LA bans fast food restaurants!

General discussion area for all topics not covered in the other forums.
Post Reply
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by RedGlitter »

Apparently it's the city's business to make you eat healthier. :thinking:

LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas

By CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 59 minutes ago



City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.

The yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The action, which the mayor must still sign into law, is believed to be the first of its kind by a major city to protect public health.

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

Representatives of fast-food chains said they support the goal of better diets but believe they are being unfairly targeted. They say they already offer healthier food items on their menus.

"It's not where you eat, it's what you eat," said Andrew Puzder, president and chief executive of CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. "We were willing to work with the city on that, but they obviously weren't interested."

The California Restaurant Association and its members will consider a legal challenge to the ordinance, spokesman Andrew Casana said.

Thirty 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, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Research has shown that people will change eating habits when different foods are offered, but cost is a key factor in poor communities, said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

"Cheap, unhealthy food and lack of access to healthy food is a recipe for obesity," Brownell said. "Diets improve when healthy food establishments enter these neighborhoods."

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

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.

"I don't think there's too many fast food places," he said. "People like it."

Others welcomed an opportunity to get different kinds of food into their neighborhood.

"They should open more healthy places," Dorothy Meighan said outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. "There's too much fried stuff."

Councilwoman Jan Perry said that view repeatedly surfaced at the five community meetings she held during the past two years. Residents are tired of fast food, and many don't have cars to drive to places with other choices, she said.

Los Angeles' ban comes at a time when governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. On Friday, California became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lower levels of good cholesterol and increase bad cholesterol.

The moratorium, which can be extended up to a year, only affects standalone restaurants, not eateries located in malls or strip shopping centers. It defines fast-food restaurants as those that do not offer table service and provide a limited menu of pre-prepared or quickly heated food in disposable wrapping.

The definition exempts "fast-food casual" restaurants such as El Pollo Loco, Subway and Pastagina, which do not have drive-through windows or heat lamps and prepare fresh food to order.

The ordinance also makes it harder for existing fast-food restaurants to expand or remodel.

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."
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

Great! I don't even go to fast food restaurants anymore. Haven't been to one in awhile. Just don't like them and their food is terrible. Hubby calls Burger King "Burger Slop". Yup, tastes like it.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by hoppy »

Nothing that happens in California surprises me anymore.:-5
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by Accountable »

:wah: Affirmative Action for restaurants. Gotta love it!



The next step will be one of two things:



either the city will impose price controls on these new healthy restaurants so the local residents will eat there,

or, more likely, they will raise the minimum wage, crying "they can't even afford to eat at the local restaurant!"

I wonder what kind of incentives the mayor has in mind to get these other restauranteurs to take a chance on these new areas.
User avatar
shelbell
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by shelbell »

qsducks;935498 wrote: Great! I don't even go to fast food restaurants anymore. Haven't been to one in awhile. Just don't like them and their food is terrible. Hubby calls Burger King "Burger Slop". Yup, tastes like it.


:wah: We call Burger King "Booger Fling" and then there's always "Smackdonalds" :wah:
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

shelbell;935785 wrote: :wah: We call Burger King "Booger Fling" and then there's always "Smackdonalds" :wah:


I have to admit though, that Smackdonald's has the best fries:wah:
Trunk Monkey
Posts: 21928
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:55 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by Trunk Monkey »

The few times I have been to a fast food restaurant, I was amazed at the families coming in. I also notice, they never seem to get the order right. Nope, these place are not for me.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by YZGI »

So, what other high calorie foods will be outlawed in the future, isn't this discrimination against calories. Baskin Robbins better watch out.
User avatar
shelbell
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by shelbell »

qsducks;935802 wrote: I have to admit though, that Smackdonald's has the best fries:wah:


I couldn't agree more. Their fries are the best...as long as they are hot and fresh! :yh_worshp :wah:
User avatar
shelbell
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by shelbell »

Trunk Monkey;935807 wrote: The few times I have been to a fast food restaurant, I was amazed at the families coming in. I also notice, they never seem to get the order right. Nope, these place are not for me.


It seems like all fast food places are messing up orders, especially the drive thru's.:driving: It's very rare we go to one, but sometimes it's just easier when no one feels like cooking and heating up the house...it's hot enough! :)
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

shelbell;935830 wrote: I couldn't agree more. Their fries are the best...as long as they are hot and fresh! :yh_worshp :wah:


If you go at lunch time, that is best. With a little salt. Yummy but fattening.:wah:
User avatar
shelbell
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by shelbell »

qsducks;935835 wrote: If you go at lunch time, that is best. With a little salt. Yummy but fattening.:wah:


Ok, now I'm just:yh_drool and all I get is some mac & cheese.:wah:
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

Kraft or Stouffer's?
User avatar
shelbell
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by shelbell »

qsducks;935845 wrote: Kraft or Stouffer's?


