Skip to main content

Los Angeles wants to take bite out of fast food

By CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 29, 7:50 AM ET



In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find "” and that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.

The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.

"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

The aim of the yearlong moratorium, which was approved last week in committee, is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food.

The California Restaurant Association says the moratorium, which could be extended up to two years, is misguided.

Fast food "is the only industry that wants to be in South LA," said association spokesman Andrew Casana. "Sit-down restaurants don't want to go in. If they did, they'd be there. This moratorium isn't going to help them relocate."

The proposed ban comes at a time when governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. Last Friday, California became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lowers levels of good cholesterol and increases bad cholesterol.

It also comes as the Los Angeles City Council tackles issues beyond safety, schools and streets. The council last week decided to outlaw plastic bags.

Fast-food restaurants have found themselves in the frying pan in a number of cities. Some places, including Carmel-by-the Sea and Calistoga, have barred "formula" restaurants altogether; others have placed a cap on them "” Arcata allows a maximum of nine fast-food eateries; others have prohibited the restaurants in certain areas, such as Port Jefferson, N.Y., in its waterfront area.

Most initiatives were designed to preserve a city's historic character. The Los Angeles bid is one of few that cite residents' health.

The mounting pressure has caused chains to insert healthier food choices in their menus. McDonalds offers salads and low-fat dressings; Burger King stocks Kids Meals with milk and apple pieces.

That's why the restaurant industry says it's unfair to blame them for fat people.

"What's next "” security guards at the door saying 'You're overweight, you can't have a cheeseburger'?" Casana said.

But public health officials say obesity has reached epidemic proportions in low-income areas such as South Los Angeles and diet is the key reason.

According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 30 percent of adults in South Los Angeles area are obese, compared to 19.1 percent for the metropolitan area and 14.1 percent for the affluent westside. Minorities are particularly affected: 28.7 percent of Latinos and 27.7 percent of blacks are obese, compared to 16.6 percent of whites.

Perry says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets "” and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order.

A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South L.A. restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles.

If the moratorium is passed, Perry wants to lure restaurateurs and grocery retailers to area.

Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more. "They should have better things for children," she said. "This fast-food really fattens them up."

___

On the Net:

California Restaurant Association: http://www.calrest.org

City of Los Angeles: http://www.lacity.org/council.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A much as I detest the over-proliferation of fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods, I do not like this "ban" at all. It is intrusive and very paternalistic. If the gov't wants to step in, they should do it in way that gives the people what they need, not tell them what they don't need. Why not require grocery store chains to set up in SCLA so that people will have a real choice for buying fresh food. Surely there all incentives and concessions given to these businesses. If they want to do business in Carmel-by-the-Sea, and enjoy their incentives anywhere in the state, they should be required to have stores in South Central.
quote:
Originally posted by Momzed:
A much as I detest the over-proliferation of fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods, I do not like this "ban" at all. It is intrusive and very paternalistic. If the gov't wants to step in, they should do it in way that gives the people what they need, not tell them what they don't need. Why not require grocery store chains to set up in SCLA so that people will have a real choice for buying fresh food. Surely there all incentives and concessions given to these businesses. If they want to do business in Carmel-by-the-Sea, and enjoy their incentives anywhere in the state, they should be required to have stores in South Central.


How does a city go about requiring grocery stores to set up anywhere?? Btw, there ARE grocery store chains in this area. Ralph's and Food 4 Less come to mind.
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:

How does a city go about requiring grocery stores to set up anywhere?? Btw, there ARE grocery store chains in this area. Ralph's and Food 4 Less come to mind.
I don't know. Local and sate govts always offer incentives to corporations to do business in their areas. They could come up with a clause.
This story is painting a picture that doesn't exist. This area is NOT devoid of grocery stores. They may be fewer and farther between than many people would like, but they are there. Many of them are Superior and Top Value type place. These ain't your Kroger's or Giant Eagle, but their produce prices are better than the big chains. The grocery business has the tightest profit margins of any industry. They can truly and WILL only go where they will make a profit. Short of the govt paying them to operate, there is not much wiggle room.
Socialism on the local level.

Yeah, lets take away the peoples choice and let government(local/state/fed) make decisions for us. This is a really bad precedent. Imagine if it is successful. Next thing you know the state will implement it, then it that works it is the feds.

Personal responsibility people, lets bring it back. I want to eat what i want, and feed my children what i want. I don't want to hand over my children to any government, i don't care what level. Please let me decide what it good for them.
Why don't we do something even crazier and bring back corporate responsibility? WHat the fuck is wrong with that? The government is not being paternalistic, it is being fiscally responsible. Fast food is linked to both high blood pressure and diabetes, both leading causes of death in poor communities. And while both diseases are deadly, until the patient is dead, they are also very costly. Since the government is going to carry the fiscal burden of health care for the poor, especially in county hospitals, governments are simply being prudent in prohibiting the merchants of slow and costly deaths in their communities.

Maybe they should add a fat and sodium tax to it as well.
quote:
Originally posted by jlokes:
Socialism on the local level.

Yeah, lets take away the peoples choice and let government(local/state/fed) make decisions for us. This is a really bad precedent. Imagine if it is successful. Next thing you know the state will implement it, then it that works it is the feds.
That's not a concern at all. The Constitution is set up to allow local governments to regulate things that the feds never could. The whole point of trying to limit federal power is to facilitate more local control. It's easier to vote out your councilman than your president.

And anyway, the thread is titled incorrectly. The article doesn't mention a "ban," it mentions a moratorium on new fast food joints opening up for a year. I don't see anything wrong with that, at least not on the local level.

Meanwhile, though, people in these neighborhoods do need to understand that their choices have an impact on what kind of options are available to them. If there are grocery stores, as nuggyt says there are, then the people should frequent them more. In the long run, not only is it healthier, but it's cheaper than eating out all the time, even if it is fast food.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
Why can't fast food be healthier?


It can be as evidenced by what some fast food companies are now doing by adding salads and other healthy choices to their menu. They did this to stay in business, as more and more people get concerned about eathing healthly, more people are making choices about where they eat, don't offer some healthy choices, you may start to see a decline in customers.
quote:
A much as I detest the over-proliferation of fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods, I do not like this "ban" at all. It is intrusive and very paternalistic. If the gov't wants to step in, they should do it in way that gives the people what they need, not tell them what they don't need. Why not require grocery store chains to set up in SCLA so that people will have a real choice for buying fresh food. Surely there all incentives and concessions given to these businesses. If they want to do business in Carmel-by-the-Sea, and enjoy their incentives anywhere in the state, they should be required to have stores in South Central.


I agree. I live in SoCal and I cannot buy into this idea. Califorina is the ulitmate nanny state. There is no doubt that a diet of fast food is unhealthy (check out the movie Super Size Me, an Academy Award-nominated 2004 documentary about a guy who ate at McDonalds for an entire month). But I cannot agree with the government stepping in and telling people what they can and cannot eat simply because the food is fattening and has little nutritious value. Such a decision should be left to people to decide. This is where education and information comes in. Will a majority consensus of the people comply and heed the health warnings? Maybe....Maybe not. But it doesn't matter. It's not the governments place to limit peoples choices about what they can and cannot eat.

I don't care how non-nutritious the food is (unless the food has been shown to cause outright instant death or sever poisoning of some sort). I don't like the idea of government limiting my choices. This is a decision that should be left to the individual –not the government. Information and healthy alternatives should be aggressively pursued. I can agree with that. No problem. But telling me no, I don't want you to eat cheese burgers, French fries and shakes because....because it will make you fat and clog your arteries. Naw.....Let me make that choice.
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
I don't see why all the sudden surprise. When the courts started allowing all these dumbass lawsuits from idiots too lazy or stupid to accept responsibility for their eating habits, this was the next step.
What about corporate responsibility to the public health? Especially since public tax dollars are going to wind up paying all the bills?
fro It's about time. I remember when I was coming up....a malt shop or hamburger stand were places to go for special occasions....like a Saturday night outing/date. But! It has transcended into everyday living-and that's not good. Not good cuz the food fast industry care less about QUALITY food and more about the almighty dollar....as a result "fat" people.

As a young mother I was guilty of being too tired to cook from working and going to school. Even with two-parent household....the breakfast, lunch and dinner table can be overwhelming when you live a busy life. However, the fast foods back then were STILL cooking on the grill....and the ingredients were STILL fresh. Not all this frozen stuff...but yet I still felt guilty. Thankgod my kids were TOO young to remember. Cuz as the routinue got better, we incorporated a plan to have homecooked meals at least five times a week. Plus I taught my kids how to cook....for those days when it's "every man for himself."

This is a good movement toward a healthy perspective to being responsible with what you put in your mouth. Working parents can't be every where....so it's nice to see the community step up and do the right thing in terms of teaching good eating approaches....by insisting that the fast food industries do the same. Cuz we DO need a watchful eye....especially when it comes down to money....resturants will do ANYTHING like putting inferior/or dangerous to the body by-products (i.e. artifical ingredients)in the food.

