Blackspot Blog

Ban Fast Food Near Schools

A recent study correlates the proximity of fast food to schools with the obesity of students.
Ban Fast Food Near Schools

I was recently driving past a public high school during its lunch break when I witnessed a troubling sight. A hungry horde of teens was streaming out the doors of the school and looking for a place to eat. A quick glance about the area revealed their limited options: a McDonald's across the street or a Taco Bell a block further away. If those two options didn't appeal, there was always the local convenience store with frozen microwavable options. I wondered about the long-term consequences of allowing a fast food “restaurant” to open within walking distance of a school. Now, thanks to the work of economists at the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University, we have scientific evidence that fast food near schools results in student obesity. Could these findings be the beginning of a movement to ban fast food near our children's schools?

Sometimes it takes a detailed scientific study to prove what we already knew. This eight-year study looked at the weight of over three million school children and a million pregnant women. The researchers concluded that “among 9th grade children, 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 rate” and for pregnant women “a fast food restaurant within a half mile of her residence results in a 2.5 percent increase in the probability of gaining over 20 kilos.” (full study results)

What is interesting about this study is that it provides culture jammers with a concrete, reasonable and accomplishable goal for improving the health of children. As the researchers point out, there is no discernible effect on obesity when the fast food restaurants are located further than 1/4 miles from the school entrance. We could see a substantial decrease in childhood obesity by simply moving fast food restaurants a mere 400 meters from schools.

There is historical precedent for this type of campaign. Anti-noise activists inspired by Theodor Lessing around the turn of the 20th century, for example, were successful in introducing clauses into city ordinances that require quiet within a certain distance of schools and hospitals. These laws continue to persist in the books in many cities across the States (including my own state, New York). In the States there is also a mandated “Drug Free Zone” around schools. And, according to the Los Angeles Times, LA already “has a one-year moratorium on new fast-food outlets in a 32-square-mile area of South LA.” (source)

A few vocal citizens in communities across the world can immediately decrease childhood obesity simply by stating the obvious: kids need healthy food. We can launch a movement for “Healthy Food Zones” within 400 meters of all schools. In these areas, only local restaurants that provide healthy options to children and students will be tolerated.

Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He is writing a book on the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

All Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, let us ban everything

by Brad Richert on May 31 2009, @07:37 pm Yes, let us ban everything that leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. That way we won't have to think for ourselves. That way we can have just another empire where the elites can tell us what is good for us and what isn't. When Adbusters starts spouting this sewage we know any form of constructive anarchism is truly dead.

Your reply is an example of

by Eddie Sullivan on June 01 2009, @05:41 am Your reply is an example of a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy. The article is not calling for a ban on everything that leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. It is calling for more control over the lifestyle of schoolchildren, who are easily exploited (in this case by fast food outlets near their schools.) If you're an adult, and want to be fat and smoke- good luck to you. But it is one of the imperatives of being an adult that we hold up a model for citizenship and good health habits for children even if we do not follow them ourselves. Cleaning up the diets of children at least offers them the choice in adulthood of either following a healthy lifestyle or an unhealthy one. If all they have are unhealthy choices, they are robbed of one choice- the healthy one. Banning fast food restaurants in close proximity to schools and fast food style school lunches actually grants the growing school-age child *more* freedom in adulthood. There is no shortage of information available to schoolchildren about unhealthy lifestyles, at least we can give them a fighting chance to pursue a healthy lifestyle *if they want to* as adults. I did not need a McDonald's close to my high school as a child to know where one is as an adult, I was not robbed of any freedom. As it turns out, as an adult, I still have bad food habits I strive to clean up. But I actively can make health choices because *I know how to.* And it is 'elitist' of McDonald's and other fast food companies to not consider the wishes and health of the communities they serve. It is an elitist attitude to rape communities of billions in profits and their good health simultaneously while placing a strain on small independent business- the backbone of this country. It is not 'elitist' of any American to want to regulate this.

Funny, because when I was

by Anonymous on July 05 2009, @03:38 am Funny, because when I was growing up we ate fast food and weren't fat. I think it has something to do with lifestyle choices.

The way to deal with obesity

by Anonymous on May 29 2009, @05:14 am The way to deal with obesity is to use your legs more often... ...exercise!

The answers are simple, and

by paint on May 27 2009, @12:20 pm The answers are simple, and we all know what they are. They are deep inside of us, they can't be thought because they are not thoughts, they can't be written down or spoken because there are no words to describe them, but they are part of all of us... What is it about humans that makes us enjoy squabbling instead of just doing what needs to be done?.... Why must we pick a side? Is it to strengthen our sense of self? There is only one true solution, and it's the same solution to every problem on earth, but people can't be taught it, they have to grow to understand it, and we will,(hopefully) because we are doomed as a species if we do not.

