![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fast Food Nation: South Los Angeles
Aug. 12th, 2008 12:15 amSorry for the flurry of posts; I'm not always like this, honest.
Nightline just aired a short piece on South Los Angeles, which recently passed a one year ban on new fast food restaurants in the area as a measure to combat obesity. How bad is it that when the camera showed fuzzy images of said fast food restaurants I immediately picked out the familiar M&M Soul Food sign and drooled? I'm aware people were sniffling, saying something about people being allowed to choose for themselves how to eat etc etc but all I could think of was collard greens! cornbread! fried catfish! and immediately went to yelp an M&M near me.
But seriously, I'm sympathetic towards this sort of policies. The best plan would be education and greater access to better produce, but this would mean breaking apart the system in place. And anyone who's read Fast Food Nation or The Jungle will know how impossible the task seems. Without the political will to break the back of these food processes, radical ideas like the bans will have to do. It's not quite a compromise, though what else can be done?
For one, Fresh & Easy has stepped in to fill the void of grocer in 'underserved' areas. By this the market researchers mean 'urban', or poor working-class. The parent company is Tesco, a UK PLC looking to expand in the US. While I'm not a big fan of Tesco per se (much like McDonalds in that infamous McLibel case, the corp is pursuing a suit against a Thai politician for defamation), it's still noteworthy they are providing fresh produce in areas where many mainstream grocery chains are afraid to tread into. In fact, a F&E is slated to open in a few days across from two public housing areas less than a mile from my house. Before, the families living on the compounds would have to drive into San Pedro, about 15 minutes away, for cheap and affordable groceries or else eat at the unholy union of KFC/Taco Bell just a few minutes walk away.
So who will win in this case and get Angelenos interested in eating healthy? The private sector, hands down. The ban may be a 'bandaid on a wound', as someone succinctly described on the laist, but it could be high-profile enough to make people sit up and take notice to actually do something about their health.
Nightline just aired a short piece on South Los Angeles, which recently passed a one year ban on new fast food restaurants in the area as a measure to combat obesity. How bad is it that when the camera showed fuzzy images of said fast food restaurants I immediately picked out the familiar M&M Soul Food sign and drooled? I'm aware people were sniffling, saying something about people being allowed to choose for themselves how to eat etc etc but all I could think of was collard greens! cornbread! fried catfish! and immediately went to yelp an M&M near me.
But seriously, I'm sympathetic towards this sort of policies. The best plan would be education and greater access to better produce, but this would mean breaking apart the system in place. And anyone who's read Fast Food Nation or The Jungle will know how impossible the task seems. Without the political will to break the back of these food processes, radical ideas like the bans will have to do. It's not quite a compromise, though what else can be done?
For one, Fresh & Easy has stepped in to fill the void of grocer in 'underserved' areas. By this the market researchers mean 'urban', or poor working-class. The parent company is Tesco, a UK PLC looking to expand in the US. While I'm not a big fan of Tesco per se (much like McDonalds in that infamous McLibel case, the corp is pursuing a suit against a Thai politician for defamation), it's still noteworthy they are providing fresh produce in areas where many mainstream grocery chains are afraid to tread into. In fact, a F&E is slated to open in a few days across from two public housing areas less than a mile from my house. Before, the families living on the compounds would have to drive into San Pedro, about 15 minutes away, for cheap and affordable groceries or else eat at the unholy union of KFC/Taco Bell just a few minutes walk away.
So who will win in this case and get Angelenos interested in eating healthy? The private sector, hands down. The ban may be a 'bandaid on a wound', as someone succinctly described on the laist, but it could be high-profile enough to make people sit up and take notice to actually do something about their health.
