LA’s Mistargeted Ban
Reading the New York Times coverage of the attempted ban on new fast food restaurants in South LA I’m more convinced than ever that this is a pretty questionable idea. The Times says that this is “the first time a government has prohibited a specific style of restaurant for health, rather than aesthetic, reasons.” That, however, might well be that it doesn’t really make sense to ban a specific style of restaurant for health reasons. If you want to try to restrict the sale of unhealthy food, you should restrict the sale of unhealthy food.
Instead, their restriction is on restaurants that feature “a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers.” That doesn’t make any reference to the nutritional content of the food. But you could serve something healthy from behind a counter in a disposable wrapper and you can sell something unhealthy at a table. It’s not, after all, the lack of table service that makes a Big Mac and super-sized fries bad for you. I think it’s good to see local government trying to take more interest in these kind of public health issues, but it has to be done in a smart way that’s reasonably tailored to the objective.
23 Responses to “LA’s Mistargeted Ban”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
This ban is flawed because it doesn’t address the two fundamental issues that prevent people from eating more healthy foods: either they can’t afford it, or they don’t want to, or both. I don’t see anything in the city council’s ordinance that create incentives for eating healthier, and there is nothing in there that makes eating healthier food more affordable.
And the rationle of attracting “healthier” food establishments doesn’t make sense either: if people in that area can’t afford the higher prices or don’t want to shop there, there is no reason to believe that these new establishments can compete against existing fast-food franchises in the area. I mean, just because you can put a WholeFoods in South Central LA, that doesn’t mean people will flock to it.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:34 am
It’s not, after all, the lack of table service that makes a Big Mac and super-sized fries bad for you.
I think you could make a case that it’s a contributory factor.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am
fundamental issues that prevent people from eating more healthy foods…they can’t afford it
Bullshit. When will this ridiculously inaccurate meme die? Eating healthy is just as cheap and in most cases cheaper than eating fast food.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Reading that list, it sounds to me like a take-out taqueria; up in Boston, we’ve got at least one chain of those that’s actually selling themselves as a healthy alternative. We’re also the home of b.good, a “fast food done right” chain that bakes the “fries” to keep the oil out, prominently posts their calorie counts, and will happily substitute veggies for the bun on any of their burgers.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Technically, yes. But you’re over analyzing; in practice, the ban will do what was intended.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Maybe it’s helpful to put the ban in context. The article in fact does so. It points out the appeal of affordable meals where supermarkets are five miles away. How about the opposite route from bans, as if then the free market would rush in to fill an alleged gap and as if Macdonalds rather than fear, crime, and racism had crowded supermarkets out of the market? How about a little active role of government in building local communities and local economy.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:21 am
You are missing the point entirely.
What the city council wanted to avoid having to get nutritional reports from each restaurant, verify those reports, and then enforce those reports.
That would how you regulate food, and you would need a contract with a nutritional lab, regular inspections and samples, etc.
It’s an expensive and intrusive regulatory regime.
Instead, they are targeting a secondary characteristic of fast food, the business/service model, which can be handled by one person at the permit process.
Outback Steakhouse is just as unhealthy as McDonalds or Taco bell, but you don’t have an issue with Outback in south central LA.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
So, the ban could be evaded by a McDonald’s that made food fresh to order & brought it to one’s table?
That would be GREAT. People would drive for MILES to get the best McD’s in town.
Unintended consequences, anyone?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
So if McDonalds was Culvers it would be great? But Culvers already is Culvers.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
What about Panera Bread, they serve stuff in disposable wrappers and there is no table service? Banning their food over say a Ruby Tuesdays is just ludicrous. Stupidest government move ever.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:31 am
This is going to become more of an issue in places where there are no longer empty lots or buildable land. Lack of grocery sources within walking distance is a major factor in elderly people not being able to live independently. The government resources required to help non-independent elderly are enormous. It seems to me that the government noticed that the mix of food options available was not meeting local needs, and put in a six-month ban on new construction to buy some time to figure out a solution.
Don’t know if it was ever published, but I talked with someone doing research on how much social services costs went up in neighborhoods where grocery stores were closed. For all the talk of free markets providing solutions – fast food restaurants are a more profitable use of land than grocery stores. But we need grocery stores.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Spoken like a man without a car.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Sometimes it’s really hard to choose, between a blogpost written by a young man in Washington DC based on an article in the NYT, or the actions taken by elected officials in a city 3000 miles away.
This isn’t one of those times.
What I do, in a case like this, is assume there is something MattY or the NYT don’t know, or aren’t telling.
That may be faulty logic in some cases, but it’s not like I’m required to have an opinion about a six-month moratorium on building permits in a city a thousand miles from me.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
yes, in some theoretical world, you could in fact have healthy restaurants that serve food in a fast food style. In the world we currently live in, however, fast food restaurants tend to be the worst health-wise.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
It seems as though food trucks would fall under that ban. That’s a shame, as some of them serve low fat/low sugar fare.
And some cafes serve salads to go.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 13th, 2009 at 5:23 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 3:32 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 4:13 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
viagra