The LA Times reported this week that the Los Angeles city council will soon be considering an ordinance that bans new fast food restaurants in South LA. (via) The reason: the obesity rate in that part of the city is approaching 30 percent.
The thinking behind this proposed ban is interesting. Here’s what a city councilwoman told the Times: “The people don’t want them, but when they don’t have any other options, they may gravitate to what’s there.” In other words, the people of South LA need the government to protect them from fast food. It’s like people there are suffering a crime wave and the prime suspect was last seen wearing an obnoxious red wig.
In a sense, there might be some truth to that statement. There’s been much talk among obesity researchers about the toxic food environment. And with a genome that evolved during times of scarcity, most of us are gonna have a tough time holding back when super cheap calories are everywhere. But do we need Big Brother kicking Ronald in the shins, telling him to step off? Should it be the job of government to help us resist?
This proposed ban might seem outrageous, but it’s really just another dot on a long trend line of government intervention. For years, governments have kept a hand on alcohol distribution by (not) issuing liquor licenses. Many states now ban smoking in restaurants. A few others have kicked trans-fat to the curb. And Chicago banned foie gras for ethical reasons. The state is already sitting at the table. Most of us are probably OK with that.
We give up these choices on the hope that we’re exchanging them for a better outcome. In the case of this latest story, should the LA city council be making this decision for the people of South LA? Does it have a reasonable expection people there will be better off?
Most fast food isn’t healthy, but it’s not like a lot other restaurant food is, either. Swapping the Colonel for Thomas Keller may appeal to our sense of culture. It doesn’t guarantee we’ll be any slimmer.
-Greg Dahlmann