“What is it about humans

by Other Matt on May 28 2009, @05:15 am "What is it about humans that makes us enjoy squabbling instead of just doing what needs to be done?…. " It's caused by the fact that despite your pronouncement that "The answers are simple, and we all know what they are. They are deep inside of us" there are multiple ideas about what to do, all of varying degrees of validity,

“Cooking DOES NOT increase

by An Earthling on May 21 2009, @06:10 am "Cooking DOES NOT increase digestibility of foods. The more a food needs cooking, the further it compromises health: a prime indicator it is NOT one that you are biologically adapted to. This means you should not be consuming it as a major component of your diet. Our society however, is centered round a cooked food lifestyle. You can still enjoy cooked foods and be healthy to some degree. If you eat cooked foods, practice proper food combining. Food combining allows your digestion to operate smoothly, without food fermenting or putrefying in your digestive tract. Aim for a minimum of 85% raw food of mostly fresh produce. Use transitional cooked food recipes. Enjoy your food, including your cooked food. But don't kid yourself. You will NOT achieve optimal wellness unless you consume a "Clean--Burning Fresh Produce Diet". It seems that society is wrong even at this basic level. I was taught at school that cooking helps digestion. May be it is just a coincidence or may be the humans are deliberately kept at extremely low energy levels to eliminate the possibility of dissent.

“May be it is just a

by Anonymous on May 22 2009, @10:21 am "May be it is just a coincidence or may be the humans are deliberately kept at extremely low energy levels to eliminate the possibility of dissent." Or it could be that is just rank nonsense and would entail a conspiracy to suppress humanity going back almost to the dawn of mankind like answers 1.9 million years ago. The glorious thing about knowing history is that you learn people, in doubt a rip-saw like fashion, have gotten better and better over time.

Ha,ha! You got me there. I

by An Earthling on May 28 2009, @03:34 am Ha,ha! You got me there. I am not sure if DNA sequencing can trace the Bushes and the Rockfellers that far back but quite agree with you that over the millions of years the great apes have become more interesting a conversation companion. And, yes, I am not 100% sure myself, yet, that all of the cooking procedures are downright harmful. I am still researching. What I mean is that anthropologists are not in agreement about the dates hominids first became obligatory fire users. It must have been even earlier but unanimously agreed that - "Evidence for the regular and recurrent use of caves by hominids appears in the fossil record 400-350 thousand years ago." Cooking raw foods has been going long enough for our and Neanderthal molars do reduce in size but still our digestive tract has been evolving for millions of years as you have pointed out yourself. And we are better evolved to be herbivores rather than carnivores.(very long intestines compared to body size) To be an omnivore like pigs and bears is an evolutionary advantage so we may not die out in the absence of one particular diet. But the factory "food" with all the chemicals is definitely a poison to our organic system.

http://radiantonraw.typepad.c

by An Earthling on May 21 2009, @03:20 am http://radiantonraw.typepad.com/alina/2009/04/paul-nisons-advice-on-eating-healthy-and-going-raw.html actually most of the food that is culturally accepted is bad for your body but there is just too much energy involved in the production and soliciting of such waste for the majority to wake up

Though the fast food

by Avery Campbell on May 19 2009, @10:04 am Though the fast food industry is not helping the child obesity problem by any regard, the issue is not making kids walk a little further to serve their appetite- they'll such munch down another shiny Big Mac to satiate the extra calories spent walking. What needs to be done is an increase in nutritional education. I'm in grade eleven at a Canadian high school, which is surround by a McDonalds, Starbucks, Tim Hortons, and Burger King, all of which are negative options. But aside from the obviously vile choices, we have an all organic bakery, fresh home-style pizza shop, and more than a dozen independent cafes within the same perimeter of their fast-food brethren. Alas, these places receive a significantly smaller student demographic for two reasons. Firstly, their food may be equally priced, but to the average fellow, a juicy “burger” is much more appetizing than a tofu salad. Secondly, us teenagers have the belief that we're invincible, and our current nutritional choices bear no effect into our future. The answer to our problems as stated above is mandatory nutritional education in schools, which actively voice out against poor food choices and their corporate engineers, instead of our current system which gives a 2 hour lecture once in grade nine, and OPTION for a course in grade 10. Nutrition is a life issue, and should thus be taught throughout life.

Wonderful ideas. Fast-food

by Anonymous on May 21 2009, @05:55 am Wonderful ideas. Fast-food does sound easier, and with the "built in" name recognition, it seems their customers are drawn to it no matter what the other nearby restaurant options are. What I mean by fast-food sounding easier is that the menu is well-known, simple, and cheap. The organic cafes nearby could be deemed as expensive, food they don't recongize, and not well known. I know some educated adults that think "tofu" or even some vegetables cannot be prepared appetizing. Salads or stir-fry vegetables do not have flavor or keep them full, so they think. Food recognition, a little curiosity, and reasonable fare might help steer cautious diners to try new foods. I am surprised that those cafes do not approach the school for a small sampling of their fare, and explain what their foods are about. Get the students involved.

smart solution Avery. I

by control population growth on May 21 2009, @02:44 am smart solution Avery. I would like even to take your idea further and ban the production of children without a compulsory graduation at a specially designed course in child rearing. (not sarcasm)

not understanding

by Anonymous on May 26 2009, @07:27 am not understanding

Instead of buying their

by Anonymous on May 18 2009, @04:18 pm Instead of buying their lunch at a fast food place or the crap they serve in the cafeteria, why not bring their own lunch? I did for years when I went to school and never suffered any ill effects.

Fast-food giants are an easy

by Anonymous on May 17 2009, @05:22 pm Fast-food giants are an easy finger-pointing evil empire. True, no one "makes" anyone eat there. The problem is that fresh, organic, or otherwise low-fat, salt, sugar foods are not readily available, and are too expensive. I don't see any fast-food salads, MSG free entres being sold with substantial nutrtional ingrediences. Subway can bite me. Their sandwich veggies are cold and devoid of flavor. Not to mention shredded ice-berg lettuce has no nutritional value. Most "premium salads" at McDonald's are worse than the Big Macs. Have you seen the TGIF Friday's commercials? Loaded with cream sauces, fried onion rings, and thick slices of bread compared to leaner portions of beef. Sadly, consumers spend all their money and time on phones, I-pod's and the like. They canot conceieve of learning basic cooking 101: boil eggs or make toast. Want to watch your diet? Spend time cooking yourself. Cook books are written in English now, and for people who don't own expensive cookware. Lazy, insolent attitudes of our own keep us fat, eating high-fat, high salt diets. I do agree that high-fat,salt,sugar and nutrient dense lunches do not belong in any grade school, junior high, or high school.

What we should ban are video

by Anonymous on May 17 2009, @03:06 pm What we should ban are video games. No, reading a book and playing a game are not the same thing. You can read for 40 minutes and use a bookmark plus all the cognitive functions being used when reading are different than those use when playing. But, c'mon gamers, can you really play for just 40 minutes and save? No, because playing video games is addicting. It's a passive leisure activity that demands a lot of your time and makes you want it and most gamers become obsessed geeks or as marketers like to say "become a hard core gamers". So, play soccer or even cricket you fat jerks.

I am fat because I read too

by Another Matt on May 18 2009, @12:22 pm I am fat because I read too much. I am incapable of using and bookmark and stopping after 40 minutes. I read as many gamers play WOW- for hours on end for days on end. My addiction grew to the point I spend upwards up $10,000 in library fines, tuition, and sales just to satiate my appetite for reading. Ask my friends, I’ll go with showering, sleep, and even eating for periods of time because I get so focused on reading. Maybe you can ban libraries and universities so I’ll be safe. Or maybe you’ll grow up and learn that just because you dislike something does not mean it is bad. Maybe, limey or roo rooter, you’ll even discover that recommending that “fat jerks” do something they’re familiar with is the most effective way to get them to do it.

Just have good food at

by Anonymous on May 14 2009, @11:13 am Just have good food at schools, nothing difficult in that!

i agree i feel as if the

by Anonymous on May 14 2009, @07:54 am i agree i feel as if the customers know what they are doing. If they know that there is a fast food place down the street then that's there choice if they are going there or not. It's not like the resturant is making the people come to there place. The people chose to go so i say keep it the way it is.

despite the frequent naivite

by An Earthling on May 14 2009, @01:21 am despite the frequent naivite of Micah you can not argue that McDonalds and the like are a poison for a mammallian body if only with a time delay. And until they are banned from operating anywhere near planet Earth it's worth reminding of the danger. But I agree that editorial board is lazy when it comes to finding new/old talented writers for the blogging section.

Once wankers drive off the

by Another Matt on May 13 2009, @12:19 pm Once wankers drive off the poor from fast food with these goofy laws, it'll gain rebel chic and yuppies and Adbusters readers will descend upon it in order to "strike the gong of freedom" as Kalle would say. If people did not like it fast food, they would not eat it. Shockingly, as New Coke conclusively proved, ads can lead people to a product but cannot make them like it. Anyone saying otherwise is merely trying to position themselves as "smart" for merely disliking a popular product. Michah and this site generally is like libertarianism- when you're a poorly educated high school student or recent grad, it's all kinds of cool. Then you grow up.

but it is smart do dislike

by Anonymous on May 21 2009, @02:56 am but it is smart do dislike the popular products. What's your point?

What does the taste of food

by Anonymous on May 15 2009, @09:13 am What does the taste of food have to do with children's health issues?

This is just more

by Another Matt on May 16 2009, @06:57 am This is just more middle-class meddling in the lives of those unable to resist. