So there've been rumblings about the evils of fast food lately. I'll agree just as much as the next person that fast food is bad for you and it's a factor in our country's "obesity epidemic." But seriously, banning fast food? Now, this ban doesn't threaten current fast food restaurants, but it only would prevent new ones from opening up within the limits of LA County. Councilwoman Jan Perry even seems to think that not opening new fast food restaurants will give people greater food options. And I guess this is the case if the fast food restaurants that didn't open are instead replaced by healthier options (and no, Macaroni Grill and Olive Garden aren't necessarily healthier, depending on what you order). But we can't assume that.Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for people eating less fast food. Grease and corn syrup shouldn't be the main staples of our diet. But this isn't the way to do it.
Because obviously people want to eat there, or the fast food places would go out of business. They're not going to stop getting fast food just because there's now one McDonald's per block instead of two. And honestly, I could see some people following the reverse psychology of it and eat there more specifically because they're pissed off at the new law. Who knows. Same psychology that for the show Cupid (inane reality tv show that I watched start to finish, about a woman who lets America pick her husband) made America vote for both the guy she wanted and the guy she really hated in the final. We're an ornery bunch, that we are.
I don't think that making it against the law to open new fast food is going to change anything. While healthy food is too expensive for some people, and fast food is their most practical option, it's not going to change. While fast food still tastes just so damn good, it's not going to change. While people don't have the nutrition info available to them to make educated choices, it's not going to change.
We can't do much about #2 (tasting too damn good). #1 - that food is just too damn expensive and fast food is most financially practical for many people - is a major problem we can address (see my related post on local food here). And as for #3 - nutrition - I don't remember once talking seriously about nutrition in school, and I had a whole year of health education. Looking back on it, I was either staring at the dots on the floor too much, or they really wasted a lot of that time.
Because honestly, banning fast food because it's bad for you? What's next, smoking?
Oh, wait, you say they have banned smoking?! You mean, you can't smoke in any public spaces, restaurants, or bars (at least, in my state you can't)? But hold on, doesn't stopping at a fast food restaurant just impact you and your arteries (yes, I know that obesity does put more strain on our health care system), but smoking will impact your lungs and my lungs and the lungs of everyone around you. Positive side of the smoking ban: all the smokers have to go outside to smoke, so there's a group outside and you can bond and chat people up easily (the one situation where "got a light?" doesn't sound like an ultra-cheesy pick-up line). Smoking is a counter-culture activity, nearly. Fat and grease, not so much.
Ok, how about banning thinking next?
Because the lawmakers must have all our best interests in mind, right? Uh huh. Well, pardon my skepticism, but nuh uh.
How did I get on the side of the fast food companies here? Yikes.
Posts
