
In an effort to curb the obesity epidemic in this country, health officials are considering banning fast-food restaurants. They are calling it "health zoning."
It sounds like a valiant effort, but will something like Los Angeles City Council's proposed two-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A., where the adult obesity rate is 10% higher than the national average, really work? Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College, said "While limiting fast-food restaurants isn't a solution in itself, it's an important piece of the puzzle." He called this kind of legislation "the wave of the future."
However, banning the building of new fast food restaurants doesn't seem like it will change habits in the existing environment. Because eating fast food is simply more practical for people, won't they just keep eating unhealthy foods from the restaurants that are already there?










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
9-11-2007 @ 2:40PM
Jim said...
Wonderful! I'm GLAD our Nanny Overlords are taking even more of our freedom and critical thinking away from us!
This *must* have originated in California. How else to describe the elitism inherent in the plan? C'mon folks, people eat fast food for two reasons: a) they're busy (running errands, etc.) and don't have time to cook; and b) they can't afford anything else. So now the poor "B" folks will have to take a bus somewhere else to get food? How is that fair?
Look, I'm not a huge fast food fan. But it does have its place. And sure, it would be great if everyone drank soy milk and ate nothing but organic vegetables... it would also be great if I could make rainbows come out of my ass, but I just don't see either happening any time soon.
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 2:47PM
Tim said...
This will get shot down so fast in the supreme court
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 5:00PM
William said...
+1 to Jim's comments. This is why I won't move out west.
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 5:34PM
Michael Schmitt said...
"Amid worries of an obesity epidemic and its related illnesses, including high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease" by LA officials.
WOW
California is also trying to legislate health care too at the cost to the taxpayers. So, if they are now tying food to health issues, and they are going to regulate the health care industry, does this mean that they can effectively legislate what you eat and where and when you can eat it?
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 6:16PM
Matthew Hilario said...
They should just get rid of those ridiculous new burgers they have now.. 5lb sirlion burger. carl's jr (hardee's) 6 dollar burger, and now mcdonald's new third pounder?! god, do these seriously look appetizing?
but french fries on the other hand, are 2good.
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 7:30PM
ann marie said...
they will take away our big macs as fast as they take away our porn.
bunch of busybodies
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 8:00PM
Evan Brom said...
I never eat fast food yet I could stand to lose a few pounds. I think the meals at nice restaurants are just as fattening even the asparagus with hollandaise not too healthy yet a standard side.
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 1:40AM
deleted said...
But what constitutes a fast food establisment? Selling burgers and fries, or having a specific calorie count? Maybe how many chains exist of a certain place, or is it simply how fast you get the food? Cause god knows when i order a something healthy i don't want it to come fast!
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 5:39AM
Silver_Potato said...
Please don't move out west, there are enough idiots here already.
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 10:03AM
Julia Jensen said...
Yeah, just what IS fast food? McDonalds, sure, but what about Boston Market or Panera? Both of those have many healthy options, but you can carry it out with you, too.
Steak 'n' Shake? There's a drive-up window, but if you eat inside, you get a real plate and glass.....
Talk about slippery slopes.
And I hardly ever eat fast food, either, but I need to lose 70 lbs. Even wholesome yumminess like homemade bread & butter aren't all that good for you..... except for your soul.....
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 10:49AM
Trisha Smith said...
Now why in the world would somebody think they could make a difference by taking away fast food restaurants. The overweight/obesity problem didn't just start with the development and introduction of fast food restautrants. If you take away those, then how about subtracting all the other contributors to the weight problems, like, Baskin Robbins and Dairy Queen. Then lets take away TV, computers and video games because all they do is keep us inside on our big fat butts after just finishing off a big mac with super sized fries and one of those large McFlurries( I think that's what they call it). Then let's get back to the real way of living when all that extra fat substance and preservative stuff and steroids wasn't in our foods. And lets all go outdoors after school or work and ride our bikes, play a round of croquet, basketball, pitch a few to each other or run and play hide and seek. We are all a product of the technological advances and economic enterprise in this country today and we just need to learn to adapt and have a little more respect for our bodies by using a little more discipline and restraint and a big slice of common sense. And I know I need to be talking to the face in the mirror. Now THAT would be some REAL "health zoning." Those people are just, oh well......
