Surprise! "Temporary" Fast-Food Ban in South L.A. Becomes Permanent

I agree with the other part about self-information but do you really think McDonalds or KFC is trying to screw us up to increase healthcare costs??????

McDonalds is a corporation whose goal is to bring the customer what they want at the lowest price therfore providing a profit to the owners. The people that go to McDonalds do so not for the high quality but for the very low cost. Because of technological innovations and companies many people are not starving because they've created incredible efficiencies to bring down prices. People go there because its cheap. That is all...in order to keep it cheap they don't use the highest quality products, preservatives etc. but what is the alternative?

We ban these firms or make it harder on them so then they have to close or raise prices. This cheap food is what allows many to survive during difficult times. Interference will do what government usually does, create restrictions and force McDonalds to raise prices and then it becomes an additional tax on the poor.

 

Fast Food is fine if you workout. Like all sensible humans should.

I don't understand why people don't exercise on a daily basis. Even with work/school it can always be inserted into your schedule.

Why would I let my body stay out of shape when I can easily work out and look/feel great.

 

The increased cost of the food would increase the reproductive cost of labor (that is, the minimum companies would have to pay to keep their unskilled labor force alive and producing the next generation of unskilled labor), which would put upward pressure on their salaries, and then increase costs for the rest of the population, in effect (though not very efficiently) redistributing a little bit of wealth from the upper and middle classes to the lower class to keep them alive. I think the poor would suffer only in the short term as the system reaches a new equilibrium.

Of course, all this could be avoided by paying something more than subsistence wages for unskilled labor in the first place.

That aside, I don't think it's an insurmountable problem to raise the floor on the quality of food when there is wealth in the system to sustain it, and it's an investment that reduces our operating expenses in the long run.

 

I don't really buy that, but even if so then you have unskilled labor making more but spending more so no change in lifestyle while investors get less returns and less reinvestment lowering job opportunities for these people?

If people want quality there are plenty of places, but they cost $$$. If the demand for salad's and organic hummus was high in low-income areas I guarantee there would be one on every corner.

Restaurants create what consumers desire. Its not their job or duty to regulate their intake of said product and its not the governments role either.

 

I just follow the money to tell me who has a stake in what. FDA allows the corporations/food manufactuers to use certain amounts of chemicals, bleach, food dyes and other substances that have been shown to cause birth defects, cancer, ADHD, ect in food. FDA is primarly funded by drug companies. There is evidence by numerous drug recalls and reports over the years that FDA has hastily issued drugs it knew not to be safe but did it anyway (why would they do that if they're looking out for us?). Let's face it, medicine is big business (prolly next biggest to war especially if government can mandate every single citizen to participate through buying insurance) and they need customers. I think McDonalds and KFC do what they do to turn a profit and that is to use the least amount of real food/cheap sources of food possible. I think the FDA does what it does because it's a good ole boy system (corpratism) where the drug companies lobby to allow food manufactuers to continue to replace real food with chemical alternatives they help develop and drive profits in the medical sector and the food corps go along with it because it drives the price of food down. I think as a result of that, we're unknowingly sheep stuck in the middle left to argue about petty differences like religious views and gays in the military.

Look at cancer rates today. I'm mean it's just an accepted fact that people get cancer when 50 years ago, that wasn't the case along with other trends such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, ADHD, autism ect. How much money is spent on prevention/health education versus how much is spent on treatment? I can tell you that that figure is astronomically geared towards the treatment side.

 

Huh? I'm pretty sure that the FDA is primarily funded by taxation, being a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

 

It was until 1992.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html

 

That's a depressing read. And i always hope I'm wrong, but I'm right there with you on the previous post in terms of conspiracy/schemes. I hope it's not that direct and malicious, but ... when you see who's in control it's a bit disheartening the amount of trust we've put into such a system.

 

Also, the goal of these restaurants is not "to give you the best product and the lowest price therefore generating a profit".

The goal, in order is, "to generate the desired profit growth while ensuring customers believe they are receiving a product that provides great value at a low price." >> The order is different. It wasn't the customer's wishes that gave birth to the "McSalad", it was a decline in profit growth.

The problem is not that they're using crappy stuff. The problem is that they're intentionally using hazardous stuff, knowing it causes illness, in order to make the profit.

The FDA tries to control it, but it's tough to fight McDonald's frankly. It's like telling a country full of cokeheads that coke is killing them. There won't be much public support because everyone is drinking the McD's kool aid.

 

So, according to your "logic", McDonald's food = cocaine. Right.

 

And thats how freedom is lost. Not by war, or by force, but by fear.

"We will organize into the Galactic Empire, for safe and secure society!"
Darth Siduous/Senator Palpatine!

