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. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
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?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« 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 |
Leave a comment