All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

L.A.'s fast food ban fails. Liberals make excuses

The other day, I wrote, "People gained weight after L.A.'s ban on fast food." This was based on a Los Angeles Times story that reported the area where building new fast-food franchises was prohibited in 2007 is where obesity is rising fastest in the City of Angels.

The Atlantic, which championed this ignorance before it became law, is now making excuses for a ban that not only failed to reduce obesity but actually accelerated its growth. The Atlantic now contends that fast-food franchises are not the problem. The new line is that the reason 75% of the people in in parts of South Central Los Angeles are now obese or overweight is because there are no supermarkets in the area. Liberals are great at making excuses, lousy at making policy.

There are two reasons supermarkets likely do not wish to open there: The Watts Riots of 1965, and the Rodney King Riots of 1992. The latter killed 53 people, injured another 2,000 people, and caused property damage of more than $1 billion.

Another reason may be people in the area do not want fresh fruits and vegetables.

From the Los Angeles Times on March 19, 2015:
A Rand Corp. report released Thursday says that from 2007 to 2012, the percentage of people who were overweight or obese increased everywhere in L.A., but the increase was significantly greater in areas covered by the fast-food ordinance, including Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.
The study also found fast-food consumption went up in South L.A. as well as across the county during that time.
"What has changed? Well, nothing," said Roland Sturm, lead author of the study and a senior economist at Rand, who called the restriction symbolic.
Symbolism of what? Failure?

Writing for the Atlantic, Adam Chandler said on March 24, 2015:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food deserts as places "without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food," be they small towns or urban areas. "Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options." According to the RAND study, even though 10 percent of the total food outlets in South Los Angeles opened after the regulation passed, "there was no evidence that the composition of those establishments has changed as a result of the ordinance."
If a Jack in the Box doesn't open in a food desert, there's no guarantee a supermarket or grocery store will arrive in its stead. And, even if one does, access to a supermarket doesn't always ensure a healthier neighborhood.
That is true. And if a Jack in the Box opens, that does not mean people will become obese. Fast-food franchises are everywhere.

But 75% obesity is not.

Instead of blaming capitalism, let us look at socialism. Food stamps -- EBT cards -- are where we should begin. Obesity by income is highest among teh poor, lowest among the rich. One reason is you can buy potato chips with EBT cards.

Ban potato chips.

And McDonald's.

In California, the law requires McDonald's to accept EBT cards for payment.


  1. They always have excuses (communism hasn't worked because it hasn't been done right).
    Not just McDuck's, but every fast food place in California (so, no escape), every burger joint, every diner--to protect The Poor from "the heartbreak of obesity"! Can I have an AMEN, bruthas n sistas? Hallelujah, gonna save the poor from themselves!

    Sorry; I got carried away. I've calmed down. Just don't get me fired up again. You, Have, Been. Warned!

  2. EBT at Mickey D?
    Fine. You get the dollar burger, no fries(they got the apple slices and whatnot now-a-days), and a water, no soda (the left loves to regulate soda/pop).