Hopefully this positive idealogy [towards better eating] will spread across the country. Cuz for our kids' health and well-being, we REALLY need it to. fro
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
What about corporate responsibility to the public health? Especially since public tax dollars are going to wind up paying all the bills?


Why should corporations be responsible for public health?? I mean they are required to disclose the content of their food. Let's be real EVERYBODY knows that fast food is not good to eat in excess. So, if a Fatburger stays in business and thrives, that means it is what people want. The coporation has already fufilled its responsibility by letting it be know how much fat is in the Fatburger.
Again, people, this is a MUNICIPAL government's action, right? All of this doom-and-gloom, big brother worrying is misplaced here.

And remember, there is no BAN; it's a temporary moratorium.

And even if it is a ban, what's the difference between a town banning fast food joints and a town banning porn dealers? Lots of towns do the latter, and there's no outcry. What's the difference?
fro Corporations NEED to responsible. Cuz why? They are SERVING the PUBLIC foodRoll Eyes And it [what they are serving the PUBLIC] should be quality food.

I read in the newspaper years ago about how China and other Asian community were banned from putting non-food products in their ingredients so they can produced more food or for reusable purposes such as reusing cooking oil....even though those non-food products placed in those ingredients were toxic to the body. Many folks died as a result of eating from those places. Should they [those places] be responsible? Absolutely. As is why I am NOT so trusting with fast food places. How do I know what they say is in the food is actually in the food? Not taking chances....not eating it.

And this example is revelant to fast food places....who promises fresh food products but give the PUBLIC inferior ingredients based on expense and profit. Now we are seeing the effects of it. I never thought that food will give folks high blood pressure, diabetics, hypertension....but! If it's combined with other things NOT designed for human comsumption....then you get what you get. And is why America is in deep trouble with health issues due to the consequence of eating from places that are dumping any and everything in their menus. Not good.

Plus, many fast food restuarants are transporting food by-products from other countries....with some countries NOT required to pratice reasonable health standards or not caught yet practicing unhealthy food standards. This is to the extreme but! I want to KNOW if the hamburger/taco I'm getting ready to put in my mouth is REALLY beef/chicken...and NOT a combination of canine and cat...with a little "rat" added for flavor..Eek I want/need to know if this lettuce/tomato is properly grown...especially if it's exported from a economically challenged country. I want to know what the health RISKS are regardless of the corporate/political jardon. But I guess that's just me. fro
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
What about corporate responsibility to the public health? Especially since public tax dollars are going to wind up paying all the bills?


Why should corporations be responsible for public health?? I mean they are required to disclose the content of their food. Let's be real EVERYBODY knows that fast food is not good to eat in excess. So, if a Fatburger stays in business and thrives, that means it is what people want. The coporation has already fufilled its responsibility by letting it be know how much fat is in the Fatburger.


Why are there seatbelts in cars? Why can't you use glass shards as filler in tuna fish? Why are airplanes and trains inspected for safety? Why can't you paint your walls with leaded paint? Or drive your car with leaded gas?

No the corporation do all they can to avoid telling you what you are eating, where it came from or how it is made. There is no fast food restaurant that has the caloric or sodium content of their food anywhere near as blatant as the price of it is? So unless they are willing to put sodium content and the calorie count as big as the price, they are going to have to take it and like it.

Right now, the biggest health issues facing the impoverished public are diabetes, which can be tied to the amount of simple carbohydrates that poor people eat (not just from fast food, but also starches and sugars in non-fast food, you know like high fructose corn syrup) and high blood pressure which can be linked to the increasing amount of sodium in not only fast foods, but processed foods as well.

Where is the corporate reponsibility there?
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:

Why are there seatbelts in cars? Why can't you use glass shards as filler in tuna fish? Why are airplanes and trains inspected for safety? Why can't you paint your walls with leaded paint? Or drive your car with leaded gas?

No the corporation do all they can to avoid telling you what you are eating, where it came from or how it is made. There is no fast food restaurant that has the caloric or sodium content of their food anywhere near as blatant as the price of it is? So unless they are willing to put sodium content and the calorie count as big as the price, they are going to have to take it and like it.

Right now, the biggest health issues facing the impoverished public are diabetes, which can be tied to the amount of simple carbohydrates that poor people eat (not just from fast food, but also starches and sugars in non-fast food, you know like high fructose corn syrup) and high blood pressure which can be linked to the increasing amount of sodium in not only fast foods, but processed foods as well.

Where is the corporate reponsibility there?


Why can't Wiz compare apples to apples??
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
I don't see why all the sudden surprise. When the courts started allowing all these dumbass lawsuits from idiots too lazy or stupid to accept responsibility for their eating habits, this was the next step.
What about corporate responsibility to the public health? Especially since public tax dollars are going to wind up paying all the bills?


Confused
What does that have to do with self responsibility? If someone tells you not to play with fire or you'll get burned its the goverments fault? Confused
Part of the appeal of fast food is in not having to actually go into the kitchen and cook a meal. I wonder how the unavailability of "get-it-now" food will affect those who, for various reasons, don't know how to prepare a healthier meal for themselves and their families. 19

And while in recent years there's been a proliferation of "complete" or "already ready" meals for the sake of convenience and/or the time spent 'over a hot stove' ... I wonder whether or not these types of meals have a much higher nutritional value than the fast foods, seeing as how they, too, are chocked full of preservatives and who knows what else to keep them fresh on grocery store shelves for who knows how long? Confused

While I understand and even agree with those who are opposed to more and more judicial intrusion in our lives ... since we obviously cannot find the necessary discipline to do what's in our own best interest when it comes to some things (like over eating unhealthy foods to the point of obesity or showing common the decency of not presenting your draws to the public eye) ... then intervention could be/should be/probably is necessary. And, in that case, I don't have much or a problem with it.
Is there a similar warning on hamburgers? Have fast food chains stopped advertising to children? Has eating fast food no longer allowed in public? Do people have to eat french fries at least 15ft away from the entrance?

Why is it that whenever there is talk about fast food, it so often becomes a matter or personal, but never corporate responsibility?
You have to go online to get the nutritional information for most providers of fast food.

The truth about fast food is that it does not have to be nearly as unhealthy as it is. Poor people with limited and dwindling resources are going to eat fast food for a good number of reasons. Those poor people are going to go on and contract diabetes and high blood pressure, for which they will seek treatment at the county hospital, because they do not have insurance.

It has been happening for years, it will continue to happen for years more. The cost of healthcare is constantly rising. But what does that matter to the believers of 'personal responsibility'? People will just be left on the street to die because it was a matter of personal responsibility.
fro My thing is...it is MY tax dollars paying the govt to do their job. Which is? Governing establishments which are dealing with the PUBLIC...especially monitoring industries that have a DIRECT impact/effect on people lives...i.e. the foods we eat. Otherwise, they [the govt] IS NOT doing WHAT they are being PAID to do.

For my money....I want the govt to protect MY interest....since I am paying them every payday to do EXACTLY that-which shouldn't be HARD to ponder. Especially since some govt folk are supposedly EXPERTS. As a novice, who is paying the govt, I expect them to regulate entities that are serving the public....since I CAN'T be an expert or have expertise in all things, I am looking toward my well-educated/informed govt to make sure things are correct.

Since the govt don't have a problem taking my money or giving themselves pay raises....they shouldn't have a problem doing what THEY are expected/paid to do.

Those can continue to minimize this health issue thing based on what they feel is adequate. But Me? Anything that goes in my body or on my body....I want to KNOW it's NOT gonna hurt me or my family in the long run. Where years later, cancer develops as a result of toxic ingredients in my food or in products I use on my body.

Cigarettes or cigars are different. Cuz not all people smoke. And tobacco is not a FOOD...but a form of self entertainment...if you will...a deadly form of self entertainment...and in my opinion...a personal choice if you want to KILL yourself by smoking(which second hand smoke can have an affect other folks as well). However! EVERYONE eats. EVERYONE drink water. Those are essentials every body need to survive....or to LIVE! So. If that's the case, the govt, which we all send our money to, should be on their Ps and Qs making sure the people they are paid to serve receive not only QUALITY and SAFE food but an effective food monitoring system that works....I'm just sayin'

BTW: My concern also include unhealthy foods that can be found in your grocery/or corner store. People really need to be informed about EVERY thing they put in their mouths....cuz the fast food industries are not the only culpits. Quick foods i.e. mircowavable items as well as instant prep foods are coming to mind-they are just as DANGEROUS to the body. fro
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
You brought up cigarettes where it does not fit into the discussion. Eating a hamburger and fries from McDonald's occaisionally is not going to make you have diabetes and be fat. Eating them too often will. EVERYBODY knows that. If people choose to still do so, maybe they should be left of the street to die.
Smoking and occasional cigarette will not necessarily cause cancer either. Not all smokers die from cancer or even cigarette related causes.

