The United States is the only country in the world that is eating itself to death.
In response to the posting below about the recent moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles, I would like to offer a different point of view.
People seem to think that America is a “free” country – this is a misnomer; America is, in fact, a constitutional republic, where everyone gets a voice through elected representatives. The elected representatives to the Los Angeles City Council have been hearing that in areas with higher levels of poverty, such as South Los Angeles, the people want access to healthier food choices.
Areas with higher levels of poverty are more prone to obesity; look at the states with the highest levels of obesity – these are also the states with the highest levels of poverty. South Los Angeles, with its higher levels of poverty in the metropolitan area, also has higher levels of obesity than its surrounding areas, like downtown and the Westside.
The government dictates what kind of food can be served in schools, and has, in recent years, been limiting the amount of unhealthy items available to students. No one seems to think that this is limiting a person’s right to unhealthy foods.
Without laws to regulate people’s actions, we would be living in an anarchist society where anyone could say anything and do anything they wanted, without concern as to how it would affect others. We have laws to regulate when people can drive after they have been drinking. Does this restrict a person’s right to drive his own vehicle after partaking in a bottle of wine? Yes. But it is for his own safety and well-being, as well as the safety and well-being of those around him.
South Los Angeles is not saying that fast food restaurants have to go. They are merely saying that, with the lack of healthier options and limited resources to access the healthier options that do exist, let’s make it easier for grocery stores and healthier restaurants to get into the area. In this case, it is necessary for the government to intervene for the safety and well-being of its citizens; it is not limiting personal responsibility and choice. The government is actually increasing the options available to the citizens of South Los Angeles so that they can take responsibility of their health and make healthier choices.
I say, way to go, Los Angeles City Council. I hope that this works out well, and that other cities with similar health problems are able to implement similar plans.
#1 by nick on August 2nd, 2008
I have the following criticism of Lexi’s comment, which is not original with me, but has been adapted from comments on similar ordinances. The ordinance in question can be criticized as being at once unnecessary, because information about calorie content can be conveyed without requiring that particular restaurants be banned, and paternalistic, because people concerned about their weight have the incentive and ability to inform themselves about the number of calories that they consume. The ordinance may also be ineffectual, because most people eat most of their food at home rather than in fast-food outlets; anticompetitive, because other restaurants can provide the ‘fast’ food anyway; blind to the effect of competition in forcing restaurants to develop menus that will give them an advantage in competing for health or calorie-conscious consumers; and sacrificing a liberty interest without the basis of a responsible cost-benefit analysis. In short, the problem with Lexi’s comment is that the issue is only in part whether or not the government has a ‘right’ to limit individual conduct or choices (which is noncontroversial writ large, the problem is in the application in each case) but the question of whether it is justified in this case, and whether such an ordinance will be likley to accomplish its stated objective, while sacrificing substantial liberty interests.