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

Please enlighten us with these "cheap and healthy" restaurants? Don't tell me to buy groceries from the local supermarket, that's the not the government's argument here. Give me a few examples of meal that cost around $5 and are healthy and nutritious but also readily available everywhere?

 

The problem is that there is no local supermarket in these areas and it does affect health. There have been studies linking the access to a supermarket to how healthy a diet is. And the purchasing power of these communities won't support a whole foods but they will support a pathmark or other lower priced chain.

a lot has been done in poor neighborhoods in nyc to bring in supermarkets and shopping centers that have been profitable and had a positive affect on the community. Residents often find it cheaper since you get better food for less. A big mac meal may run you $5-8 a person, for a family of five that's $30+ bucks. You are telling me that's cheaper than a home cooked meal using simple foods? Nonsense

These neighborhoods need things like regular supermarkets and if they cant be brought in things like farmer markets. Those are both viable options.

I don't understand why you are opposed to building supermarkets in poor areas when studies show that they can thrive because of the concentration of purchasing power plus low competition.

 

You are going back to the healthy supermarkets argument. That was not the case here and neither am I opposed to such an idea. However, the argument was on fast-food restaurants who provide a cheap and fast meal. Most people buy fast-food because they are busy working and don't have the time to make a healthy meal at home. I've lived in inner cities long enough to know that there are many local grocery stores and supermarkets that cater to these neighborhoods. So now this is a lifestyle choice, a busy schedule leaves little time to prepare your own meals. Fast-food provide a service to people that otherwise would not be available via local groceries route. Plus, almost every fast-food place provides some kind of healthy alternative like a salad or a reduced calorie meal. However, people still continue to go for a big mac, fries, and a soda. So what does that tell you about consumer preference? That is really the heart of this matter. Can government regulations really curb consumer preference? I believe that is a patently false idea and won't work.

The only way people change is by altering their food intake patterns and make personal choices to eat healthy and nutritious. Meanwhile, we cannot continue to prosecute enterprises that provide meals using identical ingredients to what can be readily purchased at your local supermarket. You can buy beef burgers, patatoes, frying oil, soda etc...pretty much everywhere you shop these days. So I don't see why fast-food should be attacked for providing food that one can easily duplicate from the local market. You have all those ready-to-eat high calorie meals in every supermarket. There are aisle full of this stuff from hamburger helpers, ramen noodles, to all kinds crap even frozen mini burgers from White Castle. Why? Because people are still looking for a cheap and easy to prepare meal that take up less of their time. That has been the American lifestyle for the last several decades. We can't change that without redefining American consumerism. II think the next big breakthrough in the food industry will occur with healthy food startups but that will take time, effort, and entrepreneurship from creative minds. The free market will choose the winners and losers of this movement, not some government bureaucrat.

 

No, this is not the "healthy" supermarket argument. It's the "just have feakin single supermarket" argument.

The studies show that people eat at fast food restaurants because THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES. The studies show that when a supermarket is built - any kind of supermarket - in a poor area, people start eating healthier.

That's not forcing people to eat healtier - it means they actually want to but can't because the options are denied to them.

 

LOL WTF? You guys sound just like the bi*ch Barbra Boxer we have as a senator in California. "You guys are all too stupid to understand so we will make all your decisions for you."

Oh No the evil billion dollar company is out trying to kill you and your family.

 

This guy is probably just tired of throwing out all those toys he keeps on getting cause it sure looks like he has had his fair share of happy meals.

 

The Modern Marvels on McDonald's distribution system is awesome.

 

Ever seen the movie/documentary 'Super Size Me?'. I'm assuming not.

 

lol wow this is so blatantly unconstitutional

 

Morgan Spurlock suffered a shock to his system because he was used to eating the meals prepared by his 80 pound vegan girlfriend. He threw up after eating a double QPC meal for God's sake. I know I have eaten that without the slightest discomfort.

After the minimum wage episode of 30 Days, Spurlock has no cred as far as I am concerned. He was cruising and they were clearly going to have more than enough money, so they both went to the emergency room (he went for a sore wrist and she went for a headache or UTI or something). Then they took someone else's kids to the movies and loaded up on snacks at the concession stand. When you manipulate the process to come up with the result you want, you lose all credibility.