Los Angeles bans fast food on clarkhoward.com

Los Angeles has outlawed fast-food restaurants throughout much of the city, following a similar ban in the Westwood neighborhood. This ban only affects future openings, not existing locations.

But such a decision raises an important question: What exactly is fast food?

After all, you can go into McDonald's and eat a healthy meal including a salad, a yogurt and a bottle of water. In fact, McDonald's now sells more chicken than burgers as people migrate away from red meat for health reasons. Yet on the other hand, you can go into Subway and get a sandwich that's loaded with mayonnaise, cheese and fatty meats.

The bottom-line is this: We are the problem, not Burger King or McDonald's or any other fast-food restaurant.

The Los Angeles move represents a ridiculous level of government interference in the free market. Contrast that approach with New York, which has required disclosure of calorie counts on menus at chain restaurants.

There's a big difference between being given the info so that you can make an informed choice versus the government actually deciding what you can and can't eat.

Meanwhile, you may have recently heard that 93% of kid's fast-food meals exceed recommended calorie counts. But that still means 1 in 10 kid's meals represents a healthy choice.

So parents have a responsibility to limit how often their kids eat these meals; or to ban them altogether; or to always insist on healthier food.

What others are saying

goverment
whats next what kind of stores are allowed cars we drive where we go to church ca. is the most liberial state equals lost of freedom
By boomer @ 09/02/09 11:14:44 PMreport abuse
ATTN: Payday Loan Advocate/Personal Money Store
Your comment with links and telephone numbers directing people to your ad-supported site violates the no soliciting clause of our terms of service.

Please feel free to repost your comments without the solicitations.
By Team Clark @ 10/21/08 09:19:13 AMreport abuse
The real reason for this stupid law
The board of supervisors & L.A. legislators passed this so they could avoid working on the real problems. We in L.A. have a huge dropout rate, a never-ending budget crisis, always-increasing trash fees in order to hire the same thousand cops, gang violence and a sanctuary-city policy....the real reason for these silly laws is so the City Council can procrastinate and not deal with the real problems. As long as ANY city focuses so much attention on the inane and ridiculous, they can appear to look like they're actually doing something to useful. It's a red herring.
By Joanna @ 08/15/08 09:06:29 PMreport abuse
The real reason for this stupid law
The board of supervisors & L.A. legislators passed this so they could avoid working on the real problems. We in L.A. have a huge dropout rate, a never-ending budget crisis, always-increasing trash fees in order to hire the same thousand cops, gang violence and a sanctuary-city policy....the real reason for these silly laws is so the City Council can procrastinate and not deal with the real problems. As long as ANY city focuses so much attention on the inane and ridiculous, they can appear to look like they're actually doing something to useful. It's a red herring.
By Joanna @ 08/15/08 09:05:44 PMreport abuse
Crazy
But I bet Starbucks which sells coffee, which is proven to have NO nutritional value, will stay open.
By Tom @ 08/10/08 08:13:26 AMreport abuse
Uhh... okay...
So much for being "pro-choice"if the "choice" involves fast food, huh?
By DaveI @ 08/10/08 08:12:07 AMreport abuse
Create Fast food Organic restaurant
Creating a fast food organic restaurant would make for an interesting scenario.
By John @ 08/08/08 03:03:17 PMreport abuse
Fast food
It is ironic that this is happening in Southern California, home of the drive-thru concept. This is an ultimate nanny-state decision. Most other places have zoned out franchise restaurants to preserve the character of the neighborhood or town. Instead, this says that the residents can't be allowed to eat what they want.

The problem comes for neighborhoods that don't have decent grocery stores. Will this force nice grocery stores to open there? I think not. Perhaps fast food outlets and liquor stores were the only businesses that wanted to open in some neighborhoods. I was trapped in LA during the Rodney King riots and all the talk then was about how businesses didn't want to open in poorer neighborhoods, leading to joblessness and anger and fueling the riots. This shuts out even those jobs and operations.

So, where will people of limited means get supposedly "better" food? At the liquor store? Prepared foods from grocery stores that are just as unhealthy as the fast food? Last time I looked, a sit-down restaurant meal was guaranteed to have far too many calories and too much fat, just like a fast food meal. Only 5-10 times the price.

