercials, but instead have most of their selection be somewhat healthy (at least ditch the heat lamps?).  When people put their foot down (like this ban) it might just get them to change, at least a little.
I can dream.

i wish my home town would ban (more) fast food chains, not just because they sell a lot of unhealthy crap, but because they're ugly and take business away from the unique, locally-owned restaurants. 

just in terms of aesthetics, municipalities make this kind of zoning decision all the time.  it's not just about obesity; it's about the kind of community you want to live in. 

i give LA props for committing to a tough decision.

I dunno.

Do we really and truly believe (and I'm not asking to be a wiseass) "People who are knowledgable about eating healthy are far and few in between"?? Perhaps the general public isn't as wise (coughobsessedcough) as we are, but I fail to believe that your average human being isn't well aware of the nutritional trainwrecks they're supersizing themselves into.

The issue at play in South Central LA goes FAR beyond the surface. It involves issues of class, politics and race that are, IMHO, a bit too complex to discuss on this board---unless people really want to go down that road. The idea is to bring in viable sit down restaurants which largely do not exist in that area, but really, does your average chain restaurant have any less/more nutritionally unsound options? It's not exactly like they're offering subsidies to healthy eating establishments to set up shop. It's not like the local government is encouraging community gardens.

I'm ok with this move for many reasons, and vehemently against it for others---much of my opposition being to terminating jobs for people who desperately need them. The area is a vast wasteland for grocery store options----and while these options are theoretically available to residents, they may be required to take 2+ buses or otherwise take an hour or more out of their schedule to get there and back, which makes it a practical impossibility for low-income folks.

I guess what I'm saying in my oh so charmingly long winded way is this:

It's a MUCH bigger issue than MOST of us who do not live (both dwell and exist) in the area can possibly comprehend.

EDITED because freedomfrom has a point and I needed to change my qualifier ;). 

I agree with Musicismydestiny. Until the last sentence, but that's a quibble.

This sort of move smacks of elitism, but I still can't say it's not justifiable. It's also not a real solution. There's tons of class, race, and economic issues this goes dancing merrily by to hit up that one favorite villian: the food industry.

On the other hand, I don't mind the food industry taking a few knocks, and, while there's a lot of unrecognized potential for evil change, there's a chance for good change too.

girlfighting27: "...but i think people need to be held accountable for their own food choices. We can't blame the fast food places just because they're there."

musicismydestiny: "It's not exactly like they're offering subsidies to healthy eating establishments to set up shop. It's not like the local government is encouraging community gardens."

I think these two quotes hit the issue right on the nose. While we have the choice to eat/buy healthy food, it is much more expensive and difficult to do than buying unhealthy food.

Why do we have to pay $5 for ONE box of Kashi GoLean cereal, but we can get FIVE double-cheeseburgers from McDonalds for the same money? $40 for a jar of whey protein, but $1 for 4 candy bars?

I don't blame either McDonalds or Hershey's for that. They're simply taking full advantage of our capitalist society -- good for them. That's part of what makes America great, and is also why we occasionally get great deals.

But the fact remains that healthy eating is not a priority in this country, which is illustrated by those examples. Until that changes, obesity will continue to be an epidemic.

OK LAs city council is dumb. (I've already known that but, nvm.)

Have any of you been there? It's pretty much a ghetto....around the USC area and pretty much the majority of South LA especially South Central is poor. Do you think a Whole Foods/Albertsons/Vons/Trader Joes is going to want to build there?

No. Middle class/upper class food chain stores like that are NOT going to build in a bad area, end of question. They do not want to invest in a place where the majority of people can not afford to shop, and have a great chance of getting robbed. Sad, but true. It makes sense from a economical standpoint. Grocery stores tend to be in suburban areas...especially the ones that carry healthier food choices. And its a known fact that people under the poverty level go to fast food a lot...so it makes sense that places like McDonalds would want to be in these areas. (You know its a bad area when there isnt even FAST food around! In Downtown the fast food closes at 5 in the afternoon....b/c they get robbed at night)

It's not the fault of fast food that these people are obese. It's the lack of education and the outright apathy. Some people in these areas don't care to exercise. Exercise is free, you don't have to have a gym membership to do it.

You shouldn't ban something to "blame" for poor eating habits. If anything these places would create JOBS for people who are homeless and may need them! I highly doubt banning fast food is going to be effective...because healthier places don't want to set up shop in South LA, so its pretty pointless.

Original Post by misspriss316:

OK LAs city council is dumb. (I've already known that but, nvm.)

Have any of you been there? It's pretty much a ghetto....around the USC area and pretty much the majority of South LA especially South Central is poor. Do you think a Whole Foods/Albertsons/Vons/Trader Joes is going to want to build there?