Better yet...Walmart store brand. :wah:
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

My kids don't care, they will eat store brand. Personally, I love Stouffer's.:-4
User avatar
shelbell
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by shelbell »

qsducks;935864 wrote: My kids don't care, they will eat store brand. Personally, I love Stouffer's.:-4


Don't think I've ever had Stouffers. I love the Kraft shells and cheese but it's too expensive. My youngest (16) actually prefers store brands to the name brands...I don't mind either. :wah:
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by southern yankee »

To me this is SOOO stupid. :mad:I am over weight. NOBODY forces me to eat it. If there weren't fast food. heck i could go to any supermarket and get food that is as bad or worse. It is up to you what you feed your kids. Not Greasy Macs or Sliders. Come on!!:mad:
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

southern yankee;935896 wrote: To me this is SOOO stupid. :mad:I am over weight. NOBODY forces me to eat it. If there weren't fast food. heck i could go to any supermarket and get food that is as bad or worse. It is up to you what you feed your kids. Not Greasy Macs or Sliders. Come on!!:mad:


Calm down SY. My kids eat tons of fresh veggies & lots of fruits. And I never buy soda. Always have veggies with din din.
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by southern yankee »

qsducks;935899 wrote: Calm down SY. My kids eat tons of fresh veggies & lots of fruits. And I never buy soda. Always have veggies with din din. i fed my daughter veggies/ fruit too. that is not what i am saying. It is to have CHOICE. ;) I don't agree with famlies who allow their childern. To eat nothing but fast food. but we do not need BIG BROTHER telling us we can't.;)
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by qsducks »

southern yankee;935907 wrote: i fed my daughter veggies/ fruit too. that is not what i am saying. It is to have CHOICE. ;) I don't agree with famlies who allow their childern. To eat nothing but fast food. but we do not need BIG BROTHER telling us we can't.;)


I agree totally. I occasionally use it as a "treat" only. But it would be nice if they didn't locate these fast food joints in low income neighborhoods. They are currently outlawing junk food in high schools where I'm living.
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33633
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by chonsigirl »

Stouffer's is good, I cook those for my husband's lunches.....
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by RedGlitter »

You know....what a person chooses to put in their body is a very personal decision. I don't personally feel that fast foods are that unhealthy. I have no problem with them. I like them and feel no shame in saying so. But even if I hated them, I would resent someone in a position of "authority" thinking they had any business limiting my food choices to what THEY thought was "best for me." Or for my kids for that matter. Leave my food alone!

Not to mention that there's a reason low incomes eat at fast foods. They're still getting all their nutrients even if the cholesterol is high. These new "healthy" restaurants are going to cost. Does anyone really think these people are going to fork out good money at one when they can get tasty cheap food elsewhere?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by Accountable »

Every time I see the name of this thread it looks like the name of a restaurant. :wah: We should all pitch in and open



LaBans Fast Food Restaurant



in LA. We could have a healthfood menu then spread the word secretly that we serve greasy burgers & fries on request. :D
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by southern yankee »

Accountable;936154 wrote: Every time I see the name of this thread it looks like the name of a restaurant. :wah: We should all pitch in and open



LaBans Fast Food Restaurant



in LA. We could have a healthfood menu then spread the word secretly that we serve greasy burgers & fries on request. :D LIKE, under the table:wah:
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by RedGlitter »

Accountable;936154 wrote: Every time I see the name of this thread it looks like the name of a restaurant. :wah: We should all pitch in and open



LaBans Fast Food Restaurant



in LA. We could have a healthfood menu then spread the word secretly that we serve greasy burgers & fries on request. :D


:wah: Yeah!!
scholle-kid
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by scholle-kid »

I don't eat at any of the 'fast food' places,, I have worked in several regular sit down resturaunts and some of the stuff that goes on in those resturaunts are enough to turn a strong stomach so I can only imgine what might be happing in a place full of young people managed by someone more worried about what the head office thinks than the custormers food,,,:rolleyes:

But,, i don't think government ,city ,state or nat'l has a right to tell people large or small what to spend their earned money on...

if they want to stick their nose in someones eating habits start by pareing down the lists of junk food that can be purchased with government food stamps..
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by southern yankee »

scholle-kid;936195 wrote: I don't eat at any of the 'fast food' places,, I have worked in several regular sit down resturaunts and some of the stuff that goes on in those resturaunts are enough to turn a strong stomach so I can only imgine what might be happing in a place full of young people managed by someone more worried about what the head office thinks than the custormers food,,,:rolleyes:

