Under normal circumstances, I would oppose government restrictions which prevent or limit the expansion of legal business enterprises.
However, the recent decision by the Los Angeles City Council to impose a one-year moratorium on the granting of permits for new fast food outlets is a perfectly reasonable decision, and any legal challenges from the fast food industry (which have not been ruled out) would be counter productive from a viewpoint of public health.
The moratorium, covering a 32 square mile area in the city’s south, represents part of the city’s effort to tackle obesity problems in the area.
Although not an outright solution in itself, the moratorium has two main objectives: to provide a window of opportunity to stimulate growth in areas such as grocery stores and fresh food outlets, and as a temporary means of stopping the proliferation of fast food outlets, whilst the city attempts to devise more permanent solutions to prevent obesity.
Both of these are worthy aims, and there is good reason to support the measure.
The case for the moratorium
South L.A. does have a serious problem, with obesity rates standing at 30% for adults and 29% per cent for children, compared with rates of 20.9% and 23.3% respectively for the country overall (refer article).
Given the potential consequences from a public health perspective, this is a serious problem which requires concrete action steps.
The problem may have several causes. High levels of crime and gangland violence dissuade outdoor exercise, and high poverty levels as well as the local pop culture are not conducive to positive nutritional habits.
But the local food supply is a critical aspect of the problem. The area has approximately four hundred fast food outlets and very few grocery stores or outlets for fresh food (refer article), leaving a very restrictive choice for residents who wish to eat healthy food.
Addressing this problem is critical – dietary habits will only change if residents are able to source nutritional food in a convenient manner at affordable prices. The area badly needs more grocery stores and fresh food outlets.
The moratorium will not accomplish this in itself. However, what it will achieve is a temporary halt to the proliferation of fast food outlets. Provided it is accompanied by other measures, such as consumer education about the importance of balanced diets, the measure may just provide a window of opportunity for grocery stores to get a foothold in the area.
Objections
The fast food industry’s opposition to the measure is understandable. From their viewpoint, the moratorium unduly places limitations on their ability to expand their fully legal business operations.
But their objections are not particularly strong.
Contrary to industry claims, the moratorium does not represent an attack on consumer choice. It applies only to new restaurants, and consumers who wish to eat fast food will still have approximately four-hundred outlets in a 32 square mile area to choose from.
Moreover, if the plan to attract grocery stores and fresh food is successful, the net result will be an increase in real consumer choice, not a decrease.
In addition, the measure is unlikely to have much impact upon prices, contrary to industry claims, according to which the measure will increase the cost of food in an area with high poverty levels.
Given the socio-economic status of the area, any new grocery stores or fresh food outlets are not likely to charge unaffordable prices. Besides, consumers will still have the option to frequent existing (low cost) fast food outlets if they wish.
The industry also argues that the measure ignores positive initiatives which it has already put in place, including healthier menu options and the elimination of trans fats in many restaurants. (refer article)
Whilst these are positive initiatives, fast food outlets still represent places where vast amounts of junk food are consumed, and there further proliferation in the area is unwarranted from a public health viewpoint.
The strongest objections are that the measure will be successful in attracting fresh food outlets, and that there are more effective approaches toward tackling obesity.
To be sure, there is no guarantee that the plan will produce a significant expansion of grocery stores in the area, particularly given its socio-demographic status.
Moreover, the plan in itself is unlikely to have a significant impact upon dietary habits in the near term future.
But what does achieve a temporary stoppage on the proliferation of fast food outlets whilst the city attempts to devise more permanent measures to encourage the establishment of grocery stores and fresh food outlets.
Furthermore, the moratorium is not in itself a solution to poor nutrition. However, if it is accompanied by other measures, such as consumer education and changes to school lunches, it may have a positive impact.
Conclusion
The moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. is a step in the right direction and any legal attempt by the industry to thwart such an initiative would be most unproductive.
More fast food restaurants, at least for the time being, are not what the doctor ordered.
Recent Comments