And everybody does not know eating fast food is bad for you and they certainly do not know in a quantifiable way (mostly because the real information on fast food is hidden, as I have stated before). Even if they did know in a quantifiable way, there are quite a few who would still be compelled to make poor choices. What per centage of that community would you suppose suffers from depression and related issues?

These are people who have not found disicpline to be beneficial or their suffering is constantly weighting their decisions to their own ill. The context of poverty is not one conducive to good decisons and what you would call personal responsibility. Yet, McDonalds and Wendys get to be on so many corners with their low cost drugs, that they make to be as about as unhealthy as they possibly can. With no concept of responsibility to the health of the public nor the long term cost to society of what they sell.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
You brought up cigarettes where it does not fit into the discussion. Eating a hamburger and fries from McDonald's occaisionally is not going to make you have diabetes and be fat. Eating them too often will. EVERYBODY knows that. If people choose to still do so, maybe they should be left of the street to die.
Smoking and occasional cigarette will not necessarily cause cancer either. Not all smokers die from cancer or even cigarette related causes.

And everybody does not know eating fast food is bad for you and they certainly do not know in a quantifiable way (mostly because the real information on fast food is hidden, as I have stated before). Even if they did know in a quantifiable way, there are quite a few who would still be compelled to make poor choices. What per centage of that community would you suppose suffers from depression and related issues?

These are people who have not found disicpline to be beneficial or their suffering is constantly weighting their decisions to their own ill. The context of poverty is not one conducive to good decisons and what you would call personal responsibility. Yet, McDonalds and Wendys get to be on so many corners with their low cost drugs, that they make to be as about as unhealthy as they possibly can. With no concept of responsibility to the health of the public nor the long term cost to society of what they sell.


This law is a local law, not state or federal.
Therefore i do not have a problem with it. People that live in an area should be able to vote on what they want in their community.

For example: I have no problem with this statute, but fuck the state of NY for banning trans fat, that is not a community action, that is state wide.
quote:
Originally posted by jlokes:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
You brought up cigarettes where it does not fit into the discussion. Eating a hamburger and fries from McDonald's occaisionally is not going to make you have diabetes and be fat. Eating them too often will. EVERYBODY knows that. If people choose to still do so, maybe they should be left of the street to die.
Smoking and occasional cigarette will not necessarily cause cancer either. Not all smokers die from cancer or even cigarette related causes.

And everybody does not know eating fast food is bad for you and they certainly do not know in a quantifiable way (mostly because the real information on fast food is hidden, as I have stated before). Even if they did know in a quantifiable way, there are quite a few who would still be compelled to make poor choices. What per centage of that community would you suppose suffers from depression and related issues?

These are people who have not found disicpline to be beneficial or their suffering is constantly weighting their decisions to their own ill. The context of poverty is not one conducive to good decisons and what you would call personal responsibility. Yet, McDonalds and Wendys get to be on so many corners with their low cost drugs, that they make to be as about as unhealthy as they possibly can. With no concept of responsibility to the health of the public nor the long term cost to society of what they sell.


This law is a local law, not state or federal.
Therefore i do not have a problem with it. People that live in an area should be able to vote on what they want in their community.

For example: I have no problem with this statute, but fuck the state of NY for banning trans fat, that is not a community action, that is state wide.


You can't control your eating habits, take away some of those trans fats nationwide. You'll live longer and be healthier, duh. Good way not to give the government an excuse for trying to kill off Blacks and others...
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by jlokes:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
You brought up cigarettes where it does not fit into the discussion. Eating a hamburger and fries from McDonald's occaisionally is not going to make you have diabetes and be fat. Eating them too often will. EVERYBODY knows that. If people choose to still do so, maybe they should be left of the street to die.
Smoking and occasional cigarette will not necessarily cause cancer either. Not all smokers die from cancer or even cigarette related causes.

And everybody does not know eating fast food is bad for you and they certainly do not know in a quantifiable way (mostly because the real information on fast food is hidden, as I have stated before). Even if they did know in a quantifiable way, there are quite a few who would still be compelled to make poor choices. What per centage of that community would you suppose suffers from depression and related issues?

