White elitists dictate change to the diet of poor blacks; no one listens

The elitist white liberal bigots of Los Angeles decided that fat people are ugly, especially fat black people.  And so, disguising their disdain as concern for black health, they did what white liberals do...passed a law that doesn't affect them, prohibiting what others like – fast food – but they don't.  As the Daily Mail of the United Kingdom (not anywhere near Los Angeles) not so surprisingly headlines, "LA's fast food ban didn't lower obesity in poor areas because people just went elsewhere for unhealthy food, study finds."

The South Los Angeles fast-food ban did not decrease obesity in poor neighborhoods because residents found unhealthy food at restaurants in strip malls and convenience stores instead, a new study has found.

In 2008, a dietary ordinance targeted a 32-square-mile area south of Interstate 10 that struggles with high obesity rates and other health problems.

This area is not so coincidentally far from wealthy, liberal Beverly Hills and Hollywood, where thin is in and diet crazes abound.  So if a (former) Hollywood denizen such as Candice Bergen proudly, obviously gains a few pounds, well, this law won't affect her. 

Candice Bergen is well rounded — and proud of it.

“Let me just come right out and say it: I am fat,” the “Murphy Brown” star declares in her new memoir, “A Fine Romance.”

“In the past 15 years . . . I have put on 30 pounds. I live to eat. None of this ‘eat to live’ stuff for me. I am a champion eater. No carb is safe — no fat, either,” she boasts.

Meanwhile, back in South Los Angeles...

The ban went into effect in South Los Angeles and restricted the opening or expansion of standalone fast-food restaurants. (snip)

Roland Sturm, a senior economist at RAND Corporation and lead author of the study, said findings should not come as a surprise, as most food outlets in the area are small food stores or restaurants that have limited seating and were not affected by the policy.

Oh, well that explains the failure: the law didn't go far enough.  Obviously the residents of South LA prefer to purchase food they enjoy despite the wishes of their betters.  These fat – er, obese people cannot be trusted to purchase the type of food that the elitists of Los Angeles consider healthy...and that will make them more attractive and not harm the elitists' eyes should they be so unfortunate as to look at them.  

The law, targeted to standalone restaurants only, was limited.

However, the law, believed to be the first effort of its kind by a major city to improve public health, did not ban new fast food restaurants in strip malls.

This made it possible for unhealthy food to continue making its way into the low-income neighborhoods.

Almost half of the new food permits were for convenience stores that sell soda and junk food.

OMG!  Healthy food such as fruits and vegetables was also allowed to make "its way into the low-income neighborhood" alongside the "junk food" but for some reason apparently didn't.  Maybe because few people purchased it, though the law graciously didn't prohibit those types of foods.  Indeed, the law, following the law of unintended consequences, apparently made fat people fatter people.  

Findings showed that before the dietary ordinance went into effect in 2008, 63 per cent of residents in the area reported being overweight or obese compared to 57 per cent in other parts of the county.

But three years on, instead of the law curbing weight gain, the opposite trend took force as obesity rates grew by 12 per cent in South Los Angeles.

'The South Los Angeles fast food ban may have symbolic value, but it has had no measurable impact in improving diets or reducing obesity,' said Sturm. 

The study also revealed that obesity rates following the ban have been significantly larger in South Los Angeles compared to other parts of the city. In 2011, 75 per cent of South Los Angeles residents reported being overweight or obese, while rates elsewhere only increased by one per cent.

Does this spectacular failure deter the liberal racist elitists posing as concerned citizens?  Of course not.  

Barry Popkin, a professor from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill said he was not surprised by Sturm's observation and that the ban was 'too trivial'.

However, Kelly Brownell, a professor from Duke University said the ban was not a trivial measure, and that setting limits could help prevent problems. He also said he was not surprised the ordinance was not effective.

Health experts said a single intervention would not reverse the obesity problem. People also have to exercise and make lifestyle changes, they said.

'It's not just about limiting unhealthy food, but increasing access to healthy food,' Alex Ortega, a professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, who had no role in the study.

"Access to healthy food."  What a unique idea.  Perhaps the owners of the convenience stores never thought of it, and the residents never thought of buying healthy food or knew it even existed or what it was.  Perhaps soon the lawmakers will decree another intervention: "People also have to exercise and make lifestyle changes."

Maybe schools will now dictate how much and what kinds of foods their students can eat, even if the students and their parents complain the portions are skimpy and the food is unappetizing.  Maybe they will force the students to, oh, I don't know, Let's Move.

Oh, wait.