blog.bioethics.net

The most effective form of self-control is not to walk past temptation everyday, but to arrange for your environment to be free of that temptation. Democratic government is one way to do that. So long as she has widespread popular support I don't see that as a problem.

Sometimes we miss that the freedom to opt out, to not do, to not have is also a freedom for individuals and communities. There is no easy answer--having unhealthy food on every corner is not an innately more free and admirable condition--it depends what the full range and intensity of opinions in that area truly are and what those who want the fast food are really being deprived of. Is it so much more important than the health impact of having it there?

- by emily on Sep 12, 2007 at 9:19 AM | link

Emily, let's go along with what you're saying. How should we pick which restaurants are allowed to be built? Neighborhood referendum? Price-per-calorie calculation? Top Chef style competition?

- by Greg on Sep 12, 2007 at 12:06 PM | link

In a similar way to which lead paint, exotic pets, industries and weapons are allowed in a neighborhood, I imagine? Perceived (and I hope actual) risk vs. benefit. I would see freedom of choice as a benefit for some people (others would prefer not to have it in this case) but not a trump card in all cases. I see the availability of specific food genres as a benefit, not a right. Mundane objects can be and are dangerous to the safety of a significant minority of people.

Now as to what the actual danger of junk food verus other food types is, I don't know. I eat quite a lot and am conspicuously healthy (owning a border collie and not having a car helps burn of those burgers). But if it vanished I wouldn't care much either--so I don't really have a horse in this race.

- by emily on Sep 12, 2007 at 12:16 PM | link

Poor neighborhoods don't need better restaurants, they need more grocery stores. In my town, chain groceries won't locate in the 'hood and public transportatin sucks, so the only food choices nearby are junk foods. So how about incentives for grocers to operate in poor neighborhoods? And as long as the govt is intervening in nutrition, how about social services partners with said grocer to run classes on how to cook nutritious food from inexpensive groceries?

- by bug on Sep 13, 2007 at 10:46 AM | link

In fact it is likely that blocking chain restaurants with their economies of scale and anti-competitive practices will increase actual foraging choice as there will be more small independent vendors to choose from.

- by emily on Sep 13, 2007 at 1:44 PM | link

Obesity is a definitely a growing concern for people around the world. The question is what should be done in order to help people with weight issues? Does this problem lie in our genetics or is this something we can prevent with healthy eating and appropriate exercise? I do not think a ban on new fast-food restaurants in LA will help. First of all, the our nation is based on the belief of freedom and choice. It should be our right to enjoy cheap fast-food meals if we so choose to as long as the ingredients are not directly affecting our health. How can they ban fast-food restaurants and not certain foods in our grocery aisles that have the same lack of nutrition? Secondly, people are going to need more support and education to help them prevent obesity. I understand some people may argue if the fast-food isn't an option people will be much more less likely to grab this unhealthy food for dinner. Will this really help with weight problems though? What are they going to grab in replace of their convenient meals? There are foods found in the grocery store with just as much, if not more, trans-fats and calories. The other choice would be to buy a meal at a more traditional restaurant like T.G.I.Friday's, Ruby Tuesday, Chili's, or Applebees. Unfortunately, several people are still unaware these restaurants are unhealthy as well. Is LA going to ban these places too in order to help control the obesity rate? The article "On Some Menus, One Plate Packs 2,000 Calories" by Allison Linn (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17349197/) it is said "Ruby Tuesday's Colossal Burger packs about as many calories as five McDonald's Quarter Pounders." This is unbelievable, making me think I might actually rather grab by quick and cheap meal at McDonald's or Burger King rather than spending more money on another unhealthy meal from Ruby Tuesday or Chili's.

- by Tiffany S. on Oct 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM | link

This is another step that "Big Brother" is taking to ensure our well-being. People have the right to eat what they want, and where they eat. Now I'm not advocating for fast food, I don't eat it my self due to its unhealthy and potentially dangerous after effects. Now I'll stop by steak and shake for a milkshake now and than but other that that fat food doesn’t appeal to me. But to other people it does and that's their choice. If people want to take their families to McDonalds or Burger King for dinner, why not let them? Is it hurting us? As a society, yes it is because obesity does affect more than just the obese person. It is their choice though and that is what is truly comes down to, people have the right to take their families to go out and eat a meal with more fat and calories than a weekly diet.It's the American way. The question is: should the government be able to regulate the eating habits of its people? I don't see freedom of meal choice on the bill of rights but if they want to eliminate something unhealthy in the America people why not make smoking illegal? In response to the article’s question, will this curb the obesity epidemic in South L.A, maybe but most likely no because people are inherently lazy and making dinner just does not sound as appealing as going out to eat at Taco Bell or KFC. So even if there is no Mickey’Ds around the corner there will always be one a mile or so down the street, and if they’re really fortunate they’ll live by a McDonalds that delivers (some actually do).