These are people who have not found disicpline to be beneficial or their suffering is constantly weighting their decisions to their own ill. The context of poverty is not one conducive to good decisons and what you would call personal responsibility. Yet, McDonalds and Wendys get to be on so many corners with their low cost drugs, that they make to be as about as unhealthy as they possibly can. With no concept of responsibility to the health of the public nor the long term cost to society of what they sell.


This law is a local law, not state or federal.
Therefore i do not have a problem with it. People that live in an area should be able to vote on what they want in their community.

For example: I have no problem with this statute, but fuck the state of NY for banning trans fat, that is not a community action, that is state wide.


You can't control your eating habits, take away some of those trans fats nationwide. You'll live longer and be healthier, duh. Good way not to give the government an excuse for trying to kill off Blacks and others...


You trying to say is white fucks dont like Fast Food ?
quote:
Originally posted by jlokes:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by jlokes:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
You brought up cigarettes where it does not fit into the discussion. Eating a hamburger and fries from McDonald's occaisionally is not going to make you have diabetes and be fat. Eating them too often will. EVERYBODY knows that. If people choose to still do so, maybe they should be left of the street to die.
Smoking and occasional cigarette will not necessarily cause cancer either. Not all smokers die from cancer or even cigarette related causes.

And everybody does not know eating fast food is bad for you and they certainly do not know in a quantifiable way (mostly because the real information on fast food is hidden, as I have stated before). Even if they did know in a quantifiable way, there are quite a few who would still be compelled to make poor choices. What per centage of that community would you suppose suffers from depression and related issues?

These are people who have not found disicpline to be beneficial or their suffering is constantly weighting their decisions to their own ill. The context of poverty is not one conducive to good decisons and what you would call personal responsibility. Yet, McDonalds and Wendys get to be on so many corners with their low cost drugs, that they make to be as about as unhealthy as they possibly can. With no concept of responsibility to the health of the public nor the long term cost to society of what they sell.


This law is a local law, not state or federal.
Therefore i do not have a problem with it. People that live in an area should be able to vote on what they want in their community.

For example: I have no problem with this statute, but fuck the state of NY for banning trans fat, that is not a community action, that is state wide.


You can't control your eating habits, take away some of those trans fats nationwide. You'll live longer and be healthier, duh. Good way not to give the government an excuse for trying to kill off Blacks and others...


You trying to say is white fucks dont like Fast Food ?


Apparently they do as well...but you want to kill yourselves off with that, fine with me. Your own poison...though that would be really stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by jlokes:
Socialism on the local level.


Anyone who defines any level or type of government or federal regulation as "socialism" automatically loses several political IQ points in my book. Socialism is far more than just simple regulation of an economy. Every single capitalist economy in human history has had some type of government regulation or government intervention.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialism.htm

Hell, American capitalism was built on government intervention using the government to seize land, sometimes commons and private property of small independent owners, and turn it into private property for businesses.

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/04/strawman-alert.html
fro True...cigarette smoking does not CAUSE cancer in all disease related incidences...but! It does break down the body and set the stage to a weaken immune system that will cause other non related illnessess to occur.

And cigarette processing...i.e. making cigerattes including the ingredients put in cigerattes ARE different today than yester year. It's more deadlier with all the harzardous chemicals they put in it to increase profit....just as the process beef/pork/chicken is much DIFFERENT today than it was yester year. Companies are more interested in VOLUME [bigger product) than the quality & freshness of the product. In otherwords, food were processed with less bio ingredients back in the day...which means that cows, chicken and pigs are now fed with hormones to make them FAT. Something that is NOT good for human consumption....but! You can't make money if thought about what will happen to the consumers who are buying these items. Right? What do THEY know? Let's just focus on producing good eye catching commericals...that'll pull them in.Roll Eyes

I remember back in the day when food processing was on front street....when the meat companies were putting everything including the kitchen sink in their meat products. The Feds had to step in and monitor....but! It seem the meat companies have kinda won cuz with all these fancy-word ingredients they are allowed to put in the food today....the Feds think it's okay just cuz it derived from the so-called Food Administration....don't means it's better. And here we are now.

So if it weren't for folks getting rich off of what is put in the food today (i.e. doctors, pharmacists, hospitals)....maybe we would have a chance in feeding ourselves better....however, when the VERY people who are supposed to police our food ARE approving the very ingredients that are KILLING us....the only way to come in front...is to grow our own food. How many folks you know in the "hood" not only know how to do this but have the MEANS to do it? Not many. So. Again. We are where we are now. Which in my view at the mercy of the folks in charge of the foods we eat. But! JHMO is all....fro

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×