The only good solution to eating healthy is having good access to veggies, fruit, whole grains and lean meat at a good price and knowing how to cook a good meal for yourself. Those are skills not being taught to a whole generation used to nuking a packaged meal and calling that a home cooked meal.
By Wb @ 08/08/08 02:06:51 PMreport abuse
Freedom of Choice
We are supposed to be a free country. It sure doesn't seem like it. Prayer in schools/ 10 Commandments,Pledge to the flag- All removed. What is next? Our right to bear arms? Among more important things! Too many to list! We have to take action. Write our Congressman! If that will do any good. This is just rediculous. I would like to be shown nutritional facts on separate items, though. At least we could make an imformed decision, but it would be our decision, bottom line!!!
By Perry @ 08/08/08 01:14:11 PMreport abuse
Nanny State
"Your argument assumes that stupid decisions by others don't affect others. They do. Los Angeles has made a smart move."--It is amazing the length people will go to try to control other people's lives, and the pretenses they'll use to do so. I for one do not want to trade in my freedom to make decisions because some people make stupid ones. I am not a child, and I don't want any part of a gov't that treats me like one.
By pd @ 08/08/08 12:31:06 PMreport abuse
Government Interference
"move represents a ridiculous level of government interference in the free market" and in many other area's...
By S @ 08/08/08 10:55:58 AMreport abuse
Communist California
hopefully the rest of the nation stops following Cal-Com on all this communist crap they make laws.
By Chris @ 08/08/08 10:29:44 AMreport abuse
Who cares
Before you know it other states are going to chimin like puppets. Americans are real silly that is why this country is in the state it is. Some one person always thinking they know what's best for the entire world.
Not so! If someone is eating unhealthy not allowing a fast food restaurant in an area is not going to change their eating pattern they will just go somewhere else. To me all restaurants are fast food, i don't care ifyou paid 40 for the steak meal.
By J.C @ 08/08/08 01:01:20 AMreport abuse
Fast Food
I grew up in a suburban town outside of NYC in the 1970's and they did not allow fast food restaurants and they still do not. It has nothing to do with health reasons. Rather, they trying to keep the town upscale. Some people may not agree with this, but frankly this aspect, great schools and high property values; have made this town after 30 years just as desireable and just as quaint as it was long ago. I now live in the Southeast, but appreciate and understand these reasons for not allowing fast food restaurants.
By SG @ 08/07/08 07:28:27 PMreport abuse
fast food bans
Umm, Sean? People's heart attacks may indeed affect others through the cost of health care. However, your comparisson to a seat belt is ridiculous. A seat belt will is designed to protect in the case of a one time event and wearing it/not wearing it is directly proportional to the health of the driver. However, heart attacks are caused by a wide variety of factors. Banning fast food joints will NOT directly affect the outcome of an individual's life. That individual who no longer has access to fast food, may just go and gouge himself on greasy cheese steaks he decides to make at home. In fact, we know that heart disease and heart attacks have occured well before the fast food era. All this ban does is push the person with the bad habit to another place to feed his habit. Thats why a better approach is to give full disclosure. To ask you a question in return, should we start banning television and the internet because people spend too much time sitting down in front of tvs and computers?

No hostility is meant here. I just want to throw this out as food for thought.
By Jason @ 08/07/08 05:35:43 PMreport abuse
RE: Los Angeles bans fast food
Does this mean that I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples medical bills when they go the emergency room after having heart attack because of one too many cheese burgers?

Should people be required to wear seat belts?

Your argument assumes that stupid decisions by others don't affect others. They do. Los Angeles has made a smart move.
By Sean @ 08/07/08 04:08:16 PMreport abuse

goverment

whats next what kind of stores are allowed cars we drive where we go to church ca. is the most liberial state equals lost of freedom

By boomer @ 09/02/09 11:14:44 PMreport abuse

ATTN: Payday Loan Advocate/Personal Money Store

Your comment with links and telephone numbers directing people to your ad-supported site violates the no soliciting clause of our terms of service.

Please feel free to repost your comments without the solicitations.

By Team Clark @ 10/21/08 09:19:13 AMreport abuse

The real reason for this stupid law

The board of supervisors & L.A. legislators passed this so they could avoid working on the real problems. We in L.A. have a huge dropout rate, a never-ending budget crisis, always-increasing trash fees in order to hire the same thousand cops, gang violence and a sanctuary-city policy....the real reason for these silly laws is so the City Council can procrastinate and not deal with the real problems. As long as ANY city focuses so much attention on the inane and ridiculous, they can appear to look like they're actually doing something to useful. It's a red herring.

By Joanna @ 08/15/08 09:06:29 PMreport abuse

By Joanna @ 08/15/08 09:05:44 PMreport abuse

Crazy

But I bet Starbucks which sells coffee, which is proven to have NO nutritional value, will stay open.

By Tom @ 08/10/08 08:13:26 AMreport abuse

Uhh... okay...

So much for being "pro-choice"if the "choice" involves fast food, huh?

By DaveI @ 08/10/08 08:12:07 AMreport abuse

Create Fast food Organic restaurant

Creating a fast food organic restaurant would make for an interesting scenario.

