ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Eco-nomics, the new kind of economics
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
FEATURED
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« EnviroHealth in blogs: Green tea, nurdles, and demystifying the Farm Bill | Main | Shifting sex ratio may be caused by PCBs, but how? »
South L.A. fast food ban is a message to Washington
In South L.A., fast food is king. It's cheap and abundant, with 20 eateries inside of a quarter-mile stretch, and other options are few and far between. The area's residents live off the stuff, and as a result they're about 10% more obese than other L.A. residents. With movements across the country to "legislate health" by banning trans fats and making school lunches healthier, the South L.A. City Council thinks that at least part of the answer may lay in a two year moratorium on new fast food joints.
From the LA Times article:
"The people don't want them, but when they don't have any other options, they may gravitate to what's there," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the ordinance in June, and whose district includes portions of South L.A. that would be affected by the plan.
The measure is stopgap at best. Keeping a handful of fast food places from opening won't stop residents, who've come to rely on the price and convenience, from patronizing the ones already there. It won't increase their access to fresh fruits and veggies, either, nor will it free up their time for cooking nutritious meals. The ordinance would allow full-service, sit-down restaurants to open, but 28% of South L.A. residents live in poverty. Having a nice dinner out is clearly not a priority.
If they're prepared to move quickly, the proposed two year ban would allow legislators the opportunity to begin to address many of those problems. Increasing access to alternatives is one major way to make improvements. But the changes that need to be made in South L.A. can't be left entirely to the L.A. City Council or even the California State Legislature.
That's because the solutions are rooted right here in Washington D.C. It all comes back to the Farm Bill: if Congress would vote to share the wealth handed out yearly (to farmers of commodity crops, like corn and soy, which make absurdly cheap fast food possible), then maybe residents of South L.A. --and the myriad other food deserts and economically depressed regions -- would be able to afford a healthy diet. South L.A. shouldn't have to ban fast food eateries. That they're moving in that direction sends a clear message to Washington, if they're willing to hear it. Congress has the ability to make a big change here. The House may have already passed up on their chance, but the Senate could still do good things when they vote, which ought to be early next month. The question is, will they?
I hope so. It sounds like South L.A. could use the help.
« EnviroHealth in blogs: Green tea, nurdles, and demystifying the Farm Bill |