Click here to visit the new home of that's fit!

Hot on HuffPost Healthy Living:

AOL.com
MAIL

En Español

That's Fit

Send Feedback

Los Angeles wants to ban fast food ... for a year!

Posted on Aug 1st 2008 9:00AM by Martha Edwards

Filed Under: Diet & Weight Loss, Celebs & Entertainment

We now know that a city the size of New York can ban trans fats altogether. But is it possible for a city the size of Los Angeles to ban fast foods? The LA City Council thinks so, and they plan on doing just that for a whole year according to recent news.

OK, they're not banning all fast foods. Rather, it's a ban that will keep new fast foods restaurants from opening up in the LA area for a year. But just what defines a fast food restaurant? Here's the criteria: "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

It's thought this move will help reduce rising obesity levels in the LA region. That and help independent sit-down restaurants establish roots. What do you think of the move? Will it work?

Source

2 Comment

Tags: fast food, FastFood, LA, los angeles, LosAngeles, mcdonalds, obesity, restaurant, restaurants, trans fats, TransFats

Around the Web

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Marissa 8-01-2008 @ 12:49PM

The ban is a step in the right direction, but it'll take much, much more than banning new fast food places to quell LA's obesity epidemic. Once it becomes easier, cheaper, faster, and more convenient to get around via public transportation, maybe we have a shot. Until then, LA residents will remain perfectly content to sit in their cars for hours a day as opposed to walking or bicycling to conduct their errands. And even then, after that's happened, we're still fighting an uphill battle.

Matt 8-02-2008 @ 1:12AM

Once again California is a leader in slowly destroying the little freedom we adults have left in this country.

A few remarks:
1. The ban restricts the supply of restaurants which consequently increases the price of food. This consequence will disproportionately hurt poorer people who now must spend more of their income on food than they otherwise would have. You might think this is a good thing if the new food they buy is "healthier", but I believe that all people, poor or not, can decide what's best for themselves. Indeed, to believe otherwise is to perpetuate social classes: there is one class of people that know what is proper to consume (the politicians) and one class of people that do not.

2. The ban gives existing restaurants an advantage simply for having been there first.

3. If you're concerned about medical costs of obesity to the government, see this article: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/07/is_government_i.html

4. How is this ban supposed to lower obesity? "bad" foods will still exist, they'll just be more expensive. Consumers will substitute away from "fast foods", but it's certainly not the case that they'll substitute to healthy foods! They'll probably try to find the next best thing, which could come from the grocery store or a quasi-fast food restaurant which serves food that's just as unhealthy as the drive-thrus.

So I'm skeptical that the policy can even achieve it's stated goal. Add on top the harm done by higher prices and the purely moral aspect of class divisions and loss of freedom, and it seems like a no-brainer to oppose this legislation.