By John @ 08/08/08 03:03:17 PMreport abuse

Fast food

It is ironic that this is happening in Southern California, home of the drive-thru concept. This is an ultimate nanny-state decision. Most other places have zoned out franchise restaurants to preserve the character of the neighborhood or town. Instead, this says that the residents can't be allowed to eat what they want.

The problem comes for neighborhoods that don't have decent grocery stores. Will this force nice grocery stores to open there? I think not. Perhaps fast food outlets and liquor stores were the only businesses that wanted to open in some neighborhoods. I was trapped in LA during the Rodney King riots and all the talk then was about how businesses didn't want to open in poorer neighborhoods, leading to joblessness and anger and fueling the riots. This shuts out even those jobs and operations.

So, where will people of limited means get supposedly "better" food? At the liquor store? Prepared foods from grocery stores that are just as unhealthy as the fast food? Last time I looked, a sit-down restaurant meal was guaranteed to have far too many calories and too much fat, just like a fast food meal. Only 5-10 times the price.

The only good solution to eating healthy is having good access to veggies, fruit, whole grains and lean meat at a good price and knowing how to cook a good meal for yourself. Those are skills not being taught to a whole generation used to nuking a packaged meal and calling that a home cooked meal.

By Wb @ 08/08/08 02:06:51 PMreport abuse

Freedom of Choice

We are supposed to be a free country. It sure doesn't seem like it. Prayer in schools/ 10 Commandments,Pledge to the flag- All removed. What is next? Our right to bear arms? Among more important things! Too many to list! We have to take action. Write our Congressman! If that will do any good. This is just rediculous. I would like to be shown nutritional facts on separate items, though. At least we could make an imformed decision, but it would be our decision, bottom line!!!

By Perry @ 08/08/08 01:14:11 PMreport abuse

Nanny State

"Your argument assumes that stupid decisions by others don't affect others. They do. Los Angeles has made a smart move."--It is amazing the length people will go to try to control other people's lives, and the pretenses they'll use to do so. I for one do not want to trade in my freedom to make decisions because some people make stupid ones. I am not a child, and I don't want any part of a gov't that treats me like one.

By pd @ 08/08/08 12:31:06 PMreport abuse

Government Interference

"move represents a ridiculous level of government interference in the free market" and in many other area's...

By S @ 08/08/08 10:55:58 AMreport abuse

Communist California

hopefully the rest of the nation stops following Cal-Com on all this communist crap they make laws.

By Chris @ 08/08/08 10:29:44 AMreport abuse

Who cares

Before you know it other states are going to chimin like puppets. Americans are real silly that is why this country is in the state it is. Some one person always thinking they know what's best for the entire world.
Not so! If someone is eating unhealthy not allowing a fast food restaurant in an area is not going to change their eating pattern they will just go somewhere else. To me all restaurants are fast food, i don't care ifyou paid 40 for the steak meal.

By J.C @ 08/08/08 01:01:20 AMreport abuse

Fast Food

I grew up in a suburban town outside of NYC in the 1970's and they did not allow fast food restaurants and they still do not. It has nothing to do with health reasons. Rather, they trying to keep the town upscale. Some people may not agree with this, but frankly this aspect, great schools and high property values; have made this town after 30 years just as desireable and just as quaint as it was long ago. I now live in the Southeast, but appreciate and understand these reasons for not allowing fast food restaurants.

By SG @ 08/07/08 07:28:27 PMreport abuse

fast food bans

Umm, Sean? People's heart attacks may indeed affect others through the cost of health care. However, your comparisson to a seat belt is ridiculous. A seat belt will is designed to protect in the case of a one time event and wearing it/not wearing it is directly proportional to the health of the driver. However, heart attacks are caused by a wide variety of factors. Banning fast food joints will NOT directly affect the outcome of an individual's life. That individual who no longer has access to fast food, may just go and gouge himself on greasy cheese steaks he decides to make at home. In fact, we know that heart disease and heart attacks have occured well before the fast food era. All this ban does is push the person with the bad habit to another place to feed his habit. Thats why a better approach is to give full disclosure. To ask you a question in return, should we start banning television and the internet because people spend too much time sitting down in front of tvs and computers?

No hostility is meant here. I just want to throw this out as food for thought.

By Jason @ 08/07/08 05:35:43 PMreport abuse

RE: Los Angeles bans fast food

Does this mean that I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples medical bills when they go the emergency room after having heart attack because of one too many cheese burgers?

Should people be required to wear seat belts?

Your argument assumes that stupid decisions by others don't affect others. They do. Los Angeles has made a smart move.

By Sean @ 08/07/08 04:08:16 PMreport abuse

Listen Live:

Clark On Demand:

Clark's Advice:

Consumer Action Center:

Quick Links:

Clark Media:

Call The Show:

Aug 07, 2008 -- Los Angeles bans fast food

What others are saying