Fast Food Restaurant Report

Transcription

ry
Janua
2012
Promoting Healthy Dining in South Los Angeles
Nicky Bassford, MPP
Lark Galloway-Gilliam, MPA
Gwendolyn Flynn
Breanna Nicole Morrison, MPL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our thanks to the many organizations and individuals who contributed to this project.
Their cumulative efforts made this publication possible.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Paul Simon, MD
Jean Tremaine
Principal Authors:
Lisa Nicky Bassford, MPP, Policy Analyst
Lark Galloway-Gilliam, MPA, Executive Director
Gwendolyn Flynn, Policy Director
Public Health Law and Policy
Manel Kappagoda, JD, MPH
Amy Ackerman, JD
Karen Kramer, JD
Heather Wooten, MCP
Breanna Nicole Morrison, MPL
Design:
Aaron Makela, Print Media Collective
[email protected]
www.printmediacollective.com
Samantha Graff, JD
Editor:
Mabel Everette, RD
Janice Taylor, Communications Director
Community Health Councils is a non-profit, community-based health advocacy, policy and
educational organization. Established in 1992, our mission is to improve health and increase
access to quality healthcare for uninsured, under-resourced and underserved populations.
This policy report is the second in a series of three on how policymakers, private industry and
community members can change the South LA food resource environment by increasing access
to healthy food outlets and preventing the proliferation of unhealthy food outlets. The first report
FOR MORE INFORMATION,
in this series, Food Desert to Food Oasis: Promoting Grocery Store Development in South Los
CONTACT:
Angeles, focused on food purchased for the home and proposed policy recommendations to
Community Health Councils
overcome barriers and encourage the establishment of new full-service grocery stores, healthy
corner stores, farmers’ markets and mobile produce vendors. The final report will address the
roles community members can play in advocating for policy changes, researching the needs
and strengths of their neighborhoods, and marketing their neighborhoods to potential healthy
food retailers and developers.
This publication is part of the REACH US project supported with funding from the Centers for Disease
3731 Stocker Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90008
Tel.: 323.295.9372
e-mail: [email protected]
www.chc-inc.org
Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
© Community Health Councils, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 2
Background
4
South Los Angeles Restaurant Environment
7
Fast Food and Health 10
Manufacturing Fast Food Demand 13
Regulating Fast Food Restaurant Development
16
South LA Solution
20
Sit-Down Restaurant Incentives
25
Implementation & Monitoring Compliance 27
Preventing Unintended Consequences
29
30
Appendices
South LA Fast Food Restaurant Maps
31
Endnotes
39
Conclusion
Watsonville Healthy Eating Ordinance Points System
and National Fruit & Vegetable Program
Potential Constitutional Challenges
Land Use Planning Tools
Encouraging Restaurants to Offer Healthy Meals
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
South Los Angeles is saturated with fast food restaurants that typically serve “unhealthy foods” — foods high in fat,
sodium or sugar with few essential nutrients. Eating fast food has been associated with weight gain and lower intake
of fruits, vegetables and other nutrient-rich foods that help prevent chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and
diabetes. A growing body of evidence indicates a correlation between the proximity and density of fast food restaurants
and greater fast food consumption. Americans’ growing dependence on dining out coupled with an abundance of
fast food restaurants and lack of healthier alternatives in urban, lower-income and racial and ethnic communities
like South Los Angeles (South LA) have disproportionately increased vulnerability to diet-related death and disease.
The situation in South LA is critical as this community has the lowest life expectancy in the City of Los Angeles and the
highest rates of obesity and several chronic diseases in LA County.
The residents of South Los Angeles need policies that create equal opportunities for them to purchase a meal or food
consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans when dining out. The Dietary Guidelines are the Federal government’s
authoritative advice about good dietary habits and are designed to promote health and reduce risk for major chronic
diseases. The City of Los Angeles established the Grocery Store and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive Package in 2006
to attract new healthy food retailers to South LA. The package promoted the available financial incentives and offered
assistance to identify potential sites, navigate the City’s permitting process and find qualified employees. The City
passed an interim control ordinance (ICO) placing a moratorium on permits for new stand-alone establishments in
South LA in 2008 to address the overconcentration of fast food restaurants. It then replaced the temporary policy in
2010 with an amendment to the City’s General Plan requiring that new restaurants locate at least a half mile from
existing ones. The City continues to work on a comprehensive policy for fast food restaurant development in South LA.
This report builds upon these efforts and provides recommendations for strengthening the City’s fast food restaurant
development policy and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive Program to create a healthier environment in South LA. The
recommendations are specific to the restaurant environment in South LA, which is in the jurisdiction of the City of Los
Angeles. They are based on community knowledge, community-based research, and an extensive literature review
that indicate the need to extend the scope of the policy to all fast food restaurants, not just stand-alone establishments,
and target populations that are most dependent on their neighborhood food environment, particularly children and
individuals who lack private transportation.
2
The recommendations also acknowledge that fast food restaurants are defined broadly in the Los Angeles Municipal
Code based on characteristics unrelated to the nutritional quality of the food provided. A fast food restaurant is “any
establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a
limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable
wrapping and containers.”1 The recommendations propose a strategy for limiting the density of unhealthy fast food
restaurants while encouraging new healthy restaurants of all types including healthy limited-service restaurants.
The report recommends that the City of
Los Angeles adopt the following policies:
1. Extend the criteria to obtain a construction permit
to all fast food restaurants in South LA, not just standalone establishments.
2. Add an additional criteria requiring new fast
food restaurants in South LA to locate at least a
half mile away from schools, parks, playgrounds,
child care centers, recreation facilities, and other
children-oriented facilities.
3. Add an additional criteria requiring new fast
food restaurants in South LA to locate at least 750
feet from bus, rail and other transit stops.
4. Define a healthy restaurant using criteria based
on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
5. Provide an exemption from distance requirements
for fast food restaurants meeting the healthy restaurant
definition.
6. Strengthen the City’s Grocery Store and Sit-Down
Restaurant Incentive Program and extend incentives
to healthy fast food restaurants.
7. Monitor healthy restaurants that receive zoning
and/or financial incentives for continued compliance
with the healthy restaurant criteria and establish
penalties for non-compliance.
3
BACKGROUND
Community Health Councils (CHC), a nonprofit health policy and advocacy organization located in South LA, and the
CHC-led African Americans Building a Legacy of Health (AABLH) coalition are among several community organizations
working in partnership with policymakers, institutions and the private sector to increase investment in South LA and
ensure all residents have access to healthy foods and opportunities for healthy living. CHC’s role in addressing the
South LA food retail environment began in 1999 with a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s REACH (Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health) 2010 Initiative. This award allowed
CHC to establish AABLH and bring together organizations and individuals in the community to address the social
determinants of racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other diseases.
AABLH developed a model for community change founded on a community-based participatory approach for assessing
community needs, identifying policy and systems solutions and advocating in support of them. With the help of researchers at the University of Southern California, AABLH trained community-based organizations and residents to survey
restaurants, food markets and physical activity facilities in South LA and, as a comparison area, West LA. These
community assessments found that South LA neighborhoods have much less diversity in dining options and more fast
food restaurants than West LA neighborhoods. Diners in South LA also have fewer healthy options available to them
in restaurants, both in food selection and preparation (e.g., broiled instead of fried). The assessments found that
restaurants in South LA heavily promote unhealthy menu options to attract residents and are significantly less likely
to promote healthy items compared to restaurants in West LA.2 Similarly, assessments of markets and physical activity
facilities revealed significant disparities in supporting a healthy diet and active living.3-4
South LA City Council Representatives Jan Perry (9th District) and Bernard Parks (8th District) have consistently worked
with CHC and AABLH to develop strategies for improving the South LA food retail environment. As a result of their
leadership, City departments were charged with developing a package of incentives for attracting healthy food retailers and
developers to South LA. Approved by the City Council in 2006, the Grocery Store and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive
Package combines available financial incentives — such as loans, grants, tax credits, and breaks on utility services
— with assistance identifying potential sites, navigating the City’s permitting process and finding qualified employees.
The City markets these incentives and services by advertising in trade publications, participating in outreach events
and meeting with targeted retailers. These efforts have successfully attracted four grocery store development projects
as of February 2010. The City continues to improve upon this initiative and is working on refining its marketing strategy
4
and developing a new website to promote the Incentive Package.5
In 2008, Perry and Parks sponsored an interim control ordinance (ICO) placing a moratorium on the issuance of
permits for new stand-alone fast food restaurants in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert, South Los Angeles, and
Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan areas that constitute South LA (see Map 1). The policy was limited to standalone establishments to address developer’s concerns that they rely on fast food chains as leasees of space before
development projects can move forward. Unanimously approved by the City Council, the ICO was designed to
provide sufficient time for the City to study and develop appropriate permanent regulatory controls on new fast food
restaurants that the City planned to include in updates to the three South LA Community Plans.1 Unfortunately, the
community plan updates have been delayed due to the City’s severe budget deficit and the resulting furloughs of
Planning Department staff.6 Having been extended twice for a total of two years, the ICO was ineligible for another
extension and expired September 14, 2010.7
!@II2K95<&*J>F5M&!@2K:9F4&
&
&
D#-!MN!8&*%B!H.O$!EB+))!;&44*,A%L!>2#,!.+)#$!!
MAP 1. South LA’s Three Community Plan Areas
_&
With these barriers to the community plan updates,
the City Planning Department developed an alternative solution that amends the City’s General Plan
by adding a “footnote” to regulate permits for new
stand-alone fast food restaurants in the three South
LA Community Plan areas. The footnote is in lieu of a
more comprehensive (and time intensive) solution such
as completing the community plan updates or creating
a Specific Plan or Community Design Overlay.i On
December 8, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council
approved the General Plan Amendmentii requiring
new stand-alone fast food restaurants to meet six
criteria to address their overconcentration and re-
!
.@2A:J^&,>O93>5J&/+S&!95<&@?&/@4&+K3JFJ4C&=2AJ>2&@?&$K39KJJA9K3C&0JQ>A5IJK5&@?&E2PF9:&'@A;4S&+O>9F>PFJ&>5^&
M55Q^kkK>O93>5JF>SF>:95<S@A3k9KBJaS:?IS&+::J44JB&,@OJIPJA&8\C&6787S&
quiring design and landscape guidelines to mitigate
their visual impacts on the community.
'95M&5MJ4J&P>AA9JA4&5@&5MJ&:@II2K95<&QF>K&2QB>5J4C&5MJ&!95<&EF>KK9K3&0JQ>A5IJK5&BJOJF@QJB&>K&
>F5JAK>59OJ&4@F259@K&5M>5&>IJKB4&5MJ&!95<-4&1JKJA>F&EF>K&P<&>BB9K3&>&d?@@5K@5Je&5@&AJ32F>5J&QJAI954&?@A&
KJG&45>KBH>F@KJ&?>45&?@@B&AJ45>2A>K54&9K&5MJ&5MAJJ&.@25M&/+&!@II2K95<&EF>K4&>AJ>4S&)MJ&?@@5K@5J&94&9K&
F9J2&@?&>&I@AJ&:@IQAJMJK49OJ&g>KB&59IJ&9K5JK49OJh&4@F259@K&42:M&>4&:@IQFJ59K3&5MJ&:@II2K95<&QF>K&
2QB>5J4&@A&:AJ>59K3&>&.QJ:9?9:&EF>K&@A&!@II2K95<&0J493K&"OJAF><S9&"K&0J:JIPJA&]C&6787C&5MJ&/@4&
+K3JFJ4&!95<&!@2K:9F&>QQA@OJB&5MJ&1JKJA>F&EF>K&+IJKBIJK599&AJZ29A9K3&KJG&45>KBH>F@KJ&?>45&?@@B&
AJ45>2A>K54&5@&IJJ5&49a&:A95JA9>&5@&>BBAJ44&5MJ9A&@OJA:@K:JK5A>59@K&>KB&AJZ29A9K3&BJ493K&>KB&F>KB4:>QJ&
329BJF9KJ4&5@&I9593>5J&5MJ9A&O942>F&9IQ>:54&@K&5MJ&:@II2K95<S&)MJ&:A95JA9>&>AJ&5MJ&?@FF@G9K3^&
The criteria are the following:
1.
Locate at least a half-mile radius, or 2,640 linear feet, away from any existing fast food restaurant
8S /@:>5J&>5&FJ>45&>&M>F?HI9FJ&A>B924C&@A&6Cij7&F9KJ>A&?JJ5C&>G><&?A@I&>K<&Ja9459K3&?>45&?@@B&
AJ45>2A>K5&
2.
Provide a continuous building wall along the street frontage and sidewalk
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
9
3.
Have a height, bulk and mass that is compatible with the surrounding area
4.
Locate parking at the rear or sides of the building and have it partially screened from view by a 36-inch decorative wall and/or landscaping
5.
Landscape at least seven percent of the surface parking lot area
6.
Have an adequate trash disposal plan to control litter.
&L@A&BJ?9K959@K4C&4JJ&+QQJKB9a&iS&
&)MJ&+IJKBIJK5&M>B&QAJO9@24F<&PJJK&>QQA@OJB&P<&5MJ&!95<&EF>KK9K3&!@II9449@K&@K&":5@PJA&8jC&D><@A&+K5@K9@&
#9FF>A>93@4>&@K&,@OJIPJA&6jC&>KB&5MJ&EF>KK9K3&>KB&/>KB&b4J&D>K>3JIJK5&.2P:@II955JJ&@?&5MJ&!95<&!@2K:9F&@K&
0J:JIPJA&iC&6787S&
99
i
For definitions, see Appendix 6.
ii
The Amendment had previously been approved by the City Planning Commission on October 14, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on November 24, and the Planning and Land
Use Management Subcommittee of the City Council on December 6, 2010.
5
It also establishes the following exemptions:
1.
All properties located in Districts 5 and 15, and the portion of District 10 north of the Interstate 10 Freeway
2.
New fast food restaurants integrated into mixed-use buildings, shopping centers and mallsiii
3.
Construction that consists of interior remodeling, interior rehabilitation, minor exterior repair work, renovations, or routine maintenance
4.
Demolition and replacement of an existing fast food restaurant, and additions to existing establishments, are exempt from Criteria #1 but subject to the other five criteria.
iii
The policy refers to commercial centers or other joint tenant buildings with a minimum Floor Area Ratio of 1:1, which are often called shopping centers and malls.
The ICO was arguably the country’s first major use of zoning motivated by health to
limit fast food restaurant development. While the ordinance recognized the deleterious
effect fast food restaurants have on the strength of the commercial sector and
neighborhood aesthetics, paralleling fast food restaurant regulations in other cities,
it also stated that the over-concentrations of fast food restaurants in South LA are
“detrimental to the health and welfare of the people of the community.”1 Furthermore,
it sought to preserve limited land for development that contributes to residents’
health and quality of life, including attracting healthy food outlets using the Grocery
Store and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive Package.
Representatives of the fast food industry, including McDonald’s, the California Restaurant Association, International Franchise
Association, and Valley Industry and Commerce Association, opposed the General Plan Amendment claiming that it unfairly
targets the fast food industry and could impede economic development and job creation thereby impacting tax revenues.8
However, the 24 McDonald’s restaurants in South LA only employ 1,180 workers. Only 9.5 percent of the jobs are
career positions and the other 91.5 percent make an average of only $4,455 in wages and $2,170 in benefits.9-10
In comparison, obesity is associated with roughly $2,800 higher annual medical costs per person, not to mention
other economic costs such as lost productivity. Among Medicaid recipients, a case of obesity costs taxpayers about
$3,378 annually.11
This report presents evidence for targeting fast food restaurants as part of a strategy to address disproportionately
high rates of obesity and diet-related disease in South LA. It also recommends strengthening the City’s South LA fast
food restaurant development policy and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive Program to maximize their effectiveness in
improving the balance between access to unhealthy fast food restaurants and restaurants that provide and promote
a significant number of healthy menu options. While the General Plan Amendment is a good first step in limiting the
further overconcentration of fast food restaurants, this evidence makes a case for additional policy solutions. Small
changes to the Incentive Program are also recommended to ensure it complements the policy.
6
SOUTH LOS ANGELES
RESTAURANT ENVIRONMENT
A rich and diverse food resource environment gives residents a greater opportunity to make choices that support
healthy living. An environment where nutritional resources are limited to fast food restaurants, convenience stores
and corner groceries and where healthy food outlets are scarce, makes it difficult for people to sustain efforts to eat
a healthy diet. Numerous studies show that urban, lower-income and racial/ethnic minority communities have more
fast food restaurants and fewer healthy food outlets like
supermarkets than more affluent and predominantly white
communities.12-15 Food outlets in these communities are less
likely to provide healthy options that enable individuals to
meet dietary recommendations.14,2 Fast food restaurants, in
particular, are increasingly prevalent and taking up a greater
share of total restaurant availability.16
South LA is no different. This densely populated, disproportionately lower-income, and predominantly racial/ethnic minority
community is saturated with fast food restaurants. According to
ESRI Business Analyst Online, the three South LA Community
Plan areas have 4.97 limited-service restaurants per square mile
and 0.44 limited-service restaurants for every full-service restaurant.
In comparison, the more affluent and predominantly white West LA
community has only 4.13 limited-service restaurants per square mile
and 0.39 limited-service restaurants for every full-service restaurant
(see Table 1). While the number of fast food restaurants per capita is
lower in South LA compared with West LA,17 the higher density rate
increases South LA resident’s exposure to fast food restaurants.
7
Table 1. South LA and West LA Demographic and Restaurant Comparison
Indicator
Population
Population density
South LA iv
West LA v
805,108 people
442,446 people
15,436 people/sq. mi.
5,163 people/sq. mi.
Average household size
3.61 people
2.15 people
Income
Median household income
$33,044
$67,621
Households under the federal poverty level*
Racial / Ethnic Mix
28.3%
10.3%
Latino*
63.6%
17.4%
African American*
32.4%
6.5%
White*
2.2%
63.2%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.6%
12.7%
Households without a vehicle
25.4%
7.9%
Households with 1 vehicle
40.2%
45.8%
Households with 2 vehicles
23.2%
36%
Vehicle Ownership
Restaurants
Limited service restaurants
259 or 30%
354 or 28%
Full-service restaurants 592 or 70%
906 or 72%
Ratio of limited-service/square mile
Ratio of limited-service/full-service
4.97
4.13
.44
.39
iv Defined as the following zip codes: 90001, 90002, 90003, 90007, 90008, 90011, 90016, 90018, 90037, 90043, 90044, 90047, 90059, 90061, and 90062.
v Defined as the following zip codes: 90024, 90025, 90034, 90035, 90045, 90049, 90064, 90066, 90067, 90077, 90272, 90291, 90292, and 90293.
Source: ESRI Business Analysis Online. Available at: http://bao.esri.com/.Accessed November 17, 2010.
*Source: Key Indicators of Health by Service Planning Area. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health – June 2009. Available at: http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/
docs/keyindicators.pdf. Accessed November 17, 2010. Note: Study areas are defined by Service Planning Areas (SPAs), not zip codes.
However, these figures as well as data in other national business databases, such as Dunn & Bradshaw and Clarita’s,
significantly undercount the number of restaurants when compared with the Los Angeles County Environmental
Health Office’s listings (which must survey restaurants for food safety annually, resulting in a more accurate count of
restaurants), particularly small chain and independent restaurants commonly found in South LA. The national databases also incorrectly or incompletely classify restaurants by type when compared with researchers’ experience with
many of the South LA restaurants listed. Unfortunately, the County listings do not classify restaurants by type.
To truly understand the South LA restaurant environment, one must turn to community-based participatory research
or simply walk the streets of the community. The AABLH restaurant assessment discussed in the introduction is one
example of a community-based participatory study. Another community-based study found that in two South LA
neighborhoods and a third neighborhood in nearby Central LA, fast food and carry-out restaurants constitute over
60 percent of all restaurants, a figure higher than the 30 percent found using the ESRI database. Fast food can also
be easily purchased in neighborhoods and outside school grounds from mobile food vendors.18-19
A walk down South Figueroa Street exemplifies the overconcentration of fast food restaurants common along commercial
corridors in South LA (see Appendix 1). Between West 27th Street and West 31 Street (a 0.2 mile stretch), straddling
8
City Council Districts 8 and 9 and just blocks from the University of Southern California, 16 fast food
restaurants line both sides of the street: Taco Bell/Pizza Hut, Grinder, Del Taco, McDonald’s, Domino’s Pizza, Subway
Sandwiches, Chinatown Express, KFC, Panda Express, Jack in the Box, El Pollo Loco, Carl’s Jr, Chano’s Drive Inn, La
Taquiza, Yoshinoya Beef Bowl, and Fatburger. Most of these restaurants are stand-alone establishments, but seven
are part of shopping centers or mini-malls. Domino’s Pizza, Subway, Chinatown Express, and KFC all share a shopping
center. Yoshinoya Beef Bowl and La Taquiza also share a shopping center. El Pollo Loco shares a building with the
901 Bar and Grill.
Fast food restaurants are also common near transit stops. Over one-quarter of households in South LA do not own
a vehicle, compared with only one-twelfth of households in West LA (see Table 1). For example, fast food restaurants
are very prominent near transit stops along Crenshaw Boulevard, a major thoroughfare through South LA served by
several bus lines, the Metro Green Line and the proposed Expo Line (see Appendix 2). In District 10, between the
three bus stops at the intersection with West Adams Boulevard and two bus stops three blocks south at West 29th
Street, there are currently four stand-alone fast food restaurants (Phillips Barbeque, Master Burger, McDonald’s, and
Taco Bell) and six fast food restaurants in shopping centers (Chef Marilyn’s Place, El Pollo Loco, Subway, Yoshinoya
Beef Bowl, Chinese Fast Food, and Little Caesar’s Pizza). Several of these restaurants are examples of independently
owned, mom-and-pop restaurants that fall under the City’s definition of a fast food restaurant, but are not always
captured as such in national databases.
Children in South LA are also highly exposed to fast food restaurants that appear to cluster near schools, particularly
high schools. For example, students who attend Manual Arts High School in District 9 are surrounded by fast food
restaurants (see Appendix 3). Eight fast food restaurants can be found just a block away on West Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard, including four stand-alone establishments (McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Carl’s Jr., and Yoshinoya Beef Bowl)
and four included in shopping centers (Subway, China Express, Panda King, and Little Caesar’s Pizza).
The excessive supply of fast food restaurants in South LA has not deterred fast food chains from wanting to enter this
saturated market. During the two-year moratorium, the City received approximately 10 inquiries regarding new standalone fast food restaurants but none followed through with an application. About a dozen new fast food restaurants
were allowed to open in mixed-use developments or shopping centers permitted under the ICO.20
These recent development efforts and the three examples above show that the overconcentration of fast food restaurants
takes place in both stand-alone developments and shopping centers or joint tenant buildings, and they are often
found right next to one another. Addressing the overconcentration of fast food restaurants therefore requires a policy
that limits the development of both. Failure to extend the density restrictions adopted in the General Plan Amendment
to malls and mini-malls will create the market patterns highlighted above and undermine the intent of the policy. As
will be discussed in the next section, the clustering of fast food restaurants near transit stops and schools is also a
concern because the many individuals who do not own vehicles and children are most dependent on and vulnerable
to their local food environment. The link between the location of fast food restaurants and health is particularly strong
among these populations. The General Plan Amendment does not address these vulnerable populations, creating
additional opportunities for strengthening the City’s policy.
9
FAST FOOD & HEALTH
Studies examining the relationship between the food
environment and BMI have found that communities with
a larger number of fast food or quick-service restaurants
tend to have higher BMI … evidence shows that children,
adolescents, and adults who eat out, particularly at fast
The South LA food environment is of particular concern
food restaurants, are at increased risk of weight gain,
because of the disproportionately high rates of obesity
overweight, and obesity. The strongest association between
and chronic disease present in this community. South
fast food consumption and obesity is when one or more
LA has the highest rate of adult obesity in the County
fast food meals are consumed per week. As a result
(35 percent) and an additional 38 percent are over-
of the changing food environment, individuals need
weight. It also has the highest rate of childhood obesity
to deliberately make food choices, both at home and
(29 percent). In comparison, obesity is found in only
away from home, that are nutrient dense, low in calories,
10 percent of adults and 17 percent of children in
and appropriate in portion size.
West LA, and 22 percent of adults and 23 percent of
children Countywide. South LA also has the highest
rate of adults diagnosed with diabetes (12 percent),
the highest rate of adults diagnosed with hypertension
(29 percent), and the highest death rate due to
coronary heart disease (217 per 100,000 population).21
Preventable hospitalizations due to congestive heart
failure, hypertension, and both long- and short-term
diabetes complications are twice as high in South LA
compared with Los Angeles County.22
10
—Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010
South LA also has some of the highest rates of fast food consumption and other unhealthy dietary practices. Forty-two
percent of adults in South LA eat fast food at least once a week, 56 percent drink at least one soda or sugar-sweetened
drink a day, and only 13 percent consume five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Among children, 53 percent eat
fast food at least once a week and 55 percent drink at least one soda or sugar-sweetened drink a day. 21
Numerous studies demonstrate that eating fast food is associated with greater intake of calories, fat, sodium, sugar, and
sugar-sweetened beverages, and lower intake of fruits, vegetables and dietary fiber.23-28 Fast food consumption has also
been associated with weight gain23,26,29 and insulin resistance,29 both of which contribute to diabetes. While it may be
possible to compose relatively healthy meals at fast food restaurants,30 researchers believe that the energy densities and
fat content of most fast food items are often so high that consuming a meal is difficult without exceeding the average
recommended dietary intake.31-32 The trend towards larger portion sizes further encourages overconsumption.33
While meals at sit-down restaurants can be just as high in calories, fat and portion sizes compared with fast food
meals, and both are nutritionally inferior to meals prepared at home, several studies indicate that access to sit-down
restaurants is not associated with weight gain while access to fast food restaurants is.34 One study found that over a
thirteen-year period, consumption of fast food, but not sit-down restaurant food, is associated with higher weight and
waist circumference, as well as adverse metabolic health outcomes like higher plasma triglyceride concentrations
and lower HDL cholesterol concentrations.35 Another study found that meals at sit-down restaurants result in lower
caloric intake for the day compared with fast food because consumers are more likely to compensate for large sitdown restaurant meals by eating less during the rest of the day. African American and Hispanic diners, in particular,
are likely to compensate for sit-down restaurant meals resulting in a lower caloric intake than on days when they
do not eat out.36 Other possible explanations are the frequency for eating at sit-down restaurants compared to fast
food restaurants and that sit-down restaurants are more likely to offer healthier options on the menu and/or allow
for recipe alterations.
PROXIMITY & HEALTH
Growing evidence suggests there is a correlation between geographic
access to fast food restaurants and rates of consumption and health
outcomes. A California-wide study found that adults who live near an
abundance of fast food restaurants and convenience stores compared to
grocery stores and produce vendors have a greater prevalence of obesity
and diabetes regardless of individual or community income. The highest rates of obesity and diabetes are found
among adults who live in lower-income communities with a higher ratio of fast food restaurants and convenience
stores to grocery stores and produce vendors.37
11
Individuals lacking private transportation are especially dependent on their
neighborhood food environment. A study of adults in Los Angeles County
found that, even though car ownership is generally associated with higher
BMIs, individuals who do not own cars and live in areas with high concentrations of fast food restaurants weighed approximately 12 pounds (2 BMI units)
more than non-car owners residing in areas with no fast food restaurants
and 2.7 pounds (0.45 BMI units) more than car owners who live in areas of
high fast food concentration.38 Other vulnerable populations that face barriers to traveling to access healthier food outlets include the elderly, disabled
and homeless. Older adults, particularly African Americans who live near fast
food restaurants, are more likely to eat fast food and be obese.39
Children, particularly urban, lower-income and minority youth, are also influenced by the food choices in close proximity to
their schools and homes because most are unable to drive. Adolescents are increasingly likely to purchase foods.40
Fast food restaurants have been found to cluster within a short walking distance from schools41-42 and are most prevalent
in urban lower-income neighborhoods43-45 with higher proportions of Hispanic34,44,46 and African American47 students.
A study of schools in California reveals that 65 percent have a fast food restaurant within a half mile and schools in
closest proximity to a fast food restaurant are more likely to be located in urban lower-income neighborhoods and
have more Hispanic students.34
Researchers have found that schools near fast food restaurants have higher rates of student obesity. A study of ninth
graders in California found that a fast food restaurant within a tenth of a mile of a school is associated with at least
a 5.2 percent increase in obesity rates with the effect being largest among Hispanic students and female students.
This implies that students in close proximity to a fast food restaurant consume approximately 30 to 100 calories more
per school day compared with students whose schools are further away from a fast food restaurant.34 Given 3,500
calories is equal to about a pound of body fat,48 eating an extra 100 calories per school day during a 180 day school
year would result in a gain of over five pounds. Another study found that California students with fast food restaurants
within one-half mile of their schools are more likely to be overweight, consume fewer servings of fruits and vegetables,
and drink more soda than students whose schools are not near fast food restaurants.49 Moreover, fast food restaurants
near schools reduce student participation in the National School Lunch Program that provides nutritious lunches to lowerincome children50 and could lower the effectiveness of nutrition education by exposing children to highly visible food
cues that counter educational messages.51 Seventy-four percent of schools in Council Districts 8 and 9 (South LA) had
higher student body compositions (BMI) than the LAUSD average.52
12
MANUFACTURING FAST
FOOD DEMAND
The fast food industry has criticized public efforts at regulation by claiming that individuals are responsible for their
food choices and neither industry nor government has the right to tell people what they should or should not eat.
It also argues that no food by itself causes obesity and any food can be part of a balanced diet if consumed in
moderation. However, several factors contribute to fast food restaurants’ overwhelming popularity, including market
domination, targeted advertising, pricing practices, and product design, all of which encourage consumption and
none of which warn consumers about the dangers of frequent consumption. With about half of the healthcare costs
of obesity footed by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid, what would otherwise be a matter of personal choice
is a matter of public concern.53
In lower-income and racial/ethnic minority communities like South LA, fast food is often the only available dining
option. These communities tend to be marginalized and underserved by financial institutions making investment
capital difficult for small businesses to obtain. This allows fast food restaurants backed by large national corporations
to dominate commercial corridors squelching competing business before it can develop.
The fast food industry also influences individuals’ dining choices through heavy advertising that dwarfs public health
messages to eat a healthy diet. In 2009, the fast food industry spent more than $4.2 billion marketing its products on
television and other media.54 Fast food restaurants spent $294 million on marketing directly targeting children and
adolescents, and distributed $360 million worth of toys with children’s meals in 2006.55 In comparison, the budget
to promote the Federal government’s 5 A Day Campaign was only $9.55 million.56
The fast food industry’s marketing practices disproportionately target racial/ethnic minority communities. African
American children and teens see at least 50 percent more fast food television ads than their white peers. McDonald’s
and KFC specifically target African American youth, and these teens see 75 percent more television ads for McDonald’s
and KFC compared with white teens.54 A comparison of magazine ads revealed that food products advertised to
African American women differ from those advertised to the general female population. Fast food ads made up 13
percent of Essence magazine’s consumption ads, but only one percent of the ads in Cosmopolitan.57
13
The Institute of Medicine58 and World Health Foundation59 have
both stated that marketing energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods and
beverages to children increases their consumption and adversely
affects their health. The White House Task Force on Childhood
Obesity has further indicated that restaurant marketing practices
undermine the efforts of parents and other caregivers to encourage healthy eating among children and prevent obesity.60 While
some fast food restaurants have responded (McDonald’s and
Burger King) by joining the industry-sponsored Children’s Food
and Beverage Advertising Initiative pledging to limit children’s
advertising to “better-for-you” menu choices, studies have shown
that their ads do not encourage consumption of healthier choices and instead focus on toy giveaways and building brand loyalty.54 Moreover, a recent study commissioned by the
World Health Organization to assess how well Kraft Food and McDonald’s fulfilled voluntary promises to market food
to children more responsibly concluded that food companies “cannot — and will not — stop making and marketing
nutritionally questionable food products to children.”61
Fast food restaurants’ pricing practices and product design target people who are lower-income, are driven by cost
and taste more than nutrition concerns, and have limited time to prepare meals at home. Fast food restaurants are
able to sell energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods at low prices because they are cheaper than fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods.62 It is no surprise that fast food consumption is most prevalent among individuals with lower-incomes
who regard cost as an important factor in determining dining choices.25-26 These restaurants appeal to cost-conscious
consumers by offering larger portion sizes for only a small
price increase —a marketing strategy referred to as value
size pricing. Although portion sizes have increased in almost
all food categories beginning in the 1970s, the largest increase has occurred at fast food restaurants.63 In 1955, the
only available McDonald’s hamburger patty weighed 1.6
ounces. In 2006, the 1.6 ounce patty is still available along
with several larger portions, including an 8 ounce patty that
is five times larger than the original.64 Larger portions encourage people to consume larger quantities and make it
difficult for people to self-regulate what they eat.65
14
While it is unlikely anyone ever
demanded more saturated fat,
trans fat, sugar, or sodium from
a restaurant, they do make foods
taste good, an important driver of
food choice when dining out. 66-67
Individuals drawn by taste who
have a low concern for nutrition and
maintaining a healthy weight have
the highest rates of fast food consumption.26-27,66,68 In fact, concerns
about reduction in taste deter many
people from making healthier food choices at fast food restaurants,69 and this negative attitude toward healthy
foods is more common among lower-income and racial/ethnic minorities.70 Individuals who are concerned with
nutrition and have better dietary practices are less likely to dine at fast food restaurants, but do dine at sit-down
restaurants likely because they are perceived as having more healthy options.68
Fast food restaurants also employ food preparation and service methods that result in fast dining convenient for people
pressed for time or needing food “on the go.” Drive-through service and
food items in portable containers also cater to consumers who eat on
the run.71 Individuals most attracted to convenient dining are those who
lack the time or have difficulty preparing food at home. Individuals with
lower incomes often face higher costs of time preparing food at home,
which increases the incentive to dine out.72 Employment status is also a
factor, and working single-parents and dual-income households tend to
have high time costs. Many people also have difficulty preparing food at
home because they do not know how to cook, have limited mobility, or
do not have access to a kitchen. Examples include adolescents, college
students, seniors, the disabled, and the homeless. The choice to dine at
fast food restaurants is not only driven by the low cost of meals, but also
convenience (i.e., low time costs).68,71
15
REGULATING FAST FOOD
RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT
Local municipalities do not have the financial resources to counter fast food chains’ investment and marketing practices. The Institute of Medicine and National Research Council,73 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,74American
Planning Association,75 Center for Law and Public Health at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities76 and other
public health and planning professionals64,77 suggest that one way to mitigate the influence of fast food restaurants on
people’s diets and increase access to healthy foods is through zoning. By limiting the development of unhealthy fast
food restaurants and encouraging the development of healthy restaurants, zoning laws can help create an environment
that supports making healthy food choices and contributes to a reduction in the prevalence of obesity and chronic
disease.
Under the police power granted to the states in the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, states have the sole
authority to regulate private individuals in the interest of the public’s health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Like
all states, the California Constitution delegates zoning authority to local governments.78 The courts have repeatedly
upheld the validity of using the police power to enact zoning ordinances in the interest of the public’s health, and
public health has provided the strongest legal basis for zoning ordinances. While until recently, no zoning laws had
been enacted specifically to address the obesity epidemic, researchers believe a carefully crafted ordinance should
survive constitutional challenges.76,79-81
Los Angeles has a long history of employing land use regulations to achieve public health goals. However, affluent
communities have achieved more meaningful land use planning than lower-income and racial/ethnic minority
communities like South LA, exacerbating economic and racial segregation and inequality.82 South LA has only two
specific plans: the South LA Conditional Use Approval for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Specific Plan and the Crenshaw
Corridor Specific Plan (see Box 1).More meaningful planning is needed to protect residents of South LA from the
further overconcentration of uses that are detrimental to health.
16
Box 1: South LA Specific Plans
Adopted in 1987, the South LA Alcoholic Beverages Specific Plan requires establishments in portions of the three
South LA Community Plan areas that wish to dispense alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption to first obtain conditional use approval. In its decision, the City considers the number and proximity of other such establishments within
a one thousand foot radius and the proximity of residential areas, religious institutions, schools, and public parks.
The Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan, adopted in 2004, seeks to ensure the development and redevelopment of
the Crenshaw Corridor in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Community Plan area stimulate economic revitalization, address the retail needs of the community, enhance community aesthetics, and promote pedestrian activity. Uses
found incompatible with these goals are prohibited or limited. For example, drive-through fast food restaurants are
prohibited in certain areas, such as Leimert Park and Park Mesa Heights, and limited in others to a maximum of one
within a 750 foot radius of another. Bans on drive-through service can have a similar effect as a ban on fast food
restaurants because over 60 percent of fast food business is conducted by drive-through service and new fast food
restaurants may not be profitable without it.76 Signage is also limited to one window identification sign, one wall sign,
and either a projecting sign attached to a wall or a sign attached to an awning.
Communities across the country, including
several cities and towns in California, have
enacted regulations on fast food restaurants
in several different ways. These ordinances
were primarily passed to preserve the aesthetic
qualities of the community, maintain retail
diversity and promote tourism. Some also
include a public health justification, such
as preventing excess traffic congestion to
protect pedestrian safety and air and environmental quality. The City of Watsonville,
California, adopted an ordinance in October
2010 with the goal of promoting healthy eating and reducing obesity and disease. These policies are examined
below to inform the recommendations for strengthening the South LA fast food restaurant policy beyond the General
Plan Amendment.
17
1. Bans on fast food restaurants and/or drive-through service: The City of Concord, Massachusetts,
bans both fast food restaurants and drive-in service. The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce traffic congestion and
preserve and enhance the community’s aesthetic qualities. The City of Carlsbad, California, has a city-wide ban on
drive-through restaurants and other drive-through businesses, like banks, are generally permitted with a conditional
use permit. The Crenshaw Corridor in South LA also has restrictions on drive-through service as described in Box 1.
2. Bans on formula restaurants: Formula restaurants refer to restaurants similar to those located elsewhere,
such as having a common business name and logo, standardized menus, and similar interior and exterior decor. The City and
County of San Francisco prohibits all formula retail (including fast
food restaurants) in the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial
District and requires a conditional use permit in other districts.
The purpose of the ordinance is to protect the small business sector
and preserve the distinctive character of certain commercial districts.
The ordinance states that the unregulated growth of formula retail
businesses could limit or eliminate opportunities for smaller businesses
and non-traditional or unique businesses, decreasing the diversity
of goods and services and deterring visitors and tourists.
3. Limits on the total number of fast food restaurants: The City of Berkeley, California, has a quota on the number of food service establishments in the historic
Elmwood Commercial District near the University of California, Berkeley to preserve the shopping area that serves
the surrounding community and the character of the neighborhood. Elmwood is permitted three carry-out restaurants,
seven fast food restaurants and seven full-service restaurants.
4. Limits on the density of fast food restaurants: Within the City of Los Angeles, the General Plan Amendment,
which requires new stand-alone fast food restaurants to locate at least a half mile from any existing fast food restaurant,
is an example of a density regulation. Another example is the Westwood Village Specific Plan, addressing the area of
Los Angeles that surrounds the University of California, which limits the density of fast food restaurants through spacing
requirements. The total number of fast food restaurants along any public street cannot exceed a ratio of one for every
400 feet of lot frontage, except on Broxton Avenue where one fast food restaurant is permitted for every 200 feet.
The purpose of the ordinance is to preserve the area’s unique character and ensure the retail serves the needs of the
surrounding community.83
18
5.
Regulations based on distance from other uses: In 1978, the City of Detroit, Michigan, passed a zoning
ordinance that established a minimum distance of 500 feet between carry-out, fast food and drive-in restaurants and the nearest
point of an elementary, junior high or senior high school. The reasons for the zoning were concerns about truancy and school
delinquency, litter, noise, air pollution and youth exposure to marketing of unhealthy foods. Health concerns included exposure to
“highly processed, minimally nutritious foods associated with unhealthy diets and air pollution from cars associated with asthma.”
6.
Regulations based on healthy menu criteria: On October 12, 2010, the City of Watsonville, Califor-
nia, approved an ordinance requiring restaurants to offer healthy options in order to obtain a building permit as a way
of promoting healthy eating choices that reduce obesity and diseases. The Healthy Eating Ordinance uses a point
system (see Appendix 4) modeled after the City’s Green Building Ordinance that establishes minimum environmental
standards for obtaining building permits and a reward system for projects meeting specific goals. The Watsonville
ordinance requires that restaurants earn at least six out of 18 available points to obtain a permit to build or remodel.
Restaurants earning nine points are awarded a certificate; for 13 points they get a Golden Carrot Award, both of
which come with promotional benefits.
Most community members do not desire a complete ban on new fast food restaurants, and the difficulty in counting
the number of existing fast food restaurants precludes establishing a limit on the total number of fast food restaurants.
The recommendations for strengthening South LA’s fast food restaurant development policy build upon the examples
of regulations based on density, distance from other uses, and a healthy menu criteria to meet policy needs.
19
SOUTH LA SOLUTION
The City of Los Angeles must build upon and strengthen the General Plan Amendment by adopting a more comprehensive
fast food restaurant development policy for South LA and other over-concentrated areas. This policy must have the
expressly stated purpose of improving the health of the community by creating a restaurant environment that provides
consumers with access to a meal or food that is consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans when dining out.
It also should include a goal of increasing the number of healthy food outlets (like healthy restaurants, grocery stores
and farmers’ markets) relative to unhealthy food outlets (like unhealthy fast food restaurants and convenience stores).
The policy must extend to all fast food restaurants and not be limited to stand-alone establishments. The case studies
of South Figueroa Street, Crenshaw Boulevard and West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard show that the overconcentration of fast food restaurants takes place in both stand-alone developments and shopping centers/joint tenant
buildings and that these are often found next to one another. Moreover, fast food chains continued to enter the
South LA community during the ICO by locating in shopping centers and joint tenant buildings. This indicates that a
permanent policy limited to stand-alone establishments is insufficient to curtail development. Fast food restaurants in
mixed-use developments are particularly troubling because they represent the ultimate level of access for individuals
who live there.
The policy must also address over-exposure for those individuals most vulnerable to their local food environment. As
previously described, many transit stops and schools in South LA are surrounded by multiple fast food restaurants.
Research suggests the regulations on new fast food restaurants should target individuals lacking private transportation
and children by limiting development near transit stops, schools and other uses where children congregate, like
parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, and child care centers.
20
Finally, the policy must differentiate between healthy and unhealthy fast food restaurants. Demand for low-cost, tasty
and convenient foods is likely to remain strong among individuals who live and work in South LA. Having a limited
menu, no table orders and foods served in disposable wrapping and containers (the City’s definition of a fast food
restaurant) allows restaurants to lower their menu prices and increase the convenience of the dining experience.
However, these characteristics should not mean that a restaurant has to sacrifice the healthfulness and nutritional
quality of the food provided.
Many mom-and-pop, ethnic and fast casual restaurants (e.g., Panera Bread and Baja Fresh) fall under the definition
of a fast food restaurant, but offer a greater number of healthy options than conventional fast food restaurants. Fast
food chains have started adding healthy options to their menus, like salads and grilled chicken, and could step up this
effort. Industry analysts believe that offering healthier options is a trend that will likely continue to grow in the coming
years.84 Restaurants are beginning to acknowledge that when people go out to eat in groups, one person who considers
healthier eating important can sway the restaurant choice for the entire group through what the industry calls a “veto
vote.”85 While limits on new unhealthy fast food restaurants are clearly necessary, healthy fast food restaurants are
needed in South LA to meet the demand for low-cost and convenient dining options.
In addition to the six criteria for obtaining a construction permit in the General Plan Amendment, the policy
should also do the following:
1. Extend the criteria to obtain a construction permit to all fast food restaurants in South LA, not just stand-alone
establishments.
2. Add an additional criteria requiring new fast food restaurants in South LA to locate at least a half mile away from
schools, parks, playgrounds, child care centers, recreation facilities, and other children-oriented facilities.
3. Add an additional criteria requiring new fast food restaurants to locate at least 750 feet from bus, rail and
other transit stops.
4. Define a healthy restaurant using criteria based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
5. Provide an exemption from distance requirements for fast food restaurants meeting the healthy restaurant definition.
Exempting fast food restaurants that meet the healthy restaurant criteria from density and distance requirements
acknowledges that these restaurants contribute to a healthy restaurant environment and creates a zoning incentive
for these restaurants to invest in South LA by limiting competition from potential unhealthy fast food restaurants.
Additionally, the exemption could encourage new fast food restaurants to improve the healthfulness of their menus to
gain entry into the South LA market. This policy should withstand constitutional challenges. A rational and evidencebased relationship exists between limiting access to unhealthy fast food restaurants and the public health objective
of creating a better balance between access to healthy and unhealthy foods when dining out to encourage healthy
choices and reduce obesity and chronic disease (see Appendix 5).
21
DEFINING A HEALTHY
RESTAURANT
A restaurant classified as “healthy” should at a minimum provide consumers with equivalent access to purchase
meals or foods that are part of a diet consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Equivalent access means
that a restaurant’s regular menu offers an equal number of meals, main dishes, side dishes, and desserts that meet
criteria for being healthy, or half of all types of menu items meet the healthy criteria. This gives restaurants with large
and small menus flexibility. Additionally, a healthy restaurant must have at least one fat free or low fat salad dressing,
if salads are offered, and provide water free of charge.
To meet the healthy restaurant classification, the regular menu (not including specials) must offer:
1. At least 4 choices of meals OR half of all meals on the menu that are healthy
2. At least 4 choices of main dishes OR half of all main dishes on the menu that are healthy
3. At least 3 choices of side dishes OR half of all side dishes on the menu that are healthy
4. At least 1 healthy dessert
5. At least 1 fat free or low fat salad dressing (if salads are offered)
6. Water free of charge.
For a meal, main dish, side dish, or dessert to be considered healthy,
criteria are also needed that take into account nutrients to limit —
like fat, sodium and sugar — and meeting minimum requirements
for the five food groups. The following criteria are modeled after
the Federal Government’s Fruit and Vegetable Program, which sets
standards for recipes that may feature the Fruits & Veggies – More
Matters logo (based on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans’ recommendations),vi and include the updated
2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.86 They assume the average 2,000 calorie a day recommendation, which is
divided by three for meals, four for main dishes, and eight for side dishes and desserts. They also assume a maximum
intake of 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day, which is the recommendation for individuals who are over the age of
51, who are African American, or who have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.
vi
22
See Appendix 4.
The following criteria are used to define a healthy meal, main dish, side dish, or dessert:
Food Type
Total Fat vii Saturated Fat
Trans Fat
Added Sugars
Calories
Sodium
Food Groups
Combo/Meal
<35%
<10%
<0.5 grams
<15%
700
500 mg
At least 40 grams
of at least 3
different food
groups (2 being
fruits and
vegetables)
Main Dish
<35%
<10%
<0.5 grams
<15%
500
375 mg
At least 40 grams
of food from 2
food groups
Side Dish/Dessert
<35%
<10%
<0.5 grams
<15%
250
190 mg
N/A
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services. A Healthier You. US Government Printing Office. Available at: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/healthieryou/contents.htm. Accessed July 12, 2011. Page 19.
The fat naturally found in fruits and vegetables does not contribute to the limits above.
vii
In addition to meeting the requirements for offering healthy
menu options, the “healthy” classification should also be limited to restaurants that promote healthy menu items and do not
promote unhealthy menu items in signs, table tents, other displays, and promotional giveaways, particularly those targeted
at children. Pricing should also not promote unhealthy menu
items relative to healthy items, such as larger portions for a few
cents more, “all-you-can-eat” or “unlimited portions,” charging
more for a smaller versus regular portion of a dish, or charging
more if customers wish to split a meal. Restaurants that price
healthy items lower than unhealthy items should be given special consideration as price decreases — even as small as 20-30
percent — tend to have a greater effect on healthy choices compared with health messages.69 Moreover, healthy
restaurants should both train their staff to know the menu thoroughly to provide calorie information when asked
and/or identify healthy options with a sticker.
23
Using the Watsonville Healthy Eating Ordinance point system as a modelvii restaurants could be expected to meet
some, rather than all, of these additional requirements.
To be classified as healthy, a restaurant must also meet at least half of the eight criteria described below:
1. Signs, table tents and other displays highlight healthy menu items, available healthy substitutions, and if reduced-size portions are available; displays do not promote un
healthy menu items or encourage large portions.
2. Promotional giveaways, particularly those targeted at children, are only given with healthy options.
3. “Super-sized” and other forms of value size pricing for foods and beverages are not available.
4. “All-you-can-eat” or “unlimited portions” are not available.
5. Smaller portions or half portion meals are priced at a lower cost.
6. Customers are allowed to split a meal at no extra cost.
7. Staff members are trained to know the menu thoroughly, including portion sizes,
ingredients and preparation methods.
8. Calorie information is visible at the point of purchase or health option stickers are
provided on the menu.
ZONING TOOLS
The South LA fast food restaurant development policy could take the form of an update to the three South LA Community
Plans, a specific plan, an overlay zone, or other zoning regulations (see Appendix 6). A specific plan seems most
appropriate because the overconcentration of unhealthy fast food restaurants and lack of restaurants offering healthy
options is a policy issue of major concern. It also provides the long-term land use planning needed to significantly
change the South LA restaurant environment not found with an overlay zone. It is also a better and more time sensitive
way to address this pressing issue in all of South LA rather than completing three separate community plan updates.
Moreover, the South LA Alcoholic Beverages Specific Plan, Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan, and Westwood Village
Specific Plan set a precedent for using a specific plan to address an overconcentration of uses that is detrimental to
the community’s welfare. However, an effort should also be made to incorporate the underlying principles of the
proposed recommendations in the General Plan Framework at some future date.
viii
24
See Appendix 4.
SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT
INCENTIVES
Improving the South LA restaurant environment requires attracting new healthy restaurants in addition to regulating new
fast food restaurants. While limits on unhealthy fast food restaurant development are likely to encourage investment by
new healthy restaurants, the City’s efforts to market South LA to potential investors can also be improved by strengthening
the Grocery Store and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive Package in the following ways:
1. Shift the focus from sit-down restaurants to new restaurants of any type that meet the healthy restaurant definition.
2. Include additional incentives directly related to the added cost and complexity of meeting the healthy restaurant definition, such as assistance with nutritional analysis of menu items, recipe modifications
and identifying suppliers of fresh produce.
3. Develop a promotional campaign to educate the public about restaurants meeting the healthy definition and drive consumer demand.
Establishing financial incentives to supplement the additional costs of initial and continuing compliance with the
healthy restaurant guidelines is essential to encourage the development of new healthy restaurants in the community.
The costs of a comprehensive nutritional menu analysis can be burdensome for some restaurants, particularly for
smaller “mom and pop” restaurants that are not as financially secure as larger chain establishments. Many of these
smaller, locally owned restaurants do not have standardized recipes for menu items, which could make menu analysis
more labor intensive and potentially more expensive. Outcomes from similar healthy menu modification initiatives
indicate, however, that the standardization of recipes actually results in an expense reduction in the long-term, which
can help to compensate for the added expense of analysis.
25
Additionally, menu analysis costs can be supported by grants and loans provided by municipal and/or non-profit entities.
A number of community-based organizations, such as community finance and development corporations, provide loans
for new businesses to assist with the start-up costs of permitting and development. These low-interest loans can range
in quantity, and are usually enhanced through financial consulting and cost-sharing opportunities with other businesses
within the area. A pipeline between businesses applying for the healthy restaurant classification and these financial
organizations should be established to help ensure that the food environment in South Los Angeles is positively
impacted by these regulations.
Promotional campaigns for healthy restaurant
initiatives in other cities have been particularly
successful at encouraging restaurants to offer
healthy options while increasing consumer
patronage of participating restaurants and demand for the healthy selection (see Appendix 7).
An aggressive promotional campaign could be
developed in partnership with the County of Los
Angeles that includes a brand and logo; provides
participating restaurants with window signs and
promotional materials; highlights participating
restaurants in a brochure and website; and purchases
advertisements on television, radio, billboards,
and print media. The City and County could also
distribute the menus of participating restaurants to public offices, schools and organizations in South LA and encourage
them to use these restaurants to fulfill their catering needs.
In the long run, the City could make South LA more attractive to new healthy restaurants and other desirable retail by
investing in neighborhood infrastructure. Projects are already underway to develop transit-oriented shopping centers
and improve store façades. Decades without sufficient public investment mean that these types of projects are needed
throughout South LA. Investments in murals and other art and cultural projects have also been successful at catalyzing
development in other communities.87
26
IMPLEMENTATION &
MONITORING COMPLIANCE
Successfully implementing the Healthy Restaurant Incentive Program will require collaboration and coordination
between the County Department of Public Health and the City Department of Planning. The current functions of
both organizations in the permitting process would need to expand to implement and monitor the healthy restaurant
designation. Public Health should be required to evaluate restaurants’ compliance with the healthy guidelines during
the application review process to determine whether the restaurant is eligible to participate in the incentive program.
City Planning in turn would be responsible for granting designated restaurants the exemptions necessary to build in
areas typically restricted for fast food restaurants.
The City of Los Angeles has an existing Restaurant and Hospitality Express Program that helps restaurants navigate
the complicated and time-intensive permit review process. The Healthy Restaurant Incentive Program should be
integrated into the framework of this program to expedite the process and prevent protracted processing from the
additional application review requirements. A case manager from the Restaurant and Hospitality Express Program
should be designated to help restaurant owners through the permitting process described below.
Healthy Restaurant Incentive Program: Building Permit Approval Process
To qualify for the Healthy Restaurant Incentive Program, restaurants must first receive a certificate of compliance
based on an evaluation of the restaurant’s proposed menu items and corresponding nutritional content. This
certification should be conducted by any Department of Public Health-approved nutritionist with a registered dietician
degree and be based on the qualifications included in the Healthy Restaurant Guidelines.
For building permit approval, restaurant owners should submit to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning the
certificate of compliance, a completed building permit application, and a signed form under penalty of perjury that
includes the owner’s commitment to continued compliance with the Healthy Restaurant Guidelines. After approval is
granted by City Planning, the restaurant must continue to undergo the standard building permit review process, which
includes receiving site plan approval from the Environmental Health Division of the Los Angeles Department of Public
Health. Once the standard application approvals have been granted, a Certificate of Occupancy will be given to the
restaurant owner, which would allow the restaurant to finally open its doors to the public.
27
In order to ensure continuing compliance, City Planning should conduct a compliance monitoring evaluation one
year from the Certificate of Occupancy issuance date. This evaluation will require the restaurant owner to resubmit
the menu for verification that the food items certified in the previous year’s evaluation continue to be served at the
restaurant. If a restaurant no longer serves the certified menu items, the new menu items must be certified and verification submitted to Planning.
The restaurant owner must also provide verification that the restaurant has successfully implemented 3 of the 8 additional Healthy Restaurant Incentive requirements indicated in the initial program application. If these qualifications
are verified and approved by City Planning, a Letter of Continuing Compliance will be issued to the restaurant owner.
City Planning will conduct re-evaluations on an annual basis, and the Department of Public Health will also conduct
“spot checks” on randomly selected restaurants in the program to monitor continued compliance throughout the year.
Restaurants lacking current certifications will be deemed noncompliant and will be subject to significant financial
penalties. The penalties should be substantial enough to induce the non-complaint restaurants to make changes to
re-align with the healthy restaurant guidelines and include a significant weekly penalty while not in compliance. If the
restaurant remains out of compliance for an entire year, a fee equivalent to the City’s cost of granting the exemption
should be charged in addition to the weekly fees.
28
PREVENTING UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES
Finally, the City should ensure that these
and other policies do not unintentionally
increase
food
insecurity,
particularly
among the most vulnerable populations.
For example, the City should monitor the
number and location of restaurants that
accept food stamps and food insecurity
among low-income households. Individuals
who are elderly, disabled and homeless
are able to use food stamps at restaurants
under the Restaurant Meals programs.
Only a limited number of restaurants accept
food stamps, and the majority are fast
food restaurants. The City should ensure
policies do not reduce access to restaurants accepting food stamps and encourage more restaurants, particularly
healthy fast food restaurants, to accept them.
As with all development efforts, the City should also monitor potential displacement. Establishing new healthy restaurants
could lead to higher rents, displaced locally-owned businesses and reduced affordable housing for lower-income
families. If this occurs, the City should strengthen eviction and vacancy controls and target small business development
and homeownership assistance to residents at risk for potential displacement.
29
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of fast food restaurants in South LA and other urban,
lower-income and racial/ethnic minority communities across the
country combined with the lack of access to healthy foods contributes
to an overwhelmingly disproportionate incidence of obesity and
diet-related chronic disease compared with more affluent and
predominantly white neighborhoods. These communities are often
further disadvantaged by lacking adequate healthcare and education,
compounding the effects of a poor food resource environment. The
burden of obesity and diet-related chronic disease is borne by families,
their communities, and local and state governments as a result of
lost productivity and premature death.
Many factors contribute to the increase in obesity and diet-related
chronic disease — including poverty, lack of opportunities for physical
activity, inadequate healthcare, lack of nutrition education, and limited
health literacy — and no single step will solve these complex and
multi-faceted epidemics. However, doing nothing or refusing to
acknowledge the consequences of an overconcentration of unhealthy fast food restaurants will magnify their role in encouraging
obesity and disease. We must work to create a food environment in
South LA where healthy foods are accessible and messages that support
health are common.
30
APPENDICES
31
25
APPENDIX 1
South Figueroa Street Between West 27th Street and West 31st Street
1
Appendix
South Figueroa Street Between West 27 th Street and West 31 st
Street
32
!"##$%&'()*+,-'.)!"$%/&-0)
)
!
"##$%&'(!)!
)
12)
APPENDIX 2
Crenshaw Boulevard Between West Adams Boulevard and West 29th Street
!
*+$%,-./!0123$4.+&!0$5/$$%!6$,5!"&.7,!0123$4.+&!.%&!6$,5!)85-!95+$$5!
33
27
APPENDIX 3
Manual Arts High School
Appendix 3
Manual Arts High School
34
APPENDIX 4
Watsonville Healthy Eating Ordinance Points System
Points are earned by providing the following:
Points
At least four choices of fruits or vegetables prepared in a low fat way
2
Fruits or vegetables as a substitute for less healthy side dishes such as fries
1
At least one fat free or low fat salad dressing
1
Skim or 1% milk
1
Water free of charge
2
Whole grain bread instead of white bread or a no-bread option
1
Meat, fish, poultry, or meat alternative with visible fat removed and prepared in a low fat way such as broiling, baking, poaching, roasting,
steaming, or stir frying
2
At least one vegetarian dish not exceeding 500 calories
1
Butter, margarine, sour cream, salad dressing, or mayonnaise on the side or not at all
1
Smaller portions or half portion meals at a lower cost and allowing customers to split a meal
1
Training for staff members about knowing the menu thoroughly, including portion sizes, ingredients and preparation methods
1
Calorie information visible at the point of purchase or provide healthier option stickers on the menu
2
Corn tortillas instead of flour tortillas
1
Whole beans instead of refried beans
1
Source: Watsonville, Cal., Council File 101210 (2010). Available at: http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/agendas/101210CC_6.2d_101210.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2011.
TOTAL POINTS
18
National Fruit and Vegetable Program: Criteria for Recipes that May Feature the Fruits & Veggies
For meals, main dishes and sides:
Each serving of food must contain at least one serving of fruit or vegetable per 250 calories
Each serving of food must contain limited amounts of added sugars or caloric sweeteners
1. Added sugars cannot exceed 15% of total calories
2. Concentrated fruit juice sweeteners, jams, and jellies count as added sugars
Each serving of food must contain limited amounts of fat
1. Total fat < 35% of total calories
2. Saturated fat is < 10% of calories
3. Trans fat is < 0.5g per serving
4. The fat found naturally in fruits and vegetables does not contribute to the limits above.
Further ¼oz. of nuts is allowed per serving without their fat content contributing to these
restrictions. Nuts must be in their natural form without anything added or removed
(e.g., no added oils, removed oils, added sodium, or added sugars)
Each serving of food must contain ≤ 600mg of sodium per serving
Each serving of food must offer ≥ 0.014g/kcal naturally occurring fiber (28g of fiber/2000 calories)
For meals:
A meal product is defined as a food that makes a major contribution to the total diet by:
1. Weighing at least 10oz. per labeled serving
2. Containing not less than 40g for each of at least 3 different foods from 2 or more of the following (5) food groups:
a. bread, cereal, rice, and pasta group
e. meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts group
b. fruit group
c. vegetable group
d. milk, yogurt and cheese group
For main dishes:
A main dish product is defined as a food that makes a major contribution to a meal by:
1. Weighing at least 6oz. per labeled serving
2. Containing not less than 40g of foods from 2 of the 5 food groups noted above
Source: “About the National Fruit and Vegetable Program: Program Guidelines.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at
http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/health_professionals/program_guidelines.html. Accessed October 19, 2010.
35
APPENDIX 5
Potential Constitutional Challenges
The possibility of a constitutional challenge is very real and would likely be based on the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment assures
citizens that no state can deprive them of fundamental rights and allows people to challenge government acts that
are discriminatory. A challenge to a fast food restaurant zoning ordinance based on Equal Protection grounds would
likely be analyzed under the rational basis standard, which requires the legislation to have a rational relationship to
a legitimate governmental purpose of promoting the public’s health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Restricting
the issuance of permits to new fast food restaurants that do not meet standards for providing healthy options should
pass constitutional muster because there is ample evidence of the link between fast food restaurants and obesity and
chronic disease.76,81
The Dormant Commerce Clause prevents state and local laws from placing too great a burden on interstate commerce
because its regulation falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. State and local laws can be invalidated
even in areas where federal law does not exist, such as zoning of particular areas to preclude certain businesses.
An unhealthy fast food restaurant ban would not distinguish between intra- and inter-state commerce or restrict new
permits to California-based businesses. All unhealthy fast food restaurants, originating both within and outside California,
would be treated the same. Since most fast food restaurants are part of national and even international chains, a
ban could greatly impact interstate commerce. In this case, the courts would weigh whether the economic burden
imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the predicted benefits to the health and safety of South LA
residents. Considering the oversaturation of fast food restaurants in South LA, the fast food industry has clearly not
been shut out of the market. The ban also impacts locals in the fast food industry just as much as national and
international chains. Given this and the extent and nature of the local benefits, the ban would likely survive a Dormant
Commerce Clause attack.79,81
36
APPENDIX 6
Land Use Planning Tools
General plan: a City-wide blueprint for future development consisting of the goals and policies used by policymakers
to determine their land use decisions.
Community plan: a portion of the general plan focusing on a designated community and the issues relevant to that
community (a community plan supplements the policies of the general plan).
Specific plan: a plan for the systematic implementation of the general plan developed in response to one or more
policy issues and encompassing a contiguous area of any size; it can be as general as establishing broad policy
concepts or as detailed as directing every facet of development (it is not technically part of the general plan, but must
be consistent with the general plan).
Zoning regulations: laws that spell out the immediate allowable uses for each parcel of land and standards such as
lot sizes, building heights and setbacks; they can take the form of the following zoning techniques:
• Conditional zoning: an area of land is zoned for a broad category of uses (e.g, commercially), but under the condition that only specific new uses are allowed or that certain uses (that would otherwise be allowed) are prohibited.
• Incentive zoning: the construction of certain uses are encouraged by establishing predetermined trade-
offs between things the zoning code does not permit (e.g., building above height restrictions) in return for things the zoning code does not require (e.g., creating a mixed-use building).
• Performance zoning: specific standards that anyone who uses the land must meet (e.g., standards for pollution or noise levels) which can be implemented independently or as a supplement to use restrictions.
• Overlay zone: a set of zoning requirements that is superimposed upon existing zoning regulations to further regulate development in an area of special concern, such as commercial corridors, historical areas and environmentally sensitive areas, and has been used to encourage or discourage certain types of development.
37
APPENDIX 7
Encouraging Restaurants to Offer Healthy Meals
Smart Meal Colorado: The Colorado Department of Public Health’s Colorado Physical Activity and Nutrition
Program established the Smart Meal Colorado initiative to highlight healthy menu items at restaurants. To participate,
restaurants must offer at least two meals that qualify for a Smart Meal Seal. An independent service analyzes meals
for meeting minimum servings of beans, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables and maximum amounts of calories,
fat, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium for a discounted rate of approximately $90 per meal. The initiative has been
successful at increasing purchases of healthy meals and decreasing purchases of soft drinks, fries, and desserts. As of
2009, 20 restaurants with 200 locations were participating, including over 100 McDonald’s, which see promotion
and being viewed as a community leader as key benefits to participation.88
Shape Up Somerville Restaurant Initiative: In Somerville, Massachusetts, Tufts University sought to improve the
availability of healthy options at local, family-friendly restaurants and sandwich shops. Chain restaurants, including
fast food, were not recruited because local franchises need corporate level approval to participate and make menu
changes. The initiative developed participation criteria based on interviews with restaurant owners that indicated
the criteria must be straightforward, clearly discriminate between restaurants that are and are not offering healthy
choices, specify that calories be reduced, and provide visibility and brand awareness for the initiative. The nutritional
criteria were limited to offering some entrees as smaller-size portions, making fruits and/or vegetables available as
a side dish in place of fries or chips, and offering low-fat or nonfat dairy products (Asian restaurants were exempted
from this requirement for cultural reasons).
Similar to Smart Meal Colorado, publicity was a strong incentive for participation, as was the perception of caring
about the community. Restaurant owners’ lack of time and concerns about revenue loss were the biggest barriers to
program participation. Cultural acceptability of the menu changes was also an issue and flexibility of the criteria
allowed a large number of ethnic restaurants to participate. Researchers indicated that the initiative could have been
more successful had it included someone with restaurant experience to assist with recruitment.
Winner’s Circle is a healthy dining partnership between North Carolina Prevention Partners and local communities,
restaurants, schools, worksites, and other food service providers. The program uses a logo to identify healthy foods
at participating eating establishments. Similar to Smart Meal Colorado, foods that bear the Winner’s Circle logo
must meet strict nutritional standards, including minimum servings of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, or beans, and
maximum amounts of calories, sodium, fat, saturated fat, trans fat, and sugar. However, the program is not limited to
identifying healthier meals, but also promotes healthier side items, snacks and beverages (e.g., water, flavored water,
non- or low-fat milk or soy milk, 100% real fruit juice).
38
END NOTES
1. Los Angeles, Cal., Ordinance 180103 (2008).
14. Baker EA, Schootman M, Barnidge E, Kelly C. The role of race
25. Paeratakul S, Ferdinand DP, Champagne CM, Ryan DH, Bray
and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to
GA. Fast-food consumption among US adults and children: dietary
2. Lewis LB, Sloane DC, Miller Nascimiento L, Diamante AL, Jones
dietary guidelines. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2006. Available at
and nutrient intake profile. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
Guinyard J, Yancey AK, Flynn G. African American’s access to
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jul/05_0217.htm. Accessed
tion. 2003;103:1332-1338.
healthy food options in South Los Angeles restaurants. American
November 5, 2010.
26. French SA, Harnack L, Jeffery RW. Fast food restaurant use
Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:668-673.
3. Sloane DC, Diamant AL, Lewis LB, Yancey AK, Flynn G, Nascimento LM, McCarthy WJ, Guinyard JJ, Cousineau MR. Improving the nutritional resource environment for healthy living through
community-based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2003;18:568-575.
4. Sloane D, Nascimento L, Flynn G, Lewis L, Guinyard JJ, Galloway-Gilliam L, Diamant A, Yancey A. Assessing resource environments to target prevention interventions in community chronic disease control. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved.
15. Block JP, Scribner RA, DeSalvo KB. Fast food, race/ethnicity,
and income: a geographic analysis. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 2004;27:211-217.
16. Powell LM, Han E, Chaloupka FJ. Economic contextual factors,
food consumption, and obesity among U.S. adolescents. Journal of
Nutrition. 2010;140:1174-1180.
among women in the Pound of Prevention study: dietary, behavioral and demographic correlates. International Journal of Obesity.
2000;24:1368-1359.
27. French SA, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D, Fulkerson JA, Hannan P. Fast food restaurant use among adolescents: associations
with nutrient intake, food choices and behavioral and psychosocial
variables. International Journal of Obesity. 2001;25:1823-1833.
17. Sturm R, Cohen DA. Zoning for health? The year-old
ban on new fast-food restaurants in South LA. Health Affairs.
2006;17:146-159.
2009;28:w1088-w1097.
5. City of Los Angeles, Cal., Council File 09-3063.
18. Misako Azuma A, Gilliland S, Vallianatos M, Gottlieb R. Food
28. Satia JA, Galanko JA, Siega-Riz AM. Eating at fast-food restaurants is associated with dietary intake, demographic, psychosocial
and behavioral factors among African Americans in North Carolina.
Public Health Nutrition. 2004;7:1089-1096.
access, availability, and affordability in 3 Los Angeles communities,
29. Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CA, et al. Fast-food habits,
6. Los Angeles City Planning Department. Recommendation Report
Project CAFÉ, 2004-2006. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2010;7.
weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year pro-
to the City Planning Commission, Case No. CPC-2010-2268-GPA.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/mar/08_0232.
spective analysis. Lancet. 2005;365:36–42.
October 14, 2010.
htm. Accessed October 15, 2010.
7. Los Angeles, Cal., Council File 07-1658-S1 (2009) and 07-
19. Food Access in Central and South Los Angeles: Mapping Injus-
1658-S2 (2010).
tice, Agenda for Action. Center for Food & Justice, Urban & Envi-
30. Rice S, McAllister EJ, Dhurandhar NV. Fast food: friendly? Inter-
8. City of Los Angeles Council File 10-1843 public comment submitted December 6, 2010. Available at http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-1843.
Accessed December 10, 2010.
9. Tootelian DH. McDonald’s Economic Impact with Rebuilding
and Reimaging its Restaurants in Southern Los Angeles, California.
2010.
10. City of Los Angeles Council File 10-1843 public comment submitted December 6, 1010. Available at http://
31. Stender S, Dyerberg J, Astrup A. Fast food: unfriendly and un-
ronmental Policy Institute, Occidental College. 2007.
healthy. International Journal of Obesity. 2007;31:887-890.
20. Fine H. Still no room for fast food: South LA likely to keep
new-eatery ban. Los Angeles Business Journal. September 6,
2010. Available at http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2010/
sep/06/still-no-room-fast-food/. Accessed November 8, 2010.
21. Key Indicators of Health by Service Planning Area. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health – June 2009. Available at
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/docs/keyindicators.pdf.
Ac-
cessed November 8, 2010.
cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.
viewrecord&cfnumber=10-1843. Accessed December 10, 2010.
national Journal of Obesity. 2007;31:884-886.
32. Rosenheck R. Fast food consumption and increased caloric
intake: a systematic review of a trajectory towards weight gain and
obesity risk. Obesity Reviews. 2008;9:535-547.
33. Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding portion
sizes to the US obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health.
2002;92:246-249.
34. Currie J, DellaVigna S, Moretti E, Pathania V. The effect of fast
food restaurants on obesity. National Bureau of Economic Research
22. Preventable Hospitalizations in California: Statewide and
Working Paper No. 14721. 2009.
County Trends in Access to and Quality of Outpatient Care, Mea-
11. Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. The medical care costs of obesity:
sured with Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs), 1999-2008. Office
35. Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Stefen LM, Jacobs Jr DR, Popkin
an instrumental variables approach. National Bureau of Economic
of Statewide Health Planning and Development. 2010. Available
BM. Regular consumption from fast food establishments relative to
Statistics Working Paper No. 16467. 2010.
at:
other restaurants is differentially associated with metabolic outcomes
http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/hid/products/preventable_hospital-
izations/pdfs/PH_REPORT_WEB.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2011.
in young adults. Journal of Nutrition. 2009;139:2113-2118.
12. Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. Neighborhood
characteristics associated with the location of food stores and
23. Bowman SA, Vinyard BT. Fast food consumption of U.S. adults:
36. Binkley JK. Calorie and gram differences between meals at fast
food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. Jour-
food and table service restaurants. Review of Agricultural Econom-
2002;22:23-29.
nal of the American College of Nutrition. 2004;2:163-168.
ics. 2008;30:750-763.
13. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Israel BA, James SA, Bao S, Wilson ML.
Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the
spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:660-667.
24. Bowman SA, Gortmaker SL, Ebbeling CA, Pereira MA, Ludwig DS. Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet
quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics.
2004;113:112–118.
37. Designed for Disease: The Link Between Local Food Environments and Obesity and Diabetes. California Center for Public Health
Advocacy, PolicyLink, and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. April 2008.
38. Inagami S, Cohen DA, Brown AF, Asch SM. Body mass index,
55. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing food to children and
73. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Local
neighborhood fast food and restaurant concentration, and car owner-
adolescents: A review of industry expenditures, activities, and self-
Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington,
ship. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of
regulation. A report to Congress. 2008. Available at http://www.ftc.
DC: National Academies Press. 2009. Available at http://www.nap.
Medicine. 2009;86:683-695.
gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf. Accessed Novem-
edu/catalog.php?record_id=12674.
ber 9, 2010.
39. Li F, Harmer P, Cardinal BJ, Bosworth M, Johnson-Shelton D.
74. Public Health Law Program, Centers for Disease Control and
Obesity and the built environment: does the density of neighborhood
56. Out of Balance: Marketing of Soda, Candy, Snacks and Fast
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Se-
fast-food outlets matter? American Journal of Health Promotion.
Foods Drowns Out Healthful Messages. California Pan Ethnic Health
lected legal and policy resources on public health winnable battles.
2009;23:203-209.
Network, Consumers Union. 2005.
2010. Available at http://www2.cdc.gov/phlp/winnable/index.asp.
40. Neumark-Sztainer D, French SA, Hannan PJ, Story M, Fulkerson
57. Godbold Kean L, Prividera LC. Communicating about race and
JA. School lunch and snacking patterns among high school students:
health: a content analysis of print advertisements in African Ameri-
75. American Planning Association. Policy guide on community and
associations with school food environment and policies. International
can and general readership magazines. Health Communication.
regional food planning. Adopted May 11, 2007.Available at http://
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2005;2.
2007;21:289-297.
www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/food.htm.Accessed No-
41. Austin SB, Melly SJ, Sanchez BN, Patel A, Buka S, Gortmaker SL.
58. Institute of Medicine. Food marketing to children and youth:
Clustering of fast-food restaurants around schools: a novel applica-
threat or opportunity? National Academy of Sciences. 2006.
Accessed November 10, 2010.
vember 10, 2010.
Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:1575-1581.
59. World Health Organization. Marketing of food and non-alco-
and the Public’s Health, John Hopkins University and Georgetown
holic beverages to children. 2006.
University. 2005. Available at http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Zon-
42. Zenk SN, Powell LM. US secondary schools and food outlets.
ing%20Fast%20Food%20Outlets.pdf. Accessed November 10,
60. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. Solving the
Health & Place. 2008;14:336-346.
76. Mair JS, Pierce MW, Teret SP. The use of zoning to restrict fast
food outlets: a potential strategy to combat obesity. Center for Law
tion of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. American
2010.
problem of childhood obesity within a generation.2010. Available
43. Kestens Y, Daniel M. Social inequalities in food exposure around
at from www.letsmove.gov/tfco_fullreport_may2010.pdf. Accessed
77. National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood
schools in an urban area. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
November 9, 2010.
Obesity. Model Healthy Food Zone Ordinance. Public Health Law
2010;39:33-40.
& Policy. Available at: http://www.nplanonline.org/nplan/products/
61. Lewin A, Lindstrom L, Nestle M. Food industry promises to ad-
model-healthy-food-zone-ordinance.
44. Neckerman, KM, Bader MDM, Richards CA, Purciel M, Quinn
dress childhood obesity: preliminary evaluation. Journal of Public
2010.
JW, Simon Thomas J, Warbelow C, Weiss CC, Lovasi GS, Rundle A.
Health Policy. 2006;27:327-348.
45. Zenk SN, Powell LM. US secondary schools and food outlets.
November
10,
78. California. Constitution art XI, § 7.
Disparities in the food environments of New York City public schools.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010;39:195-202.
Accessed
62. Monsivais P, Drewnowski A. The rising cost of low-energydensity foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
79. Davis JS. Fast food, zoning, and the dormant commerce clause:
2007;107:2071-2076.
was it something I ate? Environmental Affairs. 2008;35:259-288.
Health & Place. 2008;14:336-346.
63. Nieelsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion
80. Ashe M, Jernigan D, Kline R, Galaz R. Land use planning and
46. Sturm R. Disparities in the food environment surrounding US
sizes, 1977-1998. Journal of the American Medical Association.
the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants.
middle and high schools. Public Health. 2008;122:681-690.
2003;289:450-453.
American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:1404-1408.
47. Kwate NOA, MengLoh J. Separate and unequal: the influence of
64. Dinour L, Fuenes L, Freudenberg N. Reversing Obesity in New
81. Creighton R. Cheeseburgers, race and paternalism. Journal of
neighborhood and school characteristics on spatial proximity between
York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility
Legal Medicine. 2009;30:249-267.
fast food and schools. Preventive Medicine. 2010;51:153-156.
of Unhealthy Food. City University of New York Campaign against
Diabetes and Public Health Association of New York City. 2008.
48. US Department of Health and Human Services. A Healthier You.
US Government Printing Office. Available at: http://www.health.gov/
65. French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW. Environmental influences
dietaryguidelines/dga2005/healthieryou/contents.htm.
on eating and physical activity. Annual Review of Public Health.
Accessed
January 2, 2011. Page 19.
82. Beach BS. Strategies and lessons from the Los Angeles community benefits experience. Journal of Affordable Housing. Fall 2007/
2001;22:309-335.
Winter 2008;17:77-112.
83. Westwood Village Specific Plan, Westwood Village, Los Angeles, California. Available at:
49. Davis B, Carpenter C. Proximity of fast-food restaurants to
66. DiPietro RB, Roseman M, Ashley R. A study of consumers’ re-
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/sparea/wwdvil-
schools and adolescent obesity. American Journal of Public Health.
sponse to quick service restaurants’ healthy menu items: attitudes ver-
lagepage.htm. Accessed November 10, 2010.
2009;99:505-510.
sus behaviors. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. 2004;7:5977.
50. Mirtcheva DM, Powell LM. Participation in the National School
Lunch Program: importance of school-level and neighborhood con-
67. Lucan SC, Barg FK, Long JA. Promoters and barriers to fruit,
textual factors. Journal of School Health. 2009;79:485-494.
vegetable, and fast-food consumption among urban, low-income Af-
51. Walton P, Pearce J, Day P. Examining the interaction between food
brief_201010.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2010.
rican Americans—a qualitative approach. American Journal of Public
85. Glanz K, Resnicow K, Seymour J, Hoy K, Stewart H, Lyons M,
Health. 2010;100:631-635.
Goldberg J. How major restaurant chains plan their menus: the role
outlets and outdoor food advertisements with primary school food
environments. Health & Place. 2009;15:811-818.
84. Market Briefing. Technomic. October 2010. Available at
http://www.technomic.com/_files/Newsletters/Marketbrief/Market-
of profit, demand, and health. American Journal of Preventive Medi-
68. Binkley JK. The effect of demographic, economic, and nutrition
cine. 2007;32:383-388.
factors on the frequency of food away from home. Journal of Con-
52. California Department of Education, Statewide Assessment Divi-
sumer Affairs. 2006;40:372-391.
sion. 2009-2010 California Physical Fitness Report.
86. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health
and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010. Avail-
69. Battle Horgen K, Brownell KD. Comparison of price change
able at: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.
53. Kuchler F, Golan E, Variyam JN, Crutchfield SR. Obesity policy
and health message interventions in promoting healthy food choices.
htm. Accessed March 7, 2011.
and the law of unintended consequences. Amber Waves, US Depart-
Health Psychology. 2002;21:505-512.
87. Phillips R. Artful business: using the arts for community econom-
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2005;3:26-33.
Available
at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June05/Fea-
tures/ObesityPolicy.htm. Accessed January 2, 2011.
70. Acharya RN, Patterson PM, Hill EP, Schmitz TG, Bohm E. An
ic development. Community Development Journal. 2010;45:474-
evaluation of the “TrEAT Yourself Well” restaurant nutrition campaign.
493.
Health Education & Behavior. 2006;33:309-324.
54. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, Sada V, Ustjanauska A,
88. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
Javadizadeh J, Weinberg M, Munsell C, Speers S, Bukofzer E, Cheyne
71. Kennon LR, Reynolds JS. A study of factors influencing parental
Colorado Physical Activity and Nutrition Program. Colorado’s Smart
A, Gonzalez P, Rechetnyak J, Agnew H, Ohri-Vachaspati P. Fast Food
patronage of quick service restaurants. Journal of Restaurant and
Meal Restaurant Program. Available at: www.smartmealcolorado.
FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth. Rudd
Foodservice Marketing. 2001;4:113-122.
com/home.aspx. Accessed November 17, 2010.
Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University. 2010. Available
at http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.
72. Davis GC, You W. The time cost of food at home: general and
pdf. Accessed November 9, 2010.
food stamp participant profiles. Applied Economics. 2010;42:25372552.
3731 Stocker - Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90008
(323) 295-9372
Fax: (323) 295-9467
www.chc-inc.org

Fast Food Restaurant Report

Transcription

Similar documents

San Francisco Chronicle "Bay Area`s Top 100 Restaurants"

DB Phase I - EatAtPR

Please Print this Coupon and bring it to the Restaurant.

UL Everclean - San Fernando Business Journal_Article

To Whom It May Concern: Peppino`s Italian Family Restaurants were

2015 Investor Review - Meritage Hospitality Group

to see the full size map

Market Plan

Rao`s Restaurant Los Angeles LA CA Reviews | Gayot

How fast food has adapted in some places