Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Los Angeles goes too far in latest crusade
by Midland Reporter-Telegram
The Los Angeles City Council has been pro-active on health issues and now it is taking on the fast-food industry in a move that is generating a lot of controversy.
The City Council, carrying its zoning sword in hand, is tackling obesity by delivering a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a part of the city where a proliferation of fast food chains is blamed for a growing obesity problem.
The overall purpose of the council and its yearlong moratorium is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The California Restaurant Association, which is against the moratorium, says the council move could be extended up to two years.
We have to agree with the CRA in this instance. There is no question that obesity is a major problem in the United States, but the California experiment is misguided at best. The reason fast-food restaurants dominate certain areas is because that is the people's choice in that area. If it was a profitable place to be for sit-down eateries, they would certainly be there.
We doubt the L.A. City Council will have much luck in attracting sit-down restaurants into South L.A.This is just a matter of local government going too far on a public issue that is of concern to all of us.
Governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. California is taking a lead in such matters of health and recently became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lowers levels of good cholesterol and increases bad cholesterol.
Fast-food restaurants have found themselves in trouble with local governments other than Los Angeles. Carmel-by-the Sea and Calistoga have barred fast-food restaurants altogether while Arcata allows a maximum of nine fast-food eateries. In Port Jefferson, N.Y., fast-food eateries have been banned in its waterfront area.
Of course, the fast-food industry has begun to offer healthier choices to the public. Some now offer salad and low-fat dressings while others are stocking kids' meals with milk and apple pieces.
We haven't heard the last of this problem or the potential solutions that will deal with the situation. But we must be careful in matters of public choice and public good when one person's action doesn't affect the rights of others.
The City Council, carrying its zoning sword in hand, is tackling obesity by delivering a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a part of the city where a proliferation of fast food chains is blamed for a growing obesity problem.
The overall purpose of the council and its yearlong moratorium is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The California Restaurant Association, which is against the moratorium, says the council move could be extended up to two years.
We have to agree with the CRA in this instance. There is no question that obesity is a major problem in the United States, but the California experiment is misguided at best. The reason fast-food restaurants dominate certain areas is because that is the people's choice in that area. If it was a profitable place to be for sit-down eateries, they would certainly be there.
We doubt the L.A. City Council will have much luck in attracting sit-down restaurants into South L.A.This is just a matter of local government going too far on a public issue that is of concern to all of us.
Governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. California is taking a lead in such matters of health and recently became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lowers levels of good cholesterol and increases bad cholesterol.
Fast-food restaurants have found themselves in trouble with local governments other than Los Angeles. Carmel-by-the Sea and Calistoga have barred fast-food restaurants altogether while Arcata allows a maximum of nine fast-food eateries. In Port Jefferson, N.Y., fast-food eateries have been banned in its waterfront area.
Of course, the fast-food industry has begun to offer healthier choices to the public. Some now offer salad and low-fat dressings while others are stocking kids' meals with milk and apple pieces.
We haven't heard the last of this problem or the potential solutions that will deal with the situation. But we must be careful in matters of public choice and public good when one person's action doesn't affect the rights of others.
 |
 |
|
| Regional office for autopsies makes sense | Will Congress approve new rebate plan? |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of mywesttexas.com.
K wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:01 PM:
" Not everyone wants to see a return to 140/barrel oil. The high cost of oil was a drain on more people than not and when the Midland paper prints an open desire for a return to that state, I realize it is not a paper written from an unbiased viewpoint for everyone, but for the big money in the community. The good of the many over the good of the few is not something that seems to be believed in this town, but The good of the few as long as the oil money keeps rolling in. This is surprising, considering the number of good people here who consider themselves Christians.
Please realize that while Midland is an oil Mecca, not everyone here is in the oil industry. And for those of us who are not in oil, it's a slap in the face to hear the desire for the return to economic hardship for the rest of the country and our personal finances.
Not often do you hear a pharmaceutical rep celebrate the cost of high drugs. Big oil could take a lesson. "
Please realize that while Midland is an oil Mecca, not everyone here is in the oil industry. And for those of us who are not in oil, it's a slap in the face to hear the desire for the return to economic hardship for the rest of the country and our personal finances.
Not often do you hear a pharmaceutical rep celebrate the cost of high drugs. Big oil could take a lesson. "
oil person wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:44 PM:
" Not even oil people want to see oil back at 140/a barrel. We would like to see it back around a stable 80-ish. There are a lot of hard working people in the oil industry that don't make the big bucks. They make a living. A lot of oil workers have lost their jobs too! This effects everyone. As far as the cost of drugs, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the hugest rip-offs. But we have to have the medicine so we pay the high prices. All that most of us in the oil industry want is for oil to get back to where it is feisable to drill again. Yes, 140 was rediculious but MIdland is a large community of oil people. "
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, however we reserve the right to delete any post we see that may be considered slanderous, excessive and/or foul language, or any post that we may deem inappropriate.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
News
Sports
Business
Entertain
Life
Yes wrote on Dec 20, 2008 9:21 AM: