Well I agree that controlling obesity would be a benefit to society, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But ultimately that comes down to personal choices and no amount of zoning changes is going to fix that. People want food that tastes good, regardless of how bad it is for you, and they want it in increasingly large amounts. The healthy options are certainly gimmicks, but if McDonald's were to give your kid apple slices standard with a happy meal instead of fries, most parents would probably be okay with that. But they don't because potatoes are cheaper and most people don't really care.

Now, I have heard a few studies that say that smaller portions actually are pretty effective at controlling how much people eat when they're eating out (or even when eating at home, if you put the food on a plate rather than a bowl, family-style, it reduces the desire to go back for seconds). That's how the French can eat cream and butter and lard with every meal and never get fat. But they also eat less processed foods, and a hamburger that hasn't been subjected to hormone therapy and an unnatural diet of grains is going to be inherently more healthy than one that hasn't. Not to harp on it, but even though we'll probably never see fast food that isn't processed, the propagation of healthier farming techniques would do more to help society than trying to control their lifestyle choices regarding food. If all the choices become healthier, then we're getting somewhere.

You know, smaller portions might actually work if everyone did it, but someone would have to go first and that would hurt their bottom lines when they were serving less calories per dollar than everyone else. And frankly if people want to buy a 2-lb burger and someone's willing to sell it to them, that's their call. Granted, this particular moratorium wouldn't make the problem worse, but it wouldn't make it better either due to the hundreds of other fast food places. More grocery stores in that area would be a plus though, and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have more people take high school cooking classes, because it can be pretty intimidating to try and make a healthy meal at home if you don't know how to cook. I wish I had, anyway. But people already know the health risks and continue to eat fast food (myself included) so the idea that we're going to change people's lifestyle choices just by preventing new development of fast food places or making brown, withered salads available just doesn't seem plausible to me.

7/24/2008 12:31:39 PM

Quote :

"ahh but our food is killing us"

I'll go grab some chalupas later.

If I make it back, I'll have proven you wrong.



[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : l]

7/24/2008 12:32:04 PM

I'm going to sound like the lone voice in the wilderness here again, but who actually thinks that someone is going to see the calorie counts at a fast food place - which have been available upon request for over a decade - and suddenly say, "Oh shit, maybe I shouldn't be eating here." Really?

Hell, McDonald's already puts all their nutrition information on the box/wrapper as it is. It still isn't stopping anyone from eating there.

This doesn't even get into the manifold number of issues that come with calorie counts - like the impact on smaller, non-chain restaurants, that are already cropping up in cities that are mandating these.

7/24/2008 12:32:41 PM

Quote :

"the FDA should be in charge of regulating restaurants portion sizes"

perhaps some sly criminal genius will mastermind a plot to order multiple items

7/24/2008 12:33:55 PM

already been over that

....

Quote :

"You know, smaller portions might actually work if everyone did it, but someone would have to go first and that would hurt their bottom lines when they were serving less calories per dollar than everyone else."

and, no company is going to do this voluntarily, that's where regulations come it

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:34:43 PM

bread lines for all. hip hip....hoorraayyy. We are saved.

seriously, eat/do whatever you want with your life, just dont expect me to pay for your bad decisions.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:35:54 PM

that's the head in the sand mentality

you might as well go ahead and be an anarchist

the idiot child of politics

7/24/2008 12:37:50 PM

Yeah, as opposed to the grown-up totalitarian. That's the ticket!

7/24/2008 12:40:05 PM

where is the totalitarianism in making simple regulations for companies to follow, that do not hinder the public's freedoms, to help curb a serious rising problem in our society?

7/24/2008 12:41:16 PM

yall remember back in the day before fast food how there werent any fat people at all?

man those were the days

7/24/2008 12:41:29 PM

Not sure if this is mentioned already, but if the city council wanted to actually address the problem then they would implement a fast food tax (ontop of any food tax that already exists) which brings the price of fast food up to the price of buying the food yourself at the grocery store.

Many people eat that crap because it is actually cheaper in many cases than buying an equivalent meal at the grocery store.

If people still want to pay for either the convenience of 'fast' food or for a 'delicious' fatty meal then they still can although it will now give them at least a reason for adjusting their eating habits.

