Today, I heard a story about California's new moratorium, and I thought "wow. Those idiots over there have actually got something right this time!"
What's it about, you ask?
It's about this. It's about acknowledging something that has been a problem for some time now. Now that California is blocking new fast-food "restaurants"from poor neighborhoods, I would like to know what they are doing about the cost of healthier food alternatives, as well as previously existing fast-food restaurants.
According to the AP article, "The ordinance also makes it harder for existing fast-food restaurants to expand or remodel." Is that enough? In reading the article, I noticed that the moratorium is not indefinite, but thought that it was interesting that certain restaurants were exempted from this new policy-- Subway, El Pollo Loco, and Pastagina (which I've never heard of, yet sounds like some kinda kinky pasta fetish).
*************************************************************
While expensive foods can often be healthier than the cheaper alternative, how many options do lower income families have when it comes to eating healthy? Many people assume that people know what is healthy, and what is not, but is this really a fair assumption? Many Americans do not realize that red meats are rough on your colon, among other things, and continue to eat them anyway. Some people think that sodas are okay to drink when you have completed rigorous exercise. Are we educated as a population on proper dieting? I think not.
What is important is that parents educate themselves for the benefit of their children. I found this quote to be on the ridiculous side (from the AP article):
"Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more.'They should have better things for children,' she said. 'This fast food really fattens them up.'"
I don't think that fast food is the only thing to blame for the growing number of obese children in America. Exercise, a fundamental component of healthy living, is lacking in the majority of these children's everyday routines. Who is to blame for this? I'd say that the education system is at least partially to blame, as they continue to require more time for math and English/language arts classes, and less time for recess and gym class. The parents are also to blame, because they allow their children to spend hours upon hours playing video games, watching reality television, and watching videos on YouTube.
When are we as a society going to get our act together and realize that healthier people are happier people?
3 comments:
Excuse me, BYF. I am a native Californian/Angeleno. I take exception to being termed "an idiot that got something right this time," especially when there are so many crooks and liars in Washington. What are they getting right these days? As to my perspective, that's bigotry.
We've gotten a lot right, and I suggest you investigate our history. Although you agree, as do I, with the latest legislation, allow me to enlighten you about the history of our state. Yes, we do have a rich history.
Our state, with Vermont, has been at the forefront of progressive movements, usually long before the Least Coast thought of many ideas that we passed into legislation. Gov. Jerry Brown came up with the idea of windpower in the 70s. He also wanted to create satellite communications among state offices to save fossil fuels.
Jerry is now the CA attorney general and is in the process of fighting the EPA regarding reduction of fossil fuels and the federal government's latest nonsense about drilling off the coast. In fact, one city in California has completely banned smoking and another is following suit. Second hand smoke is not only foul but dangerous.
We are also blessed with Senator Barbara Boxer who has been a staunch representative of progressive causes.
Ridding neighborhoods of fast food is actually a Nationwide concern and not just in impoverished neighborhoods:
Fast-food restaurants have found themselves in the frying pan in a number of cities. Some places, including Carmel-by-the Sea and Calistoga, have barred "formula" restaurants altogether; others have placed a cap on them — Arcata allows a maximum of nine fast-food eateries; others have prohibited the restaurants in certain areas, such as Port Jefferson, N.Y., in its waterfront area.
Most initiatives were designed to preserve a city's historic character. The Los Angeles bid is one of few that cite residents' health.
The mounting pressure has caused chains to insert healthier food choices in their menus. McDonalds offers salads and low-fat dressings; Burger King stocks Kids Meals with milk and apple pieces.
Factually, your statement is incorrect. California is not banning junk food from poor neighborhoods: Los Angeles is. And this fight is forcing junk food establishments to reevaluate their menu. Thank you, Los Angeles.
You need to know that a part of this program funds education to help impoverished neighborhoods eat healthy. There are many low-cost alternatives to fast foods, which is making people poorer. Some of thos options include the diverse and wonderful Mexican restaurants in L.A. that offer wonderfully healthy food. I lived in a small town on the East Coast for a couple of years: I can't honestly see the difference between small-town restaurants and fast food.
Angelenos are spending their money to teach people to eat. Yes, fast food is extremely expensive, and we're here to help people learn to eat healthy as we ban fast foods.
Further, we are not dismantling the existing restaurants. I wish we could. There are entrepeneurs that invest in L.A.'s poor neighborhoods. California has always been at the forefront of progressive causes.
Calling us "idiots" is tantamount to what a Neocon might say. Grouping people and hurling epithets at them is clear prejudice.
Obviously I don't think the whole state is filled with idiots, but I'm sure an intellectual like yourself can sense the sarcasm and satire throughout my entire blog. I knew I was going to get at least one angry comment about that. That's why I wrote it.
I know that California has gotten plenty of things "right," just as I know that they've gotten plenty of things "wrong" (example: the public education system)-- as in any state. The point of this entry was not to bash Californians, but rather to applaud the effort being made in the state. I know that I may be young, but I don't need a history lesson on La-La Land.
As far as the restaurants you've mentioned on the East Coast: I find your comments to be interesting. I grew up on the East Coast, and have traveled all across this great country. I'm not sure how mom-and-pop joints can be compared to fast food. I guess it depends on where you were living, but that's quite unfortunate.
It's great to hear your comments, though. I'm glad that people are reading my blog -- whether they agree with my views or not. I welcome any criticism of my blog entries. Hearty dialogue is good for the soul.
Stella, my darling friend. BYF is a very smart girl. Give her a little less outrage and a little more warmth. We could all do with a little more warmth these days. Hard times and all, don't ya know.
Sorry I haven't been by lately. I've been sickly and rather stupid. Wallowing is the correct word I think. When I can think.
Post a Comment