Ban on fast food won't really help the poor
I absolutely can’t stand when people are treated differently, or targeted, because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or income.
It really just makes me sick.
This is why I’m a strong supporter of the city council putting a yearlong moratorium on fast food restaurants being built in the southern L.A. area.
Why? No, folks eating McDonald’s certainly doesn’t bother me, and I’ve even been known to jones for some White Castle mozzarella sticks.
But, I’m choosing to eat those delicious bread battered fried cheese sticks from the heavens just because I want them, not because they’re cheap and I couldn’t afford a $8 salad from Panera.
According to a multiple of sources, lower-income neighborhoods have a prevalence of more fast food restaurants (I really liked this research, even though New Orleans was used as the example, it still proves a valid point).
But basically, the gist of these articles/research is that poor people often have to rely on cheap, high-calorie fatty foods because they can’t afford healthier options.
Now I can honestly see this. Think about it, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Taco Bell and Burger King all have dollar menus. But does Bruegger’s, Panera, or Subway? Well no.
Granted, there are $1 side salads on most fast-food restaurants menus, but is a measly bowl of some lettuce and a tomato really going to satisfy a hungry person, or their daily caloric needs? I don’t think so.
And what if you have two or three kids? I wouldn’t even want to think how much it would cost for everyone to go to Subway. I’d estimate somewhere between $25 and $40 (that’s saying $5 a person, plus maybe some chips or raisins, some milk, etc.)
But, for about $15, everyone can eat (that’s saying all dollars menu items, like a burger, fries and a drink) for a family of five.
On top of the shear price difference, and the fact that poorer people are being forced to eat less healthy food, it’s the companies that bother me.
Obviously, all these fast-food joints know exactly what they’re doing. They know they’ll get more business in a poor area than if they were in a richer area next to a Chipotle and Noodles and Company.
So boo on fast-food places for taking advantage of people.
However, I don’t understand part of the L.A. ban. In all the articles I’ve read, it mentions this yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. Well, there’s one question that hasn’t been answered. Are these healthier restaurants planning on reducing their prices? Because if not, people are just going to choice the deep-fried, fattier food places because of their cheaper prices. It’s not like in the next year all the poor people are suddenly going to hit the lottery.
And, even though I believe this ban touches on an important larger nationwide issue, I wonder how much it will really help in the long end.
See, this same phenomena happens in the grocery store too. Think about it, fresh produce is always more expensive than canned (which has higher sodium) and Ramen Noodle and 79 cent macaroni and cheese is for sure cheaper than $5 a pound chicken breast.
And, sorry this turned into such a rant, bringing new business offers more jobs. So, if there’s no new fast-food joints opening up, and yet, healthier restaurants still don’t come in, isn’t that a number of jobs that could have existing not being there?
So even though I say right on to L.A.’s city council for looking out for the poor being somewhat preyed on by fast-food restaurants, I hope this will be a real wake up call to what some of the real issues are behind obesity. And then, maybe one day a way can be figured out for a gallon of milk to be the same price as soda.
“So boo on fast-food places for taking advantage of people.”
Absolutely no-one is forced to eat out, let alone forced to eat at McD’s or BK, etc. What about personal responsibility? What fault is to be found in some franchisee building a restaurant where people apparently want to eat that food? Besides, a sliced turkey sandwich and an apple is cheaper than lunch at McD’s any day (remember lunch boxes?). Ultimately markets meet consumer demand (within reason – nobody is going to get $1 steak dinners!) and South L.A. apparently likes fast food.
You reference Panera as a healthier option, but they are certainly no panacea. Their $8 Chipotle Chicken sandwich is every bit a Calorie Hog as McD’s $1 double cheeseburger, and almost exactly the same size. Noodles & Co and Chipotle’s menu items can be just as bad. At least the McD’s grilled chicken salad is $4 instead of $8. Healthy options at half the price is a good thing, but people still need to opt for the healthy.
“fresh produce is always more expensive than canned (which has higher sodium)”
You’re right about canned veggies being cheaper and there are legitimate reasons for that – no spoilage, easier to store and transport, etc. However, I buy ‘no salt added’ canned veggies at Wal-Mart. No sodium problem there, it’s the same price and actually better texture (salt makes the veggies mushy). One just needs to care to look for the salt free options. Now, having alluded to personal responsibility…
The real issue behind obesity is lack of personal responsibility. People eat too much and exercise too little. Quite simply if you eat more calories than you burn, over time you get fat. That’s not the fault of McDonalds, Frito-Lay, Little Debbie or anyone else other than the individual who is obese. Put down the Twinkies and go for a walk. Problem solved. Just don’t stop at your local neighborhood Panera for an expensive, calorie laden sandwich on your way back! Although a $1 side salad from McD’s – with low fat dressing – might be a nice refreshing option. Cheap, too.