Healthy Eating Mandates
You may have seen this news, that the Los Angeles City Council voted to ban development of new fast food restaurants in a low income South L.A. area. I'm not sure it's going to help much, but I understand (I think) the intent of the ordinance, which is that people will choose what's available.
There's some truth in that, as I've learned over the past year. Eliminating my "snack stash" of chips and dips and ::sob:: Little Debbie Swiss Rolls has changed how I think about snacking and what I (usually) reach for first when a snack attack occurs. When your only choices are fruit, almonds, sugar-free pudding, low-fat yogurt or cheese (or maybe a dark chocolate Hershey's Stick if it's one of those times), your mind and body begin to expect those types of foods to fill that between-meal void. When you've also built an exercise habit, your mind starts calculating the benefits of what you're snacking on. (Said the woman who is almost always short on protein!)
The problem I see in South L.A., besides cultural and socio-economic shifts, is that unless healthier and affordable eating establishments move in, the existing fast food options are just going to see a lot more business.
Your thoughts? Can we legislate healthy eating? Should we?
Labels: Heathy(-ier) Eating
27 Comments:
I think the gradual trend will be popping up everywhere but as you mentioned, unless it's affordable, the average family will still seek out the $1 menu!
I absolutely think we should do something about the unequal distribution of fast food restaurants (and liqueur and corner stores for that matter) in lower income and/or minority areas. However, we also have to consider whether or not there's a grocery store within walking distance! In some places, there is no real grocery store, and people actually LIVE off of junk food.
I don't think you can sucessfully legislate healthy eating habits, or any personal habit, for that matter. People will do what they want to do, eat what the want to eat, even if they have to drive somewhere else to get it. Besides, I think I would take issue with the fact that they are only banning development in low income areas (those are job opportunites as well). Why would we be legislating personal choices for only a particular portion of the population? Seems classist to me.
I hear you on the snack choices though. I don't keep any no-no's in the house. My snacking choices are pretzles, yogurt, kashi bars, or fruit. It actually works well for me. I've got salty, sweet, creamy and cookie like choices, to cover any craving I might have.
I think it's hard to legislate this sort of change. I do agree that people will choose what's readily available, and affordable. If I had my way, honestly, there wouldn't be a fast-food restaurant in existence ANYWHERE, because it's too easy to cave. But do I think that I, or anyone else, actually has the right to forcibly take them away from others? Not so much.
I know that's not what's actually happening, because yes, people can just go a little farther to get their junk. But I really would prefer to see lawmakers focus on making sure that low-income people have GOOD choices, instead of just taking away the bad. I have to agree with anonymous, in wondering if there's any provision in this legislation for making sure there are positive options in this area? Oh yeah, and don't forget that they have to be affordable...grocery stores that are selling things these people can't afford to buy anyway probably aren't going to help.
It's a really, really complicated issue. And while I am glad that steps are being taken to improve things, I am not all that sure how much good they are going to do. It's like putting a band-aid on a leper's lesions. You won't see that one, but you haven't touched the source of the disease...
Okay, I'm bleak today. Sorry! :-(
V.
no
and
no.
IMO it's the same as my telling myself NO MORE OREOS EVER.
immediately all I think about are oreos.
M.
Although it sounds like a good idea in theory, I don't think legistation should be involved in deciding how we should/should not eat. With the economy the way it is, it's become much harder and less economical for people to eat healthy meals. We all know food at Whole Foods costs a lot more than picking up supplies at Walmart. Until there are more healthy, low-cost food options out there, I think people will continue to drive to the nearest fast food location.
On another note, good job getting junk food out of your snack times. I've been reaching for watermelon, strawberries or yogurt for my snacks but some chocolate would be so good now and then!
I think there ahould be a greater focus on nutrition in our schools - so that children will grow up understanding how thier bodies work and what they need to keep them healthy. They need to learn what fast food actually contains and what it does to your body!
As far as legislation - I'm not in favor of big brother telling me what I can and can not do.
If we can accept the fact that the government should not tell us what we are allowed to read, where we should worship, or whether or not we may own guns, shouldn't we also be protecting our rights as individuals to eat what we want to eat without government intervention? It's a slippery slope and I'm afraid the food police are winning right now! Just sayin'!
I think it's going to be an incredibly difficult thing to mandate. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
You're so right about what your body gets used to. I know that when I eat less of the bad carbs, I simply don't crave them anymore but, bring on the blueberries and watermelon!
I think it's a good start - but it also needs to work from the bottom up, with educating kids in schools about the benefits of healthy eating. People do/eat what they know, right? And if cheap fast food is what people know, it's not only affordable, its comfortable. I think that in lower socio-economic areas it's harder to make this switch becausae people don't have access to the best in education, the books on the latest trends, or the internet. That's why if they start in schools, maybe the information will trickle up. But the schools in those areas are another issue altogether aren't they? Those kids get the short end of the stick, and nutrition ed is probably low on the priority list.
I think the intentions are good, but we all know what road is paved with those things. :)
I am absolutely against legislating food choices -- or any personal choice, for that matter.
My first thought about this issue was that the people in those neighborhoods are being denied job opportunities by this legislation, not just being "saved" from high-cholesterol.
A shaky line to cross. I am in the opinion that there should be incentive based solutions vs. restrictions. Nice post
Interestin and thought provoking post.
I agree that this issue should start in the schools.
Until the healthy foods are made affordable for everyone the junk food will win out every time because the low economical families just can't afford the prices of the veggies and fruit that are better for them. Maybe supplimenting the costs of those healthy choices would be the answer.
This is a thought-provoking issue. Based on my experience, fast food did not contribute AT ALL to my obesity -- I just don't like it -- but I can see how addictive it is to most people. However, I don't know if removing it from a community is the answer. It's so complex when you consider the economics, the business climate, etc. And, people with bad food habits will make those habits in any type of food establishment (as an example, look at me!). It may just cost them more.
Along these same lines, California has banned transfats beginning in a year or so. There was only one other time in history when a food product was banned. And we all know how prohibition turned out. Will this force McD's to adopt plain brown bags for the members of this community to transport the fast food home? :)
I think its good that they're trying to do this, if only to bring about the issue so that more people are aware of the state of nutrition in North America. They wouldn't be doing it for no reason at all, so people are going to start looking into health concerns and realizing the very serious problems. Hopefully.
But, people DO have to make their own choices about these things- perhaps armed with a little more knowledge we can learn to make slightly more healthy choices? It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out!
I think the reason so many people don't eat out at healthy estblishments or make healthier choices is because of the cost. Eating right can be quite exensive.
Interesting... I think this is already the trend and that it will just continue. Banning trans fat in New York, fast food restaurants in LA... legisilating health will continue to happen because people clearly have problems with controlling it themselves.
That is a really tough one. I can think of one debate and then as soon as that one has entered my thoughts another contradicting one appears, as if on que. Its not easy but it is interesting. Thanks for giving us oportunities to really think about such different things.
I hate the thought of the government governing what I can and what I can't put in my body BUT the population as a whole are not making healthy decisions which ends up costing the government more money for increased healthcare costs when we are older.
I don't think they should just do it one area though if they are goign to do it. Get rid of all the fast food! Ban it, so I never have to worry about caving in! :)
Under no condition do I support the government taking an active role to limit the choices people can make when it comes to the food they ingest. I would rather the government keep its involvement in my restaurants and grocers to a minimum- basic health (no roaches) and safety standards.
Plus, do you think people get fat because they eat every meal at McDonalds? Nope, they get fat because they exercise poor food choice at home as well. What will the government do to stop or limit that? A fat tax perhaps?
I don’t think we can legislate much of anything when it comes to personal freedom (although we keep trying through the decades to do so.)
BUT...
We need to give people better options. We need to offer community gardens so people have an opportunity to grow their own vegetables. We need to make sure there are supermarkets close by so folks don't have to depend on fast food.
It's all about having a choice, and many low-income areas simply don’t have one.
(Stepping down from my soapbox now…)
It used to be socially acceptable to smoke nearly anywhere including hospitals, schools, workplace & elevators. Over the years, we finally started getting wiser and started severely limiting where people could smoke. I think this is a good thing. We are all familiar with the health hazards of smoking & I don't know too many people who are against this, including many smokers.
I wonder, given our ever increasing awareness that all this fast/junk food is also hazardous to our health, that there may come a time that it's also severely limited in its distribution and will fall out of 'fashion' and people will turn their noses at the thought of eating this crap.
I challenge the idea that eating well has to be more expensive than eating junk/fast food but I do agree that everyone should have easy access to purchase good, healthy food. We're so used to quick and easy that we discount the idea of homecooked meals, which I truly believe can be cheaper in the long run. It just takes time & planning and many people are unwilling to do this.
I think it is unconstitutional to ban restaurants from an area or to an area. However, I support zoning laws when it comes to somethings... so I dunno. It is a tough one. If it is fought, I bet it will be overturned.
:)
checking in on you since you ALWAYS update.
wait.
am I nagging (pauses to check) NOPE just seeing how you are :)
happy friday.
Miz.
You know as well as I do that living a healty lifestyle requires the right mind set. I doubt that gov't regulations will accomplish anything but nutritional education might. Teach our children how to take care of their bodies and they will go home a spread the word. Children can be very effective and changing adults. Just my opinion for what it is worth. I've missed your posts so I'm catching up from being away. Have a great weekend.
The title of this post caught my eye - - Healthy eating mandates - - mmmmmmmmm...... what's a mandate? LOL I want to get healthy "eating" mandates! Like a cross between a Mango and a date...
Okay - those thoughts only took a few split seconds on a first glance - at second glance I got it...(I'm a little slow)
I don't think anyone should be telling anyone else how to live or what they should or shouldn't eat - - or where they should or shouldn't sell fast food. It's a business...they want to make a buck and the people have a choice whether to help them do that or not. If nobody patronized the places they wouldn't make money and they would close down on their own.....simple no?
Great post! Like some of the others have said, I do not understand nor do I like the fact that fast food/junk food is usually so much cheaper than healthy food. And that's the only thing the Government should get involved with.
Over here in the UK cigarettes are ridiculously expensive, and I think that's brilliant. Why not do the same with junk food? Why is it still cheaper to get a beer in the pub than a fizzy drink?
Post a Comment
<< Home