 

I tried working through the rationale of the those behind this move and cannot find a single reason to support this measure. I mean for all the talk about looking out in the best interest of the people, how does this help provide anything to the people? I mean it's not like these fast-food joints are taking away land from healthier food places to begin with. If nobody wants to put up a healthy restaurant with perhaps higher prices in the middle of low income areas then what is a government do in trying to address that problem? Controlling the growth of fast food places in economically desolated areas is not going to be solved by banning the few enterprises still willing to operate in these areas. Tell McDonalds, BK, KFC and the rest of them to stay away from your neighborhood is just not a smart business strategy in the long run. Plus, I don't understand the idea behind curbing people's habits through restrictive legislation. The people of LA have wide transportation available, they can go to another area to find better food options. Now, unless people do not want to pursue healthier options then that is a whole different story. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

It wasn't a ban on a fast food restaurant - just a zoning law prohibiting "stand-alone" fast food restaurants being built with 2600 feet of an existing stand alone restaurant. South L.A. is over 70% fast food. I think it's logical to try to give people a diversity of choices in food.

 

There's nothing to prohibit Whole Foods from opening up a store in that area. These silly attempts to interfere in the market are just idiotic.

 

Then you agree that all zoning laws should be eliminated, right?

 

LA can be as silly as it wants to be. They should not come crying to the rest of the country because their economy is in the toilet.

 

First and foremost, let's be very clear that America is not, can not be and will never be 100% free. Someone said it very well in another thread, can't remember who - the government in a democracy is a mini reflection of its people, and in order to ensure freedom, must put rules and regulations in place to guarantee freedom to all rather than to some.

It's not about safety or security or about fear.

It's about abuse of power, fairness, transparency, reasonable expectation, rights, and duties.

In a free market, the potential commercial opportunities for a fast food restaurant will create a force such that it will abuse the rights of some, will tip-toe on the duties of the company, and ultimately create a net negative impact on the country's well-being once it exceeds the point where a reasonable product is providing the maximum amount of profit for the company. At this point, either profits remain stagnant, or they can cut cost to continue profit growth.

You then move on to the consumers' decision making. Ideally, you would say that consumers will see this for themselves and can make educated decisions. However, if there is a pattern of misinformation or a lack of transparency, the customers' ability to make that decision is impacted. When the consumer then becomes uncertain or unsure, that is where the McDonald's or whatever flexes its financial muscle and uses shrinks, accountants, lawyers, etc to pull misinformed or unsure consumers in.

The consumer at this point is making an almost subconscious decision on the basis that something truly harmful to a human being would never be sold therefore a degree of trust is placed in the entities which regulate these products - in this case, the FDA. That's the safety net.

The FDA is supposed to function for the consumers, based on their needs by ensuring the best information is available and attempting (As much as possible) to cause the least impact on market freedom. It's not an easy thing to do, and if the entity is doing what it's supposed to do, it will sometimes go a bit too far and other times not far enough. This ofcourse is contingent on the entity's independence > which is a whole thread all by itself. In this case, a few people have mentioned that the FDA is essentially funded by the firms it oversees, and as with any regulator, the bigger firms are required to provide more funding since more regulatory resources will be dedicated to them.

That's the big picture. You take out the regulator, and as I said before, McDonald's goes to town on the average consumer with ease because it will flood dissemenation of information with high volumes of irrelevant information in order to cloud judgement. All you will have to go by is what McDonald's tells you. Alternatively, there could be private institutions that specialize in providing accurate information in place of a regulator, but you will not have the same certainty with regards to the independence of that private entity as you do with a regulator. With a regulator, if McD's is the biggest contributer, then you actually KNOW THAT. It would be very easy for someone related to McDonald's to purchase a stake in the private entity in such a way that you would never know the details regarding ultimate ownership because, remember, you have banished regulators.

Regulation is cyclical in nature. It will oscillate between too much and too little, principle-based and rule-based, more independent and less independent, confidence-building and confidence-shaking. But ultimately, IMO they are necessary to ensure that information is available in a reasonable and measurable way for a free market to function.

Seeing as this exact conversation has been going on for over a century without resolution, I think this is where we just agree to disagree.

 

Yes, and I've read the details of this zoning requirement. However, as I said before, how is that going to create "food diversity" if no enterprise wants to put a healthy and organic food establishment with higher prices in a low income area? It's not like these new fast-food places are taking up space that would have otherwise been bought by a healthy food startup. Get my point? There is no market for Whole Foods in the South and Central LA. This is economics 101. Thus, what I am trying to get to is the heart and meat of this issue. This is what the government is going to do and has done in these situations before: subsidies. That is the only economic tool in the government's tool-shed. Look for it, once the market has been disrupted and interfered with by the government. "Cost-sharing" as the politicians like to put it will be the endgame in trying to get people to buy healthy and affordable meals. Then, just follow the money trail of these healthy food startup until it leads back to the very politicians who proposed such initiatives.

 

maybe it won't attract a whole foods but it will allow other types of food options to open up into the place since the competitive landscape won't be so tilted to fast food.

there's plenty of cheap foods that are not fast food. You make it seem that there is only fast food and whole foods. I don't think that's the case.