But,, i don't think government ,city ,state or nat'l has a right to tell people large or small what to spend their earned money on...

if they want to stick their nose in someones eating habits start by pareing down the lists of junk food that can be purchased with government food stamps..
I know what you mean. about NASTY. But the cleanest fast food i ever worked at was. Believe it or not was White Castle. That is all you did was CLEAN. Not a lick and a promise either. Deep cleaning. I know that was 27 years ago. wonder if they are the same now??
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by Accountable »

scholle-kid;936195 wrote: I don't eat at any of the 'fast food' places,, I have worked in several regular sit down resturaunts and some of the stuff that goes on in those resturaunts are enough to turn a strong stomach so I can only imgine what might be happing in a place full of young people managed by someone more worried about what the head office thinks than the custormers food,,,:rolleyes:

But,, i don't think government ,city ,state or nat'l has a right to tell people large or small what to spend their earned money on...

if they want to stick their nose in someones eating habits start by pareing down the lists of junk food that can be purchased with government food stamps..
If that happened half the people that support this measure would be up in arms. The ACLU would have a team of lawyers there in no time flat. Whoever brought up the measure would be labeled a hate monger or worse, a conservative. :yh_nailbi It's okay to target the poor, the fat, even certain neighborhoods for progressive causes like diet control. It gets touchy when anyone mentions what ethnic group they're in, but welfare recipients are sacred cows.
scholle-kid
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by scholle-kid »

Accountable;936423 wrote: If that happened half the people that support this measure would be up in arms. The ACLU would have a team of lawyers there in no time flat. Whoever brought up the measure would be labeled a hate monger or worse, a conservative. :yh_nailbi It's okay to target the poor, the fat, even certain neighborhoods for progressive causes like diet control. It gets touchy when anyone mentions what ethnic group they're in, but welfare recipients are sacred cows.


Now don't get me wrong,I don't hate welfare recipients , there was a time about 25 years ago I myself and my 3 kids were food stamp recipients for about 7 months.

And I was amazed even then the amount of junk people would waste those stamps on,

How did we as a nation get to the place that our government feels it ok to stick their noses into the spending/eating habits of the working citizens business ,but deems it ok to 'look the other way' when it comes to the spending/eating habits of the recipients of government funded money and food stamps? I don't believe the government should be able to tell anyone tax payer or food stamp recipient what or where to eat or be able to tell a business where to market a product ,in context of food, but if the government is going to try to stick it's nose aren't they kind of being backa$$wards about it ? It boggles the mind that welfare recipients are considered 'sacred cows' and can't be touched but it's open season on 'free enterprise (the fast food places) and the tax payer .

I'm not a hate monger just a boggle minded American.

And just FYI purposes, it was harder to get 'off' welfare than it was to get on welfare . It took mr less than a hour in that welfare office and I walked out of that office with an active welfare cae,it took me almost 4 months to convince the state I no longer needed their help before they quit sending me food stamps, even after I sent the stamps back to them 2 months in a row.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by Accountable »

scholle-kid;936654 wrote: Now don't get me wrong,I don't hate welfare recipients , there was a time about 25 years ago I myself and my 3 kids were food stamp recipients for about 7 months.

And I was amazed even then the amount of junk people would waste those stamps on,

How did we as a nation get to the place that our government feels it ok to stick their noses into the spending/eating habits of the working citizens business ,but deems it ok to 'look the other way' when it comes to the spending/eating habits of the recipients of government funded money and food stamps? I don't believe the government should be able to tell anyone tax payer or food stamp recipient what or where to eat or be able to tell a business where to market a product ,in context of food, but if the government is going to try to stick it's nose aren't they kind of being backa$$wards about it ? It boggles the mind that welfare recipients are considered 'sacred cows' and can't be touched but it's open season on 'free enterprise (the fast food places) and the tax payer .

I'm not a hate monger just a boggle minded American.

And just FYI purposes, it was harder to get 'off' welfare than it was to get on welfare . It took mr less than a hour in that welfare office and I walked out of that office with an active welfare cae,it took me almost 4 months to convince the state I no longer needed their help before they quit sending me food stamps, even after I sent the stamps back to them 2 months in a row.
We're on the same page here. We were on food stamps when I was little. I would think that the gov't ought to be able to require just about anything of welfare recipients, seeings how they're paying.
scholle-kid
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by scholle-kid »

Jester;936720 wrote: Years ago, as a young unmarried servicemen living in the barracks and having enough cash on hand to put it aside (nothing to spend it on, since all my needs were met)... I did see yougn guys in my same shoes, only married and some with kids, back then working wives werent as widespread as they are now. The guys with kids typically had the wives at home and not working... and in order to do that on E3 pay, you needed food stamps... and so they'd go downtown and register and get them. WIC is what I think they registered for.



There was restrictions on what they could by with them, no tobacco, no alcohol and it was limited to grocery items, not books, magazines etc.



When I saw what was going on and being so young I did not blame the government for not paying us soldeirs enough to live on (now I have a slightly different outlook, but thats another subject)... anyway... what I did was start shoving as much as I could of my pay in the bank and I started a side barracks biz (haircuts for a 2 bucks less than the PX barber, and jobs off post in the evenings, etc) and put that away too... I had plans on being married within the year and there was no way I was gonna go get WIC and have the government tell me I cant buy what I want. When I did get married I was able to suppliment my income with the savings I made in earlier years and we never had to use food stamps, that plus a few extra jobs on my part tied us over until I had enough rank and pay to support us.



I fully understand the need to have food for anyones family, but I am also torn up over the fact that there is ample opportunity all around and folks would rather succumb to being on the tit and sucking it out of the rest of us when they could have worked a bit harder to make ends meet, or live d less off the hog when they had it... granted there are some that need it and I do not in any way begrudge them, but its getting harder to tell the difference these days...



When someone walks into a grocery store wearing a fine designer velore sweat suit and sporting a bling-bling as big as his girlfriends pregnant belly and slaps the food stamps on the counter to buy milk and bread it just tells me someone has thier priorities out of order.




Thats if they buy 'bread and milk' generally its more apt to be chips ,candy,soda's , etc...

That's what I meant when I said "I was amazed at the junk people waste the stamps on. and also what I was refering to when I mentioned 'paring the list of junk food that can be purchased with food stamps.'
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by YZGI »

Jester;936720 wrote: Years ago, as a young unmarried servicemen living in the barracks and having enough cash on hand to put it aside (nothing to spend it on, since all my needs were met)... I did see yougn guys in my same shoes, only married and some with kids, back then working wives werent as widespread as they are now. The guys with kids typically had the wives at home and not working... and in order to do that on E3 pay, you needed food stamps... and so they'd go downtown and register and get them. WIC is what I think they registered for.



There was restrictions on what they could by with them, no tobacco, no alcohol and it was limited to grocery items, not books, magazines etc.



When I saw what was going on and being so young I did not blame the government for not paying us soldeirs enough to live on (now I have a slightly different outlook, but thats another subject)... anyway... what I did was start shoving as much as I could of my pay in the bank and I started a side barracks biz (haircuts for a 2 bucks less than the PX barber, and jobs off post in the evenings, etc) and put that away too... I had plans on being married within the year and there was no way I was gonna go get WIC and have the government tell me I cant buy what I want. When I did get married I was able to suppliment my income with the savings I made in earlier years and we never had to use food stamps, that plus a few extra jobs on my part tied us over until I had enough rank and pay to support us.



I fully understand the need to have food for anyones family, but I am also torn up over the fact that there is ample opportunity all around and folks would rather succumb to being on the tit and sucking it out of the rest of us when they could have worked a bit harder to make ends meet, or live d less off the hog when they had it... granted there are some that need it and I do not in any way begrudge them, but its getting harder to tell the difference these days...



When someone walks into a grocery store wearing a fine designer velore sweat suit and sporting a bling-bling as big as his girlfriends pregnant belly and slaps the food stamps on the counter to buy milk and bread it just tells me someone has thier priorities out of order.
If they were all decked out with bling they probably just traded drugs for the stamps.
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by RedGlitter »

Doesnt matter what kind of food they buy. So what if they buy chips and candy. Most do enjoy those things.Who cares if they're not the healthiest foods. If they were buying booze or smokes I could see the complaint. But this food monitoring is overblown.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by YZGI »

RedGlitter;937772 wrote: Doesnt matter what kind of food they buy. So what if they buy chips and candy. Most do enjoy those things.Who cares if they're not the healthiest foods. If they were buying booze or smokes I could see the complaint. But this food monitoring is overblown.
No offense Red but you can't have it both ways. Either you want government to regulate everything for our benefit or you don't. People never mind when the government regulates things they don't like or don't do but get all up in arms when they regulate things they do like or enjoy.
User avatar
sunny104
Posts: 11986
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:25 am

LA bans fast food restaurants!

Post by sunny104 »

YZGI;938012 wrote: No offense Red but you can't have it both ways. Either you want government to regulate everything for our benefit or you don't. People never mind when the government regulates things they don't like or don't do but get all up in arms when they regulate things they do like or enjoy.


yep, that's how it always goes! :rolleyes:

I knew that door was opened wide when they started banning smoking everywhere.
Post Reply

Return to “General Chit Chat”