- by Alex Aquino on Oct 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM | link

The question really is not whether removing fast foods restaurants from the area is appropriate action for the government to be doing or not, but how much will it actually make a difference. The immediate temptation may be taken away but the desire and convenience is not. Bug makes a very good point that though the government is removing these fatty-food places, they are not necessarily doing anything to replace them. People in those neighborhoods still need to eat. Many times the neighborhoods that have a lot of fast food restaurants are poorer neighborhoods, so the quick food and cheap prices are very appealing. If a grocery store was built, with affordable prices, that would benefit the community more than taking or banning fast food restaurants from the neighborhood. Also if the government built or sponsored cheap grocery stores in the area it would reduce the criticisms being thrown at them for making someone else’s “personal decision.” Though the government might have to go the extra mile to educate people on how to cook a healthy meal and what is really healthy for them, in the long run it would still be more beneficial.
People need to realize that if they are going to complain about decisions the government makes for them then they need to make good decisions for themselves. The objective of the government is to do what is in the best interest of its citizens, therefore they will make they types of choices. The success of these types of decisions is what really matters.

- by Meagan on Oct 10, 2007 at 8:53 PM | link

American people have the freedom to choose. It should be a person’s choice what they would like to eat for dinner, whether that is fast food, dining at a restaurant, or making themselves something at home. It is true fast food restaurants are more abundant in lower income communities: the convenience and cheap prices are appealing. However, supplying more grocery stores in these areas may not help either. There are still just as unhealthy foods available at the grocery store. Further, there are already lower priced foods available: certain brands and choices are cheaper than others. Plus, things are available to help people with these prices such as food stamps and welfare. Nutritional meals can be expensive and hard to find. Regardless, it is a person’s choice whether they choose to go that extra mile to stay healthy or not.

- by Tiffany S. on Oct 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM | link

I don't think free will is a get out of jail free card for social responsibility. It is always a matter fo drawing lines based on our best ubnderstanding or how to provide fair and safe choices. Otherwise sales of alcohol and drugs would also be unregulated. After all the poor mother with several children, no car and no bus service (real story) often literally can't go the extra 4-5 miles to grocery store with fresh vegetables. An economic climate that supports more choice in her neighborhood really onl;y stifles the options of the cahin franchise--which has the option of going anywhere in the world.

- by emily on Oct 18, 2007 at 10:00 AM | link

Removing fast food restaurants is not the solution for America's obesity problem. I understand that fast food plays a role in today's overweight society and that it is becoming increasingly more convenient to grab a quarter pounder than it is a chicken caesar salad. But I do not think that just because there isn't a McDonald's on the corner, a person is going to go to the grocery and buy something healthy to eat. I read in an article on the CBS news website that "every day, nearly one-third of U.S. children aged 4 to 19 eat fast food, which likely packs on about six extra pounds per child per year." This statistic is disgusting because if children were taught to make healthy choices at a young age, they would not be so drawn to fast food as young adults.

On the topic of the government funding programs to teach people how to cook healthy foods, I believe it would be beneficial, however I also think it is unnecessary. If a person took the initiative to attend a class where he or she would learn how to cook healthier, they are not the reason America is obese, in my opinion. I believe that it even if the government funded programs promoting healthy eating, many obese Americans would not participate because of laziness and apathy towards the issue.

I agree with many points made by Tiffany and Alex on this topic and I truly believe that fast food should not be as big of a concern as educating Americans at a young age the benefits of eating healthy.

- by molly on Nov 5, 2007 at 12:36 AM | link

It seems to me that if education were the answer, no person under 40 would smoke and no one would get pregnant or get an STD from unprotected sex. None of my students are unaware of the dangers of smoking or unproetected sex, not a single one. But about 20% smoke and surveys of the ungrad population suggest about 10% have unprotected sex (I didn't ask).

Food, sex and nicotene control our behaviour through emotional, Pavlovian association that are very difficult to counter using the learning, opernant behavioral systems--especially in teens. Education will work for a proportion of operationally-oriented people with good access to alternatives, it will always fail for a very large section of people and doom a certain proportion to obesity, diabetes, unwanted pregnancy, cancer, Aids and other STDs.

How do you stop kids from smoking? Ban sale of cigarettes to them. How do you stop adults smoking? Increase the price through taxes. How do you stop smoking in the work place? Ban it. Study after study showed that the effect of education bottomed out with many people still smoking--the only way to stop them, was to *stop* them through envrionmental obstacles.

If we are happy to have these people bear the costs for our freedoms, so be it. But we shouldn't pretend we are doing otherwise or blame the health costs on either the education system or their own personalities/genes/morality.

The only kind of behavioral program that might work is some kind of social support and exposure to the bad outcomes. That provided emotional associations counter to what is out there and might weaken the conditioning. But ask anyone in AA about whether that is any easy option while there is liquor at every street corner. It dooms those susceptable to bad eating to always being 'recovering'.

I am a healthy junk food consumer-in-moderation. But I know very well what my freedoms cost others--especially in poorer communities where a spirit of helplessness undermined and well-meaning 'class' that assumes these people don't already *know* about fat and sugar.

- by emily on Nov 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM | link

As well-meaning as this ban may be, I don't think that it will work because a) people can become obese with anything they eat as long as they overeat and never exercise, b) people can always drive out of South LA to get fast food (haven't you ever heard of people who drive for hours, even days, just to get a McRib?) The solution to obesity is not to deprive them of the food that makes them obese; it's to educate them about the health risks of obesity, and getting them to change their lifestyle.

- by Causes of Hair Loss on Jan 13, 2011 at 2:19 AM | link