So let me get this straight. The city government in Los Angeles has decided that the residents of South Los Angeles have too much of a propensity (or is it just a statistical likelihood) to be obese, so the city government has decreed a moratorium on new fast food businesses in that part of the ‘hood. Is that right? Is that what I’m readin? While I know people who would be proud that the government is responding to a public health need, to me, it’s a perfect example of what some people call the “nanny state.” I mean, I really don’t like bans on smoking or seat belt laws, but at least they have the benefit of having directly causal relationships to the problems they’re designed to prevent. As much as I don’t like to wear ‘em, seat belts do save lives, and smoking does lead to cancer. (whether the government should actually be involved is another question.) Fast food, though? That’s a whole different argument altogether. There is no way the government should be limiting the growth of businesses because of public health, when the impact of said businesses ON public health is determined by the choices that the public makes INSIDE the businesses.
Put it like this: when I go to McDonalds, I usually don’t buy the salad. In fact, I almost never do. That’s because when I did buy it, I wasn’t particularly thrilled with the taste. The fries, on the other hand, are delicious. Nevertheless, the problem isn’t that there’s a McDonald’s near me, the problem is that I choose not to eat the healthier choices that are available. But that can’t legitimately be blamed on the Clown. Nor can what I do after I leave the restaurant be blamed on the Clown.
We know that obesity is generally the result of a combination of diet and a lack of exercise. So if the government can mandate what we eat, then what comes next? Are they gonna have neighborhood drill sergeants to get people up off the couch? Are there gonna be city-mandated TV-free days? Doubt it, but if the point is really to decrease obesity and its accompanying health problems, then that seems to be the next logical step. Thing is, we can’t make people exercise. Just like we can’t make them eat certain foods. Just like we shouldn’t try to disallow them the option of eating other foods.
None of this is to say that I think there should be MORE McDonalds in the hood. By all means no. For real-for real, I honestly believe that there is a shortage of healthy food options for people who don’t live in the trendy areas. Thing is, that’s not a problem for the government to fix, that’s a problem for them fu-fu food joints, charging the people up for what’s (ostensibly) NOT in the food. A quote from the article gets to the meat of the matter right here:
South Los Angeles resident Curtis English acknowledged that fast food is loaded with calories and cholesterol. But since he’s unemployed and does not have a car, it serves as a cheap, convenient staple for him.
On Monday, he ate breakfast and lunch — a sausage burrito and double cheeseburger, respectively — at a McDonald’s a few blocks from home for just $2.39.
Close and cheap. Amidst all the “they should open up healthy restaurants in the hood,” there needs to be an understanding of why it ain’t gonna happen. “They” are not gonna get “their” clientele in the hood, nor are “they” gonna be able to charge their ignorantly overinflated prices. Which means they ain’t comin’.
Now if you really wanna get to the nitty-gritty, people need to cook. It’s cheaper AND closer. Notice, I didn’t say they just need to eat at home, they need to cook. Food. Not processed foodstuff, actual food. Because in reality, that’s one of the unexplained variables in the obesity “epidemic.” As the time cost of preparing food decreased, obesity increased. Real food takes longer to cook, but it’s cheaper and there’s nowhere closer to home than home. But let’s see the city try to legislate that.
Entries (RSS)
You should check out the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and their April 2008 policy paper Designed for Disease. The paper shows a clear link between a community’s food environment and incidence of obesity and diabetes.
Seatbelt and helmet laws were once derided as nanny state interference, but the bottom line is promoting the general welfare of the people.
i’ll check out the ucla paper, but i’m actually pretty familiar with the literature on this. this is one topic i can claim a little expertise in, since i’ve done some grad-level research focusing on walkable communities and food choices. doing the lit review is actually where i came up with the time cost of food / obesity connection. that’s why when you disaggregate the obesity increase by gender and role type, single males had the smallest increase. that’s partially a function of them being 1) the group most likely to be the most physically active, and 2) the group whose eating habits changed least with the popularity swell of the microwave.
i definitely think there need to be a wider variety of food choices. but i also recognize that as long as there’s a certain trendiness attached with healthy eating, there’s also gonna be an unnecessarily high price tag.
Neither cigarette smoking nor excessive consumption of junk food is good for us, but the recent legislation against public smoking, trans fats in restaurants, and now this, portends a day when maitre’s d and waiters will refuse obese patrons, and the majority society will treat its largest citizens as dismissively in service industries and the workplace as it did the openly gay. Wonder when the civil libertarians will intercede?