I'm not exactly for this, but it would at least somewhat address the problem instead of being a useless gesture by the city council.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:42:24 PM

^^ do I have to produce some bullshit graph for you to believe that the rate of obesity has drastically increased over the last 50 years?

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:43:17 PM

I don't think a single person on this board wants more fast food to be consumed in America.

The problem is that trying to regulate it via portion size and whatnot is a terrible, terrible idea.

When I get fast food, I specifically go there seeking a gut-busting pile of grease that brings me to the verge of vomiting. It nice every once in a while, and as long as it's only once in a while, it won't harm my health.

No longer subsidizing crappy food like DrSteve said, and actually attaching some consequences to becoming 300lbs would do much, much more to help out The People than any sort of portion control would, and it wouldn't punish people who can eat responsibly.




[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ;]

7/24/2008 12:44:13 PM

^^do i have to post some bullshit chart or journal article to inform you that people have free will and a choice of what and where they eat? that nobody is being kidnapped and forced to go to McDonald's and order 2 Big Macs and a diet coke?

7/24/2008 12:45:11 PM

^^

it's like going after the users of drugs instead of the dealers

...

you seem to have the suppliers under control though, which I like

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:45:39 PM

Quote :

"where is the totalitarianism in making simple regulations for companies to follow, that do not hinder the public's freedoms, to help curb a serious rising problem in our society?"

Sorry, I thought we were still on that "name-call anyone who disagrees with my ideology" bit.

Look, I know 1984 is a positively inspiring work of political fiction, whereupon by changing the meaning of words, yes is no, black is white, and freedom is slavery. But the fact is, you are stomping all over consumer choice - "for their own good." And why? Because, in your own words, they're too stupid to make their own choices.

Because we all know your anemic half-measures won't work and wouldn't stop there. People who badly manage their diets aren't going to suddenly turn healthy once McDonald's serves a slightly smaller box of fries. Thus will come out the big guns - and all of this will be the fault of teh corporashuns!, preying on the fact that people are just too stupid to be trusted making their own choices.

Fundamentally, you demand the right to control consumer choices - "for their own good." This is taking away their freedom. Not the same as locking them up in the gulag, but the sooner you stop entreating us to this whole plea of "But it's not taking away any freedom at all!", the sooner we can have an honest debate on the subject.

7/24/2008 12:46:05 PM

^^^ well, what do companies even have marketing and advertising for with all that free will around?

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:46:28 PM

Drugs and fast food are not analogous.

7/24/2008 12:46:44 PM

^^when you see a commercial for Burger King, do you uncontrollably get off the couch and drive to Burger King and order some greasy food? Are you too stupid to know any better, like you claim "the masses" are?

7/24/2008 12:47:06 PM

Quote :

"Fundamentally, you demand the right to control consumer choices"

no I don't, I demand the right to control corporations actions

which we already have

now I want that power to be put in a meaningful way to help solve the problem

7/24/2008 12:48:43 PM

^^^

they are in many ways

7/24/2008 12:50:07 PM

keep sticking with the company line. Coorporations are evil and people should have no responsiblity as individuals.

Instead of making people accountable for thier actions, like most on here are supporting, you want to baby them. More Nanny state bs.

7/24/2008 12:51:23 PM

maybe we should ban televisions...that would help obesity by forcing people to go outside and exercise...should the government step in and enact some legislation?

7/24/2008 12:51:42 PM

Quote :

"no I don't, I demand the right to control corporations actions which we already have now I want that power to be put in a meaningful way to help solve the problem"

It's the same goddamned thing - don't be dense. You want to limit the choices consumers have access to by placing a mandate on corporations. Because consumers are too stupid to make those choices on their own.

This is what it fundamentally comes down to - people are too stupid to run their own lives, and thus we must regulate their choices via proxy (i.e., corporashuns!).

7/24/2008 12:52:08 PM

^^^

again, I have a simple set of ideas towards fixing a specific problem

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ..]

7/24/2008 12:52:12 PM

Quote :

"they are in many ways"

They aren't in a few absolutely crucial ways.

7/24/2008 12:52:51 PM

^^^

I find you completely dense.

I want to push back the "food clock".

make the restaurant and fast food chains act like they did in the 1950s as far as marketing and food portions are concerned

it's reasonable

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:53:57 PM

^^

but they are in others

7/24/2008 12:54:18 PM

I worked at Best Buy between school and a real job.

You want to know what REALLY keeps The People down? Flat screen TVs.

Ban 'em.

7/24/2008 12:56:02 PM

really, how?

7/24/2008 12:56:27 PM

The government will tell those evil electronics companies that they can't sell anything larger than a 32'.

You know-- portion control.


Or were you asking how they keep poor people down? I'll bet another $20 that the flat screen havin' rate is higher among the lower class than it is among the middle class.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:57:17 PM

Quote :

"I find you completely dense."

"I know you are, but what am I?" Classic. Let's not address the salient issue - let's name-call and then get all cranky when someone calls you on it.

Quote :

"I want to push back the "food clock". make the restaurant and fast food chains act like they did in the 1950s as far as marketing and food portions are concerned it's reasonable"

Here's a fantastic idea - if people wanted that, they have an option - order a medium! Don't supersize! Willpower! Portion control! ZOMG! It's like we don't need your heavy-handed meddling to tell people how to run their lives after all!

But, oh, wait. They're too stupid for that. Yet we still let them vote - how do you suppose we should solve that problem?

7/24/2008 12:57:37 PM

Let me hop in this one?

Quote :

" obviously its the fast food restaurants' faults that people are obese, and has nothing to do with anything else"

these restaurants target poor areas and do nothing but exploit the weaknesses of these people while they are down. They are killing these people and making a killing off of them at the same time.

Quote :

" in one of the poorest areas of Los Angeles"

Predator fast food corporations is what they are with predatory advertisement and targeting of poor people who don’t know any better. Why not make these restaurants display that their food is unhealthy? Better yet, no fat food chain should be able to sell anything that, if eaten every day, would be an unhealthy diet.

Quote :

" but try to institute preventive measures, which might pinch the pockets of corporations, to make the entire populous healthier, and they cry bloody murder"

Exactly, its all about how many billions I can make no matter how many people I kill in the process and heaven for bid you take a bit of it back to apply it to teaching these people to help themselves instead of giving all their money to me!

Quote :

" why is there so much loyalty to them? I would not think that reveling in the hatred of fat people or minorities is enough justify the gross economic impact that such a fat fucking nation is having on all of us. There needs to be real solutions to this problem."

I think its because as long as these people are down then its less competition in the middle class and easier for them to make it.

Quote :

" People know if they get fat they're going to have loads of potentially fatal health issues and no one will want to have sex with them but they do it anyway. If that doesn't change your lifestyle I don't know what will."

People don’t know this is the problem because the same people are sent to schools that suck while all the money goes to schools in richer neigborhoods and fat people still have kids, a lot of which are born unhealthy and grow up stressful lives which leads them to unhealthy eating and spending habits. Its an awful self feeding chain but nothing is being done about it because corporations make billions off of it and pay off anybody that might do anything to stop it all while paying impoverished wages to their employees.

Quote :

" This is city/community planning at it's best. The same people in this thread crying about this probably love the fact that they don't live in some run down shit hole of an area because their city management past and present had a little bit of forethought when they laid the development out. Rather than saying limiting new fast food isn't going to do shit to the obesity problem where 400 already exist (and, btw, show some proof of that), how about we say 400 fucking fast food joints and little grocery stores is a god damn nuff."

This is why the government shouldn’t create poor areas. Then these people wouldn’t be exploited into poor food, education thus health and a never-ending cycle of poverty.

Even the grocers in these areas sell awful quality of foods and marketing in these areas is a form of mind control to influence these unhealthy practices. Its ulgy. Its exploitive and its needs to end.

Quote :

" oning laws which push out large supermarkets/superstores like Wal-Mart, etc. from inner cities. Yes, I know everything would be swell if some farmer's co-op's just magically sprung out from the head of Zeus in Hyde Park, but experience shows it ain't happening. Meanwhile, those best at getting high-quality produce and cheap food out to mass consumers are generally prohibited from areas where they are needed most - thanks in large part to your own rabid anti-corporate advocacy."

Partly because these places like WALMART exploit the poor so bad by forcing them to buy things they don’t need. People would starve grocery shopping at walmart because they would spend so much extra money on things they otherwise would have never even seen. Corporations need to step up and be held accountable for their practices then we will leave them alone.

