Fast-food ban in L.A. fails to improve diets or cut obesity, study finds

[Panich52]

Fast-food ban in L.A. fails to improve diets or cut obesity, study finds

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/strange_science/~3/_0DWWeoMS7o/150319080354.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

In 2008, the city of Los Angeles passed a law restricting the opening or expansion of any 'stand-alone fast-food restaurant' in low-income neighborhoods where obesity was a problem. A new study finds the measure has failed to reduce fast-food consumption or reduce obesity rates in the targeted neighborhoods.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Why should it? It's not a 'ban on fast food'.

a law restricting the opening or expansion of any 'stand-alone fast-food restaurant'

It didn't get rid of the existing fast food restaurants, it didn't touch groceries or convenience stores selling junk food at all. So why would anyone expect it to decrease obesity rates in those neighborhoods, rather than simply, maybe, helping prevent rates of obesity from growing ever higher in those areas?

[TheBlackAdder]

2. Also, low-income people are forced to buy cheaper processed foods--High Fat & Carbs. nt

[closeupready]

3. The issue is subsidized carbs, all along the manufacturing process.

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. those areas are food deserts. good news:crop circle organization came this weekend to Compton

Gave away fresh veggies

[GreatGazoo]

5. That strategy seems all "stick" -- not enough carrot.

Limiting unhealthy options by itself does not get you to better ones.

Obesity correlates strongly with poverty but for some reason when wealthy people look at obesity they jump to the conclusion that poverty = spend $6 for a combo meal at McDonald's (because, perhaps, that's what they imagine THEY would do). But "they" have obviously never been poor. Mike Bloomberg's fantasy was that poor people were buying too many large sodas when they went to movies.

More likely obesity in low income neighborhoods is driven by the economics of trying to get as many calories as possible on a limited budget -- a budget that doesn't include drive-thru food or $10 movie tickets.

[ND-Dem]

6. reading DU, it's easy to see that middle & upper-class people are all about demonizing and

infantilizing the poor.

disgusting.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Really? Cause I read an OP the other day about not restricting what could be bought with food

stamps, and it got a lot of recs, and the majority of comments seemed to be on the side of 'poor people are just as capable as wealthy ones in choosing what to buy with the resources they have'. I didn't see any 'poor people are childlike demons' comments.

[kelly1mm]

8. The fact that there are 'food stamps' at all as opposed to unrestricted grants

infantilizes the poor. With coupons, sales, buying in bulk, and careful planning many food stamp recipients have significant balances at the end of each month. I know because I work with them giving coupon classes. What they do need is to be able to buy TP, soap, personal hygiene products, ect. The current system restricts the ability of the poor to make the best choices for their particular situation as opposed to a paternalistic one size fits all approach.

However, all the 'enlightened' here on DU can pat themselves on the back because they don't bemoan a food stamp recipient a pack of cookies (but god forbid they by TP!).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. And do you have any reason to believe that people here on DU

don't want people getting help to be able to buy toilet paper, soap, or hygiene products? Or is the simple fact that they don't discuss such in any given post taken as a given that they oppose such?

[kelly1mm]

10. Some food stamp recipients don't need any additional 'help' to buy TP, they just need to be able to

use the excess food stamps amounts. But apparently they are too stupid to be able to make rational decisions in some peoples view. I have no doubt many here on DU would favor additional funds for the poor. However, I also have no doubt that many here on DU would not be in favor of making the food stamp allotment a unrestricted grant.

Simple question, would you be in favor of making the food stamp allotment an unrestricted grant so the poor can make their own decisions on what would be best for them to use that money on?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. I would rather be in favour of a minimum wage given to every citizen

who does not achieve such a minimum on their own. You could call that an 'unrestricted grant', I suppose.

[kelly1mm]

12. Interesting. We are probably not that far apart at all then as I am also in favor

or a form of basic income. The concept will only spread in my view as one of the only long term reactions to automation that make sense. I would for political reasons make it across the board (like SS) so that it is not seen as a means tested welfare program.

Thank you for the conversation.

[ND-Dem]

13. when multiple posters say with a straight face that unnamed 'experts' have found that poor men will

just spend money on gambling and booze and such if they get extra money, and not provide for their families, what do *you* hear?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. I haven't read any of those multiple posters apparently.

Those posts could have been from posters I already have on ignore as trolls, I suppose.

[Quantess]

16. Who said that?

[Initech]

14. They needed a study for that?