Are we going too far? I mean I'm all for healthy choices. I'm all for being told the "truth" in what is in my food. But after all isn't it still my choice as and adult and parent to decide if I want fast food or not?
Now city council's can decide if I'm too fat to have fast food restraunts in my area (I am 100 miles from the area in the article)....
Where will it end?
The grocery checker won't sell me that box of cookies because I look a little heavy?
Gary, I have mixed feelings. While I agree - it restricts choice, I read several articles today that interviewed residents in the neighborhoods. THEY want healthier choices. THEY want restaurants that have meals that they feel good providing for their children.
I do not like legislation like this, but I do wish that restaurants would do the right thing and provide healthy alternatives for folk in ALL neighborhoods and income brackets.
Deal with poverty by 'punishing' the poor. Of course from the recent talks of restaurant meals, fast food restaurant meals generally have LESS calories than restaurants due to portion sizes and lots of added fat and what not.
If they cared about obesity, if they cared about the impoverished, they would start with education and not by trying to apply patches. How about nutrition classes? How about cooking classes? What about bringing cooking classes back into school and focusing on healthy eating? What about REAL nutrition classes in school?
One thing ladies that I do know from talking to some of my friends at work that have families, my brother included, they are eating at the fast food places now more than ever for the $$$.
2 double cheeseburgers and 2 fries for $4 isn't a bad deal....
Your link doesn't work any more dear (at least not for me). But I did read a bit about it the other day. I'm mixed as well -- my kids like a "happy meal once in a while" (mostly for what toy is offered ) and I feel I should have the option to provide this (as a treat, not considered anything nutritious). As a child, my parent's were highly restrictive of our food (quantities, types, etc.) and this (and other "issues" my mom had) lead to eating disorders for two of three daughters.
If they are going to take the option away from individuals to partake of items that are unhealthy, why are cigarettes still legal??? I think at some point it needs to be a choice and educating people is much more important than taking control away. If there are no fast food restaurants, then there is always a deep fryer available at home to make the same junk food -- where there is a will, there's a way, unfortunately.
(For $4.00 I can buy 3/4 lb of hamburg, a package of rolls (one potato to make my own fries) and cook them on my grill, without the grease!!)
Are they proposing to close down existing fast food restaurants in their area?
No.
Are they proposing to prevent fat people from going into fast food restaurants?
No.
Are they TAKING ANY CHOICES AWAY?
No.
Despite the egregious 'you're too fat for a cheeseburger!' example suggested by the guy who works for the California Restaurant Association (ie the businesspeople who want to make money from selling the hypothetical cheeseburgers to the fat people in question), all they're saying is that they don't want any MORE people to start selling processed crap in their area. That they want to actively encourage restaurants with healthy options to open instead. So that consumers will have a wider choice of places to eat. So that they can make healthier choices IF THEY WANT TO, rather than being obliged to settle for crap because it's all that's available nearby.
Yes, this IS still America. ie it IS the country where nearly half the population is overweight or obese. Where nearly a third of the population is OBESE - not just overweight, but actually obese.
You don't have a problem with your poor people starving to death - you have a problem with your poor people eating cheap, processed rubbish and becoming vast, startling mountains of flesh. This isn't normal.
Obesity is a particularly acute problem in poor areas, because healthy food tends to be more expensive and less readily available.
The area in question is "an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity." The council is not proposing to close the fast food places already there; it's just hoping to attract some new restaurants that serve healthier food.
And you're pissed off that these people are trying to take steps to ameliorate the problem?
....why? I mean, I can understand why a representative of the fast food chains (such as the guy who made the cheeseburger remark) would be pissed off that they aren't going to be able to open any more franchises selling crap in that particular area, and that healthier restaurants and grocery shops will be given those opportunities instead; that some consumers might then choose to spend their hard-earned cash on healthier options, rather than junk, if those healthier options were equally convenient and affordable - but why in the world would YOU be pissed off?
Last edited by broadabroad; 07-31-2008 at 12:19 AM.
I think EZ and Broadabroad both have good points. It's nice to have the freedom to get a hamburger every once in a while. But it's also nice to have the freedom to treat your family to a healthier meal too. From the articles I've read, these families won't totally stop taking their kids to fast food places. But many of them are willing to spend a little more money of it means their kids are getting exposed to a variety of healthier foods that they might not have access to all the time. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where fresh foods are easily available; not all areas have that luxury. I can think of several old college friends who lived off of ramen noodles, mac and cheese, and applesauce because the grocery store didn't have any decent produce or low fat meats.
Are they proposing to close down existing fast food restaurants in their area?
