Not so Fast

The New York edition of the international Metro papers screamed recently about a City Council suggestion to prohibit fast food joints from areas with lots of obese residents. The article pegged the proposition as a matter of health versus jobs.

Critics say the city is trying to win the war on obesity on the backs of the folks who most need jobs and who are supposed to benefit from a healthier food environment free of fast food. Proponents might acknowledge that some jobs will leave but maintain that high concentrations of cheap and junky chains result less from free market conditions—supply and demand—than from artificial conditions. These conditions arise from the international-scale financing behind the corporations that saturate high-obesity areas. And they also arise from certain zoning patterns that discourage amply-stocked groceries and that favor junk food corner stores and fast food eateries. New York City Council members have already supported a zoning measure to encourage supermarkets in food-poor areas and there are several initiatives to increase healthy selections at corner stores. What to do about fast food is hotly debated but still undecided.

Before engaging with the pros and cons of an act that bans outright a certain type of business from specific areas, it is crucial to ensure that the communities impacted by these decisions have a voice. Any decision that imposes radical changes in a neighborhood will not result in the desired consequences unless community members are involved in the process. Closing franchises will be seen as job loss, and not as opportunity for locally-owned business that cater to the health and interests of the community. A fast food ban will be seen as top-down chauvinism, and not as a necessary but painful attempt to correct a systematic injustice in the nation’s food system. Unless, that is, officials organize community-wide meetings and information sessions. In fact, whether a zoning bill passes or not is beside the point. The process of debating the need for and the merits of banning fast food—and the weighty question that follows: What can we eat instead?—is how residents begin to take control. It is how lofty goals translate into changed behavior. It is how politics may inspire hope.