Quote :

"Portion control and willpower are also well within the power of the individual consumer, as well. Do you really think the same people who make crazy unhealthful eating choices are going to simply magically wake up one day and turn around their lives the minute they can't upsize for $0.49, get a Big Mac combo (being forced to order separately!), and when that damnable "I'm lovin' it" jingle is out of their heads? Really?"

Thats why you change the food. All of it.

Quote :

"Fat, poor people clearly want awful food. If they wanted good food the fast food places would provide it for them. "

The companies MAKE them want it through marketing. Also when you are poor and hopeless you eat and do shit that might bring happiness for the moment. The entire concept of poor needs to be changed (see taxing the rich thread).

Quote :

"How is this evil corporation fucking you when you drive to thier business and buy what they are selling?"

Because they set up shop right behind your home and tempt you with appealing marketing and cheap prices.

Quote :

"The problem is when they sell their $100 food stamp debit cards for $25 in cash to score some rock."

Which is the primary reason cash is still around. Everyone knows eliminating paper money would devastate the drug market.

Quote :

"The whole "they're all dolts and thus I have to run their lives for them" part is where people are having the most problems."

Well give them an equal education and environment and maybe this wouldn't be the problem

Another great solution would be to issue each chain a grade on the healthiness of their food and then place a profit cap with respect to the lowness of their healthiness grade.

Quote :

"how do you suppose we should solve that problem?"

Start giving them education.

7/24/2008 1:00:01 PM

^^make democrats illegal?

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 1:01:37 PM

Quote :

"The companies MAKE them want it through marketing."

how do they MAKE you show up and order it and pay for it

and they must have some good marketing...man i'd love to MAKE people come to my company and spend money...I didn't know that was possible short of kidnapping at gunpoint

7/24/2008 1:02:21 PM

*** ALERT - THREAD DEATH IMMINENT - WETHEBEST HAS POSTED ***

7/24/2008 1:02:56 PM

I kinda hate myself for reading wethebest's post. But he MADE me do it. I didnt have any control over myself. LOL

"predatory advertising" LOL. I see someone has been watching the news and is taking the slipperly slope down from predatory lending. Now you cant buy a house or eat dinner without a govt rep to help. wow

7/24/2008 1:05:19 PM

I agree with changing the food but good googly moogly the rest of that post

I just can't buy the idea that advertising makes anyone do anything. I will say McDonald's does feature a disproportionate number of Hispanics in its advertising and I can't really think of any other company that markets to them. On the other hand I haven't seen all that many fat Mexicans so who knows

7/24/2008 1:13:18 PM

Reading the law is very informative:
The law prevents the openning of any establishment meeting these criteria:
"a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
This would ban the openning of a sandwich shop, a ben&Jerry's, and any bakery I have ever been to.

The law would not prevent the construction of a Chilli's, Hard Rock Cafe, A Steak House, or any other restaurant I can think of that serves food and portions absolutely designed to cause a heart attack.

The only difference between these two groups is the former serves food for less than $5 a meal; the latter serves food for usually $10 a meal. So, again, places that the rich eat at, which are often worse for you, will be unaffected. But the places that poor eat at will be banned.

And it does not even take time. In accordance with the theory of implied competition, prices can often remain competitive through the mere threat of new competition. As such, with the promise that no new competitors may enter the low-end market, prices will rise, pushing poor people to move elsewhere. I cannot see any logical conclusion beyond the race card: the city council wants the poor to leave, and making the area too expensive to live in is their only legal recourse, so they are taking it.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/24/2008 2:18:21 PM

Our fatty fast-food culture is laughed at by the rest of the world. So i really don't give a shit. I am pretty conservative when it comes to economic issues but i think i got to pick my battles. Defending fatty fast McBurger joints and picking up the war drum over the uber rich paying more taxes are not two issues i am going to lose sleep over.