No.
Are they proposing to prevent fat people from going into fast food restaurants?
No.
Are they TAKING ANY CHOICES AWAY?
No.
Despite the egregious 'you're too fat for a cheeseburger!' example suggested by the guy who works for the California Restaurant Association (ie the businesspeople who want to make money from selling the hypothetical cheeseburgers to the fat people in question), all they're saying is that they don't want any MORE people to start selling processed crap in their area. That they want to actively encourage restaurants with healthy options to open instead. So that consumers will have a wider choice of places to eat. So that they can make healthier choices IF THEY WANT TO, rather than being obliged to settle for crap because it's all that's available nearby.
Agree 100%. Obviously the way things are going there (I read that the obesity rate there is higher than it is for the surrounding areas) isn't working. Why snipe at people who are trying to create a solution--or at the very least, maintain the status quo instead of watching things get worse? No choices are being taken away--unless you count the choice for rich junk food merchants to get a bit richer by opening new establishments in an already over-saturated market.
This won't truly solve anything. People still will make unhealthy choices. Shoot, I used to go to a fast food restuarant a few blocks aways form home. I would buy my meal and then an EXTRA meal to eat on the way home. When I got home no one knew I had ALREADY eatten. Location doesnt have anything to do with choice. Besides, they can take away fast food but twinkies and chips (junk food) can be apart of a persons' diet. If you want something bad enough you will get it.
Last edited by RoyalAthena; 07-31-2008 at 01:07 AM.
I agree with Broadabroad's beautifully and succinctly put explanations. It's easy to misrepresent this regulation as a curtailment of freedom and choice (I Can't Has Cheezburger???!?1) when it really is mostly about zoning laws. No more licenses for fast food restaurants *on top of the ones already existing there* potentially means more commercial space for healthier food options.
Also, for those who do not live in urban areas I would like to submit the following concept: Food Deserts. I find this to be true in many neighborhoods in my city, and it has a huge impact on food choices if you have to travel almost an hour by bus or T (maybe with small children, maybe with your walker) in the snow or heat just to get fresh lettuce and an apple or two, but on the other hand there's a Dunkin' Donuts, McDonalds, various Pizza Parlors and a Store 24 each sitting right there.
I think it's a good idea. I heard about them implementing that in Los Angeles' poorer neighborhoods, but don't know if it went into effect.
The problem is... fast food is easily accessible. It's easy for kids to access it on their own and making it a lifestyle when they are so young and haven't been taught about proper nutrition.
I wish health food was as cheap as fast food! I think fast food is the devil. The food quality tends to be poor, so I haven't had any since I was a teenager.
What are the 'healthier' options though? Many panera sandwiches/meals have higher calories than fast food places. Same for other restaurants. I think we've discussed this on the recent restaurant discussions but honestly, there aren't a lot of healthy food choices in the restaurant business and even if they are there, you have to search them out and be knowledgeable.
I grew up in a poor area and we had tons of fast food places. I never ate at them because I didn't like them and neither did my mom. We were more likely to go to the taco shops, which aren't exactly fast food but then again they aren't healthy either. Most of all, my mom who knew how to cook, would cook at home. Of course it didn't really stop me from getting to 300 lbs but there is more to weight than eating 'healthy' food.
What are the 'healthier' options though? Many panera sandwiches/meals have higher calories than fast food places. Same for other restaurants. I think we've discussed this on the recent restaurant discussions but honestly, there aren't a lot of healthy food choices in the restaurant business and even if they are there, you have to search them out and be knowledgeable.
Nelie, the way I see it it's not so much a dichotomy of fast food restaurants vs. sit-down restaurants, but the problem of having fast food restaurants as the cheapest or even only available option of procuring food in any given neighborhood. If schoolchildren go have their breakfast sandwich at McDonald's every morning because there is no fresh food in the house, to cite just one example that I see every day. I agree that this is not a cure-all for obesity, of course. As you said in your first post, there is a need for educational programs and local kitchen and garden projects (Bryant Terry's b-healthy comes to mind). Farmer's markets, community cook-outs, school programs... you're absolutely right, but do these needs have to exclude the possibilities of bringing about change by conscious urban planning?
This Is Still America Isn't It?
(at least not for me). But I did read a bit about it the other day. I'm mixed as well -- my kids like a "happy meal once in a while" (mostly for what toy is offered 
) and I feel I should have the option to provide this (as a treat, not considered anything nutritious). As a child, my parent's were highly restrictive of our food (quantities, types, etc.) and this (and other "issues" my mom had) lead to eating disorders for two of three daughters. 
