Are we really to the point where we have to be TOLD to do what's good for us? People already know that fast food is bad for them and they buy it anyway. If they can't get a cheeseburger at McD's then they'll make one at home. This idea is just ridiculous.

That is *utterly* ridiculous! A meal at Olive Garden is far worse than one at McDonald's, but that's not "fast food," so they're allowed to stay? For the love of g*d, just educate people, don't make their minds up for them!

i just watched a news story..

'Fat future? Nearly all Americans could be overweight by 2030'

http://www.yahoo.com/s/925538

crazy huh?

oh by the way.. people should be making their own food at home..

yeah!!!!!!!11

that's ridiculous! BAN them? really? what are they going to check out my grocery list too? if i want some french fries for lunch, that's my business...

This is America, and people should have the right to eat whatever crap they choose, no?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Since when was what you eat anybody's business but yours?!?!?!

I think it's a shame that it has gotten to the point where los angeles now wants to ban fast food for a year. people should be able to eat want they want to. I think it's stupid.

teacherturtle- I feel like that news story thinks we're all going to end up big immobile blobs like in Wall E

this is a really dumb idea...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the government has NO BUSINESS treating us like we're 3-year-olds. We are legal, consenting, cognizant adults and what we eat, smoke, drink, etc. has absolutely no place in legislation. We are over-legislated as it is. Let's save the laws (and law-enforcement) for people who are actually harming other people, and otherwise leave us the hell alone! We are quite capable of making our own decisions! And I COMPLETELY agree with jdeprima - EDUCATE, don't legislate. Then people can make their own informed and responsible choices.

this is disgusting. its unconstitutional, unamerican, and it takes away our rights. don't tell me what I can and cannot eat!

Isn't that pretty much HORRIBLE for the economy? How many people would loose jobs?

Oh dear lord, are you kidding? What if I want some darn fries!? People will find a way to stay obese whether it's McDonald's or home spun fat. Banning fast food restaurants is both unfair to the restaurant industry and to those of us who know how to make good choices while still splurging every once in a while. Our government needs to learn that the people who can't regulate themselves, not fast food, is the cause of the problem.

Fork no!!! Unfortunately, the fast food places are the only restaurants that seem to be surviving these days due to the economy. In my Minneapolis area neighborhood, at least 11 businesses, many of them restaurants, have folded along a busy stretch of county road, not even a half mile in distance between the first and the last. As others have said, we need to EDUCATE people to make better choices. A great place to start is in school, particularly with school lunches which are just as hideous. How can we throw this stuff at our kids and expect them to learn anything about nutrition?

i think that it's completely silly. just because certain people lack self control and better judgement for their own health is no reason to ban the restaurants and take the option away from people who can actually handle it.

It won't solve the problem and isn't really sustainable/realistic. Plus it's ridiculous. I can't remember the last time I had fast food but there are other ways to get food that isn't perfectly healthy or nutritious (like the perfect macaroon I had at a boutique bakery this morning).

I think this headline is misleading. They have a moritorium on *new* fast food chains for a year. Not fast food. (Sorry, I work at in the media biz.)

Completely ridiculous. The government has no right to police what we can and can't put in our mouths. Didn't they get the memo that EVERYONE eats, not just the obese people? And that probably at least 50% of the people that eat at fast food places are NOT obese? Some people eat great almost all the time and just crave a Whopper every now and then...there's no reason to ban fast food joints entirely.

Lorimarie is right. The headline and the entry have the facts stated incorrectly. The actual moratorium, on prohibiting putting up new fast food chains, might actually be a good idea, if only to open up more eating options other than fast food, and not necessarily to discourage people from eating fast food.

I'm sorry, but this is just irresponsible blogging, Fitsugar.

Even if this was a mistake on FitSugar's part, I still feel queezy about this. Facts of not facts, this would give government the power to determine what IS "healthy." Large corporations, say Golden Plump and Tyson when it comes to chicken, have huge power via PACs. The small farmers, and those who grow organic, will fall between the cracks.

*Facts or NO facts*

I don't want to prevent anybody from choosing to eat fast food, if that's what floats their boat.

But encouraging healthier restaurants to move into LA neighborhoods might be a good idea, especially if some of them go to lower-income areas. Some people might not have easy access to transportation, so bringing restaurants that offer healthier foods to their doorsteps could help a lot. Maybe people would like the option of having lunch at a fresh produce market, or a sandwich shop that offers fewer processed foods, rather than Mickey D's!

