Yesterday, with that unique blend of condescension and stupidity all too common among nanny staters, Los Angeles lawmakers unveiled plans to “fight” obesity by prohibiting fast food restaurants from building new outlets in one of the city’s poorest districts. The bill’s sponsors claim that fast food restaurants are crowding out “healthier” outfits in low-income communities, leaving poor Los Angelenos with exclusively high-fat, high-calorie food options.
Is there any evidence to suggest that fast food restrictions are effective at getting people to make healthier food choices? Of course not. But it just feels like it should, right?
Plus, as we argued on CNBC’s On the Money:
The fact that you’re not going to allow additional fast food restaurants to be built doesn’t mean that you’re going to change the economics of the business and encourage more people to come in there when they don’t want to come in there today … The other thing about it that doesn’t really make any sense is that fast food restaurants today are not what people used to think of years ago. You can get salads, you can get diet sodas, low-fat milk, fruit, vegetables … It’s really about the choice that you make when you go in the restaurant, rather than what kind of restaurant it is.