No. Middle class/upper class food chain stores like that are NOT going to build in a bad area, end of question. They do not want to invest in a place where the majority of people can not afford to shop, and have a great chance of getting robbed. Sad, but true. It makes sense from a economical standpoint. Grocery stores tend to be in suburban areas...especially the ones that carry healthier food choices. And its a known fact that people under the poverty level go to fast food a lot...so it makes sense that places like McDonalds would want to be in these areas. (You know its a bad area when there isnt even FAST food around! In Downtown the fast food closes at 5 in the afternoon....b/c they get robbed at night)

It's not the fault of fast food that these people are obese. It's the lack of education and the outright apathy. Some people in these areas don't care to exercise. Exercise is free, you don't have to have a gym membership to do it.

You shouldn't ban something to "blame" for poor eating habits. If anything these places would create JOBS for people who are homeless and may need them! I highly doubt banning fast food is going to be effective...because healthier places don't want to set up shop in South LA, so its pretty pointless.

Running from the cops is great exercise. So is playing basketball. Which I'm sure a lot of people in LA do, right? I'm sorry, but this post offended me a little. I know you didn't mean to, but I can't help but get a little irritated. While you at it why don't you mention that the obese rate is high in the African American community? Not allowing more fast food might not help, but it couldn't really make things much worse.

yeah, joe, misspriss's post was more than a little offensive.  the idea that people who live in poor neighbourhoods are (a) responsible for their own obesity and therefore (b) not entitled to access to fresh food is...well, it's imbecilic.  i'd call it elitist, but that would be flattering.

mind you, i think this is the same charmer who told us that there are no fat people in california or oregon - at least not where she likes to hang.  i guess keeping the poor fatties in the ghetto suits her just fine.

Original Post by joekame:

Original Post by misspriss316:

OK LAs city council is dumb. (I've already known that but, nvm.)

Have any of you been there? It's pretty much a ghetto....around the USC area and pretty much the majority of South LA especially South Central is poor. Do you think a Whole Foods/Albertsons/Vons/Trader Joes is going to want to build there?

No. Middle class/upper class food chain stores like that are NOT going to build in a bad area, end of question. They do not want to invest in a place where the majority of people can not afford to shop, and have a great chance of getting robbed. Sad, but true. It makes sense from a economical standpoint. Grocery stores tend to be in suburban areas...especially the ones that carry healthier food choices. And its a known fact that people under the poverty level go to fast food a lot...so it makes sense that places like McDonalds would want to be in these areas. (You know its a bad area when there isnt even FAST food around! In Downtown the fast food closes at 5 in the afternoon....b/c they get robbed at night)

It's not the fault of fast food that these people are obese. It's the lack of education and the outright apathy. Some people in these areas don't care to exercise. Exercise is free, you don't have to have a gym membership to do it.

You shouldn't ban something to "blame" for poor eating habits. If anything these places would create JOBS for people who are homeless and may need them! I highly doubt banning fast food is going to be effective...because healthier places don't want to set up shop in South LA, so its pretty pointless.

Running from the cops is great exercise. So is playing basketball. Which I'm sure a lot of people in LA do, right? I'm sorry, but this post offended me a little. I know you didn't mean to, but I can't help but get a little irritated. While you at it why don't you mention that the obese rate is high in the African American community? Not allowing more fast food might not help, but it couldn't really make things much worse.

 Hey did I say anything about race here? No, I was talking about poverty. Caucasians/Asians/Hispanics can be poor too. Hell, I'm a college student and I can't afford to shop at Whole Foods either. I was just saying its UNDERSTANDABLE why the poor eat fast food, and why fast food places fare better than expensive grocery store chains. How is that offensive???

And I grew up in the Valley, and live 20 minutes north of LA. I've been there, I see it all the time, it's not like I'm making up anything.

I believe that the government shouldn't get involved in matters of personal responsibility. Being impoverished INCREASES your chances because of the lifestyle as much as genetics, hypothyroidism, etc does. But like someone said earlier you can be overweight eating tofu, beans, and organic food as well.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

yeah, joe, misspriss's post was more than a little offensive.  the idea that people who live in poor neighbourhoods are (a) responsible for their own obesity and therefore (b) not entitled to access to fresh food is...well, it's imbecilic.  i'd call it elitist, but that would be flattering.

mind you, i think this is the same charmer who told us that there are no fat people in california or oregon - at least not where she likes to hang.  i guess keeping the poor fatties in the ghetto suits her just fine.

Where exactly did I say that poor neighborhoods weren't entitled to healthy food choices?? South LA has fresh food vendors.

http://www.farmersmarketla.com/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/i s_2007_July_21/ai_n19378097

Please provide a link to a quote where I said "there are NO fat people in the entire state of california or oregon" and I'll eat my words.

I believe I didn't so don't put words in my mouth, kthnx.

Original Post by misspriss316:

Original Post by joekame:

Original Post by misspriss316:

OK LAs city council is dumb. (I've already known that but, nvm.)

Have any of you been there? It's pretty much a ghetto....around the USC area and pretty much the majority of South LA especially South Central is poor. Do you think a Whole Foods/Albertsons/Vons/Trader Joes is going to want to build there?

No. Middle class/upper class food chain stores like that are NOT going to build in a bad area, end of question. They do not want to invest in a place where the majority of people can not afford to shop, and have a great chance of getting robbed. Sad, but true. It makes sense from a economical standpoint. Grocery stores tend to be in suburban areas...especially the ones that carry healthier food choices. And its a known fact that people under the poverty level go to fast food a lot...so it makes sense that places like McDonalds would want to be in these areas. (You know its a bad area when there isnt even FAST food around! In Downtown the fast food closes at 5 in the afternoon....b/c they get robbed at night)

It's not the fault of fast food that these people are obese. It's the lack of education and the outright apathy. Some people in these areas don't care to exercise. Exercise is free, you don't have to have a gym membership to do it.

You shouldn't ban something to "blame" for poor eating habits. If anything these places would create JOBS for people who are homeless and may need them! I highly doubt banning fast food is going to be effective...because healthier places don't want to set up shop in South LA, so its pretty pointless.

Running from the cops is great exercise. So is playing basketball. Which I'm sure a lot of people in LA do, right? I'm sorry, but this post offended me a little. I know you didn't mean to, but I can't help but get a little irritated. While you at it why don't you mention that the obese rate is high in the African American community? Not allowing more fast food might not help, but it couldn't really make things much worse.

 Hey did I say anything about race here? No, I was talking about poverty. Caucasians/Asians/Hispanics can be poor too. Hell, I'm a college student and I can't afford to shop at Whole Foods either. I was just saying its UNDERSTANDABLE why the poor eat fast food, and why fast food places fare better than expensive grocery store chains. How is that offensive???

And I grew up in the Valley, and live 20 minutes north of LA. I've been there, I see it all the time, it's not like I'm making up anything.

I believe that the government shouldn't get involved in matters of personal responsibility. Being impoverished INCREASES your chances because of the lifestyle as much as genetics, hypothyroidism, etc does. But like someone said earlier you can be overweight eating tofu, beans, and organic food as well.

Poor people can afford to shop at Walmart, or Meijer (don't think they have them in Cali, though). Put one of those in the area. Just give the people more options, it doesn't have to be a "healthy" choice but almost any grocery store in general has healthier foods than Mickey D's. The fact that these people are impoverished has little to do with anything. There are obese people in the middle/upper class areas, too. It's about making Americans aware that there is a problem with the food we eat, and the food that is available to us. And it doesn't matter how true your statement is, it's still offensive. Just for example, if I were to say that statistically minorities are responsible for most crime in the U.S, even if it were true, it'd still be offensive.

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by girlfighting27:

We always have the option of going home and making something healthy, or selecting a restaurant with better options

Or even choosing some of the less objectionable things on the fast food menu (grilled chicken sandwiches, salads, etc.) How many threads do we see on CC about how to make decent choices when your only option is fast food?

Banning fast food does nothing about the availability of unhealthy choices in different venues. Are they going to ban every 7-11 and Quicktrip that carry Ho-Ho's, potato chips, and mega gulps? Are they going to monitor the grocery stores for the amount of Ben & Jerry's and chicken pot pies that leave the door? Is Chili's and the awesome blossom just a-okay?

And I've said it before - a person can still be obese and eat healthy food. While 1,000 calories of pasta, chicken and veggies is inevitably healthier than a monster burger, it's still 1,000 calories.

Even the seemingly healthier options at many fast food chains aren't very healthy at all. Take a peek at what the Grilled Chicken sandwiches come up as or even the salads at any fast food chain and you'll be very surprised.

For instance, my fav is the Southwest Salad with Grilled Chicken from McDonalds. The salad by itself is 340 cals - then you add the dressing at another 160 cals that's 500 cals for a salad - then if you really get into it , it has over 1500mg sodium. When the FDA recommended max is 2300-2500mg/day. Special order it without the chicken and you drop about 100 cals an most of the sodium.

This isn't just about low cal - it's about a balanced nutrition too. What good does it do to purchase the lowest cal option on the menu if it's just as bad for you as the higher cal options.

Idea: You know how at state fairs you'll see one or two fruit bars/stands where you can get veggies and fruits instead of all the deepfried-heart-attack on a stick foods??? I would LOVE to see a drive up one of those in town!!!