On the flip side, simply encouraging healthier restaurants to open doesn't guarantee that they will be *affordable*, which is part of the problem. Fast food is an easy option for people on tight budgets because it's cheap, at least in the short run (the health consequences might not show up for years)...

I'd rather ban Starbucks. At least I can take my kids to McDonald's and they can play for an hour there.

Ummm... won't work.. You can get bad stuff at *healthy* places (meatball sub at Subway) & healthy stuff at unhealthy places (yogurt at McD's).

Plus sometimes you just need food fast. Period. I rarely eat fast food, but I had to give in at 11pm on moving day. I hadn't eaten since noon, I had $7 until I got paid in like 6 days, and only fast food was open. HELLLOOO Arby's.

This is an awful idea! Don't they realize how many people will lose their jobs? And with the economy that way it is now... my god this is just ridiculous...

this is such a bad idea. if people want to get fat, that's on them.

the article says they voted to just ban new fast food restaurants from being built in the low income areas in l.a., not taking away the old ones. not that i agree with it, but just wanted to clarify that the idea is not a total wipeout of all fast food restaurants in the city

I think this is the ten billionth time a Sugar network sight has misinterpreted, misquoted, whatever, a source and then did a post all about it. It's a site-wide problem, beef up the editing maybe?

@ annebreal: Yeah, they make it more sensationalist/controversial to generate more comments.

This is absurd. It reminds of Prohibition when alcohol was banned. It's not going to work, and it's ridiculous.

Give people the freedom to eat whatever they want.

Besides, fast food is not the problem, as fattening food can prepared at home, or purchased at grocery stores. It's about educating the people themselves, and letting them make THEIR lifestyle choices.

Thats ridiculous! This is America, you should be allowed to choose what you want to eat.

I hate LA, I think we'd all be alot happier if california would just become a separate country from the united states.

This article greatly oversimplified the issue. Here's the NPR story that gives more detail: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93057252

It's not the ENTIRE city of Los Angeles, first of all. It's only the Crenshaw district, which has the highest concentration of fast-food joints in the county, &, incidentally, the largest number of obese adults & children.

The moratorium is only on construction of new fast-food restaurants; all existing ones will be left alone. The idea behind it is that by allowing healthier options to move in, they will give the people living in Crenshaw the opportunity to make healthier choices.

I think it's a great idea, & I definitely don't think that the government is out of line.

i agree that obesity is a problem, but at least 1/2 of the people who pull into mcdonalds on a daily basis probably eat perfectly normally and just enjoy the occasional burger. also, like someone said, a meal at olive garden or macaroni grill thats stuffed with cheese and breaded and covered with creamy sauce is much worse for you than the occasional burger and fries.

I just saw something on the news last night about Governor Schwarzenegger considering lowering CA's minimum wage to the federal minimum to help boost the economy. While this move might help the state government recoup the lost income from dropping property taxes, it defeats the purpose by putting less money in the pockets of hard working people who don't have a Hollywood paycheck. The economy will just suffer in a different way. Closing all the fast food restaurants, and losing the subsequent jobs involved, would also be another huge blunder in the name of "solving a problem". I agree with the previous posters; people know fast food is bad for them, yet they consume it anyway. Closing the stores would only be a Band-Aid over the real problem, and many options masked as healthier that would stay open and available are just as bad for a person. The real problem is that people are too lazy to make healthy food choices on their own. Until we teach our children (and ourselves) the value of good food and exercise and how to eat well, we will continue to be a national of bulging waistlines.

Everyone, the STORES ARE NOT CLOSING!

The moratorium is just on new ones opening!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93057252

Having read some of the ensuing comments about this actually being more of a stop of new fast food joints being opened up in an area that's already oversaturated with them and NOT about kicking out existing businesses.... I'm not so appalled. After all, local governments control what sort of businesses can open up within their boundaries. This is not so unusual.

I think it needs to be considered though that the reason why there might be so many fast food restaurants in a lower income neighborhood might have something to do with there being a lack of "healthy" restaurants that actuallu provide meals at reasonable prices. I hope they'll provide some sort of positive initiative for restaurants to come in and provide healthy, affordable alternatives to the fast-food joints. Otherwise, what's the point?

i am torn on this issue - both the actual issue from the article and the one inferred from the blog post.

i see the point that it could be overreaching by the government to dictate what is made available to people in the way of food. however, even the inference made from the blog is not that people are not allowed to eat fast food, just that it cannot be produced in this area on a test run. if people have the means to get to fast food, they will and they can.

however, simply educating people is not always easy or effective. i am a dietetics student and education is a pet of mine. but not everyone knows how to cook or has the funds to purchase the ingredients to make meals for themselves at home. fast food has filled in for skills such as those and is cheaper to boot. unfortunately, though i do not have the statistics, i am aware of the fact that those families living around or below the poverty line - who are perhaps working more hours to pull themselves up and out - do not have the extra money or time to cook more nutritional meals, even if they have been educated on the how and why.

as liberal as i am, i don't want to advocate an iron fist from the government regarding food, but i wish there was some easy way to just eradicate these poor choices without offending people or affecting the economy.