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 11:09AM
jsmylie said...
Facepalm.
The problem is not fast food. Well, okay, fast food is *a* problem, but the *real* problem is *attitude.* As long as Americans think they can eat crap like this five days a week, not exercise, and have no negative effects, we'll still see obesity spiral out of control. California's already the land of In-N-Out and Fat Burger; just because there are a lot of hippies eating wheatgrass and no new franchises doesn't mean plenty of folks won't just hunt down the nearest already-extant one.
Instead of trying to legislate morality, create an attitude shift in society. It's the only thing that'll really work.
Reply
9-15-2007 @ 10:01AM
Patricia Seay said...
Banning fast food joints is fine and dandy if the breadwinner of the house earned triple the amount of money he/she does now in order for the other adult member of the house to be able to stay home, baby sit, clean house, cook meals, like back in the 1950's. A lot of fast food joints have changed for the better by serving complete meals (not just sandwiches), salads, desserts, etc. I can see where parental supervision is required for children getting out of school and going to their favorite fast food joint, thus adding on the weight. Another factor for weight increase is kids today are NOT getting out of the house to play games with neighborhood kids, but instead are staying indoors to play on their computer and other electronic equipment. Parents should put some type of software lock on this type of equipment including TV's so children can go outside and get that exercise they need. And most importantly, don't give them $$$$ for no particular reason. Keep fatty foods out of the house like sodas and cookies and put healthy items in it instead - like lemonade, bottled water, etc.
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:06PM
John Runkle said...
Great!! Now the government is going to tell us what we can eat too. When are we ever going to learn. What arrogant bastards sit on these councils. Who the hell do they think they are
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:26PM
!!! said...
This isn't going to work; they can ban "restaurants" all they want, but they'll get shot down ASAP under restraint of trade rules in court. Also, it isn't the outlet, it's the food itself. Are we to elect faceless bureaucrats who have the power to regulate how people cook, what ingredients they use and their caloric intake? Good thing the damn pols aren't bulletproof; wonder how Schwarzenegger would taste done us as sauerbraten with Freedom Fries on the side and nice chianti chaser.
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:28PM
Tracy said...
Is it really up to lawmakers to govern what I choose to eat? This is a cultural problem, not a governmental one. There is no law against being overweight, yet this is what is coming in the future if laws like these are allowed to pass. I would think that these politicians have more important things to spend money and time on, such as reducing crime. I think Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness means it's my life and I'm free to get a burger if iy makes me happy.
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:28PM
Vivi said...
Nothing is going to work for the people who can't see themselves as others see them. You can tell a person he/she will die tomorrow and it won't make any difference. They just can't see what someone else sees because they just won't look at themself in the same light.
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:28PM
t bridges said...
can you say nazi party??? first tax our smokes to excess, then take our fast food,decide what we can watch. how long until we are really under the control of " the party"? its time the america people stand up and stop being pussies. we the people, for the people, by the people. in life there are winners and losers. let me decide whats good for me, or what i want.
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:31PM
grannyannie said...
Regulation of fast food restaurants is just the latest example of "pass the buck of responsibility onto someone or someplace else". There isn't a fast food restaurant in this country that forces anyone to eat their food. Obesity from continuously eating at fast food restaurants is the result of "personal choice". A fast food restaurant should have the freedom to operate their business and sell their product in accordance with the company's goals without government interference. Parents have the responsibility to oversee the type and quality of food their children are consuming. Regulating fast food restaurants. Balderdash!
Reply
9-16-2007 @ 2:31PM
robert said...
Food is not the problem and the cause of obesity any more than a box of matches on a table is going to catch fire and burn a building down. It is not food. It is not what we are eating but more so what is eating us within. Contributors # 11 and 12 are getting close. Truely, if you go within the subconscious mind using hypnosis, you will get an answer. I really think you will be surprised at the source as it doesn't originate from the present life situation at all, but perhaps a previous one. It also may originate from the womb experience too. When a woman carries a chid in the womb, her attitudes and emotions are in THAT CHILD. If the mother is obese then there is a possibility the the child will be to. These have been proven from womb regresions. These are access tools that will allow us to solve our problems that we face daily while we are in this physical body.
Reply