LA bans fast food restaurants in poor neighbourhoods
By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 9:21PM BST 30 Jul 2008
Los Angeles officials have banned new fast food restaurants from an impoverished part of the city packed with roadside chains and battling high rates of obesity.
The city council voted unanimously in favour of a year-long moratorium on new outlets such as McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Carl's Jr in 32 square miles of South Los Angeles.
The area is home to 500,000 people and predominantly Hispanic and African-American. Thirty per cent of the population is obese, compared to 19 per cent for Los Angeles as a whole and 14.1 per cent in affluent suburbs to the west.
A survey found 73 per cent of the area's restaurants are fast food compared to 42 per cent in West Los Angeles.
Officials hope the measure will help attract restaurants and shops selling healthier alternatives to fast food that is often high in salt and fat and made with cheap ingredients. It is thought to be the first time first time fast food outlets have been restricted from opening on public health grounds.
Jan Perry, a city councillor and sponsor of the law, described its approval as a "victory for the people of South Los Angeles."
But fast food chains said they felt unfairly targeted as they already offer healthier items on menus.
"It's not where you eat, it's what you eat," said Andrew Puzder, president and chief executive of CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. "We were willing to work with the city on that, but they obviously weren't interested."
The California Restaurant Association is considering a legal challenge to the ordinance.
The move comes as local authorities increasingly see restaurant menus as a matter of public health. Last week California became the first US state to ban artery-clogging trans fat.
New York, which has a similar ban, also requires chain restaurants to print the calorie content of dishes on their menus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...hoods.html
I have mixed feelings on this. The public health authorities do have a point. I've been on a diet for almost seven months and work in an urban area. Eating out is very difficult because most fast food places have few healthy options. I've learned that some places are completely off limits because they simply have nothing that's low enough in fat or calories. Other places have one thing (or maybe two) that I can eat. But at least fast food places will tell you about their nutritional information. The dirty secret of eating out is that most sit-down places will not tell you what's in their food (except maybe for a few dishes designated as diet). Just try to find out how many calories and how much fat is in food at places like Olive Garden, Ruby Tuesday, or TGI Friday's. That's probably what they'll be able to attract with this moratorium.
dune67 Wrote:Just try to find out how many calories and how much fat is in food at places like Olive Garden, Ruby Tuesday, or TGI Friday's. That's probably what they'll be able to attract with this moratorium.
Doubtful, the area in question is the ghetto, these people are all on food stamps. They like fast food because they can feed a family of 7 for under $20.
I too have mixed feelings on this, but the real issue here is that healthy food is too damn expensive. Even salads at Carls Jr cost up to $7, while places like Taco Bell have 49 cent burritos. And don't forget free soda refills in a GIANT cup, but you have to pay for water in an itty-bitty kiddy cup.
I agree about the mixed feelings. It's too expensive to eat healthily, and forcing poor people to spend money they can't afford.
You can't force poor people to eat healthily. When you're poor -- heck, when you're middle class! -- it's all about getting the most food for the least amount of money. In fact, that's what retail businesses advertise as their primary asset -- at least, places like Walmart, Target, K-Mart, Staples, whatever. "Your dollar goes further", and such. It's an American value, to get the most for your money. Food is not a category that is an exception to that.
Add me to the mixed feelings bunch. It bothers me that the government is stepping in and telling people what to eat and not eat and not promoting personal responsibility, but then like you all mentioned this is a very low income area where people can get food cheaper by going the fast food route.
If anything, I'm interested to see how this plays out, if any progress is made by doing this and what comes of it.
Just for the record, the headline is rather misleading. They are not actually closing existing restaurants. It's just a moratorium on opening new fast food restaurants. So people can still get their McDonalds fix if they really want it.
Glad to see that the government of L.A. has solved all their other problems.
I tend to agree. Is this ban going to come with:
-requirements that "healthier" establishments take food stamps?
-public classes on nutrition and cooking?
-an emphasis on teaching people HOW to cook at home with fresh ingredients?
-requirements that "organic/health food" stores take food stamps?
There are a lot of factors to consider here. These people still have to eat. If they can't afford what moves in and don't have the money or skills to cook healthy meals, from scratch, at home, what then?
OTOH, I think it's a good IDEA. I just hope city officials will think it through better.
Jen M.
PrairieGirl Wrote:I agree about the mixed feelings. It's too expensive to eat healthily, and forcing poor people to spend money they can't afford.
You can't force poor people to eat healthily. When you're poor -- heck, when you're middle class! -- it's all about getting the most food for the least amount of money. In fact, that's what retail businesses advertise as their primary asset -- at least, places like Walmart, Target, K-Mart, Staples, whatever. "Your dollar goes further", and such. It's an American value, to get the most for your money. Food is not a category that is an exception to that.
Nadleeh Wrote:Glad to see that the government of L.A. has solved all their other problems.
Again, what Scorp says, it's not a ban of the multitude of existing cheap and unhealthy fast food joints that are already there in huge abundance. It's just a way of giving the people who live in those areas a chance to have a choice for a change, a chance for healthier places to open for the first time ever. If the people who live there don't want to (or can't afford to) eat at the healthier places that will someday open, then those places will go out of business while the Taco Bells thrive. They just want to give them more options like other parts of LA have. I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to have other options in addition to McDonald's and Burger King.
How about a live-able wage or income source for the poor?
If you have more than $2 a day and options, maybe you could do better?
Nadleeh Wrote:Glad to see that the government of L.A. has solved all their other problems.
Well, McDonalds and Burger King both offer salads and grilled chicken options. McDonalds also offers a fruit plate, which is very good (as are their salads). What exactly are we talking about when we say "healthy food restaurants"? I mean, aren't we talking about salads and fruit!?!? Almost all fast food chains offer health choices, but I'll tell you what the problem is -- you're poor, and you walk in the restaurant, and the salad at McDonald's is $5, but a cheese burger and fries off the dollar menu is a total of $2.
That isn't going to change if some "healthy restaurant" come in. The healthy options will be more expensive than unhealthy ones. That's the way it is.
So, what does LA actually hope to accomplish? There are ALREADY healthy choices in the fast food restaurants they have access to!
PG, not every fast food restaurant location carries the same menu items, nor do they all have the same prices. It's quite possible that the outlets in impoverished areas carry fewer menu options.
I don't really see how it will make any difference. If the ones that are currently operating there will continue to do business as normal why would anything change? Maybe restaurants with healthier, comparably priced options will help but I just don't think so. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure this isn't it.
PrairieGirl Wrote:Well, McDonalds and Burger King both offer salads and grilled chicken options. McDonalds also offers a fruit plate, which is very good (as are their salads). What exactly are we talking about when we say "healthy food restaurants"? I mean, aren't we talking about salads and fruit!?!?
I think people have good reason to doubt the nutritional value of McDonald's salad's. I remember a former co-worker once said that "going to McDonald's to get your salad is like going to a crack house to get your vitamins." I've heard that McDonald's treats their lettuce with no less than fifteen different chemicals, just to maintain it's colour and crispness. That's for the lettuce they put in BigMacs and their other burgers. I wouldn't be surprised if they used that same chemically laced lettuce in their salads.
I think this ban is totally pointless.
While chemicals in food is an issue, it's not the issue being addressed in the ban. They are pretty much talking about calories, fat, cholesterol, etc.
McDonalds salads are as healthful as any other salad, but even then, you have to make wise choices. If you add fried chicken (they call it "crispy") to the salad, or choose the ranch dressing, you're not making wise choices. You can look at the nutritional facts link above -- a Premium Caesar salad without chicken is 90 calories, and only 220 calories with grilled chicken. Balsamic Vinegar dressing is 40 calories (but the ranch is 170). The calories may roughly correspond to the small hamburger (250 calories), but the Premium Caesar salad without chicken and with balsamic dressing has 10mg cholesterol and 7g fat, while the smallest burger (no cheese, no fries, no nothing else) has 25mg cholesterol and 9g fat.
From a health standpoint, the salad is larger and more filling than even the smallest burger without fries or drink, and it has less fat and cholesterol, although roughly the same amount of calories. The salad is the healthier choice -- but only if you choose a healthy salad! -- if you choose the bacon-laden salad with fried chicken and full-fat ranch dressing, you might as well just get the double cheeseburger.
And that goes for your home made salad, too! You think, "Mmm, I'm eating healthfully, because I'm eating a salad", but if you're dumping bacon bits, cheese, eggs, and any creamy dressing on it, you're destroying the nutritional value of a salad.
I eat a salad at least four days a week. I love salad. I make it different every week. One week with grilled chicken, one week with flank steak, one week with eggs, one week Greek, etc. You get the picture. I never put bacon or cheese on my salad. It defeats the purpose, if you ask me.
I make my own dressing too. Olive oil, vinegar (either cider, red wine, white wine or rice vinegar). I add fresh chopped garlic and dried herbs and presto! A delicious healthy salad dressing that I made myself for a fraction of the cost of prepared dressing and far fewer calories.
As much as I dislike the obesity epidemic I really don't think government should be involved. People have the right to make a choice in their dietary selection even if they do eat the wrong items.
Eddy, while I agree with you in principle, I think this is more about making wider options availble than it is about telling people what to eat.
That's just my take on it.
Jen M.