How 'bout instead of banning the new fast food restaurants, they offer tax incentives to healthier options? Then everyone's happy.

I think the real details of this article is kind of irrelevent. The overacrhing issue is should the government intervene with the issue of obesity? I think to a certain degree yes, obesity goes beyond to asetethics into serious health problems. The idea of preventing new fast food joints in poorer areas may on the surface seem discriminatory but the fact of the matter is in poorer areas they are more likely to use medicare and medicaid. So if they are more like to be obese due to increased availabilty of fast food, then they are more likely to have obesity related like diabetes, heart disease, etc, which then puts a burden on the state and you as a tax payer. I don't know if this fully justifies the ban, though. I would rather the state makes it cheaper to get healthier fruits and vegetables through some type of tax subsidies. The other day I went grocery shopping and I spent 30 bucks on 10 items which all consisted on my diet of fruits and vegetables, but do you know how much more I could have gotten with $30 if I got junk food? It's ridiculous, and that's where the government should start.

I think keeping new ones out is a good idea. What would be better if ALL health insurance companies and work places would offer incentives to gyms, weight control programs, or even time during the work-day to work out for 30 minutes. And I don't mean just the giant corporations but min. wage workers too.

Something like this would not only help with obesity but heart problems too.......

***It would save money due to costs---for insurance companies paying out on overweight caused issues. And companies for lost time, sick pay, etc....

soulight, that is a good point that I noticed often enough when I was working in checkout at a grocery store. Those who purchase their food with foodstamps with 9/10 buy unhealthy food options because it's cheaper that way. They can get more food with less impact on their foodstamps card. And I don't approve. Instead of giving people an amount of spending money every month, maybe we should be supplying them with vouchers much like the WIC system.

I think this is a great idea. People in poorer neighborhoods often are not educated on what constitutes healthy food or not, and in their minds, if you lose weight, it means you are going to die. At least, with some people I know, this is how their families think. So they would much rather be obese than at a healthy weight. I am not saying everybody thinks this way!

Plus, this helps them in the long run. Fewer unhealthy food options means fewer health problems down the road, which would save them money on medical bills. Most of them don't have insurance anyways.

Really, I have been to Inglewood and those shady areas and you find a fast food joint or fried chicken place just about on every street corner.

This is extremely frightening. As Americans, we are blessed with the personal liberty and freedom to eat what we choose. Now, we are banning food?? People will simply drive to an area where the food is available, increasing gas consumption. Silly.

Mondaymoos - that's a good point. I've heard from a lot of moms that the great thing about being on WIC is being able to buy nicer groceries because of the vouchers.

The fact of the matter is I don't think people in poverty don't necessarily not know better - that fast food is high in calories and low in nutritional benefits - they just can't afford any better. Taking it away won't make it any easier for them to afford better food. And fast food provides employment for people under the poverty line. I think the idea of this borders on unconstitutional and also doesn't really solve any problems.

i think its great.
fast food is poison and its killing us.
if you want to die a greasy death then drive out of town and enjoy. people will realize its not worth it and it never was.

mondaymoos - Speaking of WIC, I overheard a mother speaking to a grocery manager, frustrated why her WIC wouldn't allow her to buy a specific type of Cheerios cereal. What type? The lower sugar option. She wanted to buy the *healthier* option for her kids, but wasn't allowed to.

I noticed this, too, when I was working at a grocery in high school. Many times, the healthier options of basic products, such has skim milk vs. 2%/whole, real cheese vs. processed, low sodium vs. regular soups weren't available to the WIC families, which doesn't make sense to me if the government is really trying to help those of a lower social status. If those WIC vouchers were for produce, fresh cuts of meat, dairy and whole grains, vs. processed foods, maybe they wouldn't be spending their extra dollars on the unhealthy crap.

(I know this wouldn't apply to everyone, as some people are going to buy what they want, no matter what, but its a start.)