BTW and by conservative i am not talking about the George W Bush neo-con attitude of corporate welfare, spending money while cutting income, or enacting policies to help out my oil/halliburton buddies.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : a]

7/24/2008 2:22:54 PM

Quote :

""a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers." This would ban the openning of a sandwich shop, a ben&Jerry's, and any bakery I have ever been to. "

What shitty sandwich shop are you going to? The ones I frequent don't fit this criteria. Part of the problem is that the way it is worded is pretty vague. What they really meant was "food cooked ahead of time then reheated and served to your fat ass"

7/24/2008 2:54:41 PM

Quote :

"What shitty sandwich shop are you going to? The ones I frequent don't fit this criteria. Part of the problem is that the way it is worded is pretty vague. What they really meant was "food cooked ahead of time then reheated and served to your fat ass""

Pretty sure Jimmy John's or Subway would fall into this category. Namely due to the "or" - "items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly." Both also offer no table service and disposable containers.

7/24/2008 3:06:14 PM

Loophole: drive-through vending machines.

PATENT PENDING

7/24/2008 3:10:01 PM

Quote :

"Namely due to the "or" - "items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly." Both also offer no table service and disposable containers."

Like I said, the wording is extremely vague and I'm not surprised a town council came up this short on their first iteration.

But, what exactly is prepared in advance or heated quickly for a sandwich? You know if this is targeted at fast food, what they mean is stuff that is fried, and mystery meat that is precooked and heated up quickly on the grill. Not stuff that is passed under a toaster.

Again, the wording needs to be fixed.

Quote :

"And it does not even take time. In accordance with the theory of implied competition, prices can often remain competitive through the mere threat of new competition. As such, with the promise that no new competitors may enter the low-end market, prices will rise, pushing poor people to move elsewhere. I cannot see any logical conclusion beyond the race card: the city council wants the poor to leave, and making the area too expensive to live in is their only legal recourse, so they are taking it."

Except ultra unhealthy fast food joints aren't the only competition. Sure, healthy food in general is more expensive, but I think given the choice between driving/walking an extra 10/15 minutes to get to the fast food versus paying nearly equal or a little bit more for a healthier alternative, some folks in these areas will take the latter. Like I said, we really don't know which is coming first, the chicken or the egg.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 3:26 PM. Reason : a]

7/24/2008 3:18:42 PM

Well, meat is cut and cooked in advance. (Yes, cold cuts - but regardless). Bread is cooked in advance. The key part here is rapid assembly - it's not like a sit-down restaurant, where it's cooked over a course of time.

When you boil it right down, while sandwich shops may be a healthier alternative to say, McDonald's, they're still fast food. I'm almost a little skeptical that this wide net was an accidental consequence, rather than an intended one.

7/24/2008 3:27:00 PM

^^You are not bothering to find out what you are talking. The law no where mentions health, all it bans is cheap food, not unhealthy food. I can tomorrow open up a Chilli's and serve babbyback ribs all day, with deliterious results to both people's health and, deprived of cheaper healthier food, their wallets.

7/24/2008 8:54:04 PM

Have any of you food fascists even bothered to consider the following?

1. FACT: One can make healthy choices even at fast-food restaurants.

2. FACT: Even the less healthy items aren't that bad if they're part of a balanced diet and a regular exercise program.

Say you ban every "bad" restaurant in existence. Are you fuckheads going to force people to eat the recommended daily foods and quantities in the Food Pyramid and force them to routinely exercise?



Body fascism: Another form of discrimination?

Quote :

"Body fascism is a problem that has evolved out of western society's obsession with thinness. Body fascism is defined as: The severe intolerance in self and others of any weight or shape that doesn't resemble idealised bodies portrayed in media images. These images are usually of extremely thin young women with noticeable lack of curves, often looking pre-pubescent or androgynous. In men, the idealised form is muscular and well toned, with broad shoulders and narrow hips. Body fascism involves severe criticism of other people's size and shape, often resulting in the rejection or bullying of those who don't conform to a specific body type. Schools and particularly PE teachers have a crucial role to play in tackling this form of widespread discrimination. This article touches on ways in which this can be addressed."

http://www.sportsteacher.co.uk/news/editorial/01autF_bodyfascism.html

7/24/2008 11:16:35 PM

Dey tukk errrr fatty McBurgers!

7/25/2008 9:58:34 PM

Quote :

" Body fascism is a problem that has evolved out of western society's obsession with thinness."

haha, if only we had an obsession with thinness. We're among the fattest country on earth.

7/25/2008 10:12:00 PM

I bet a fat person wrote that book

7/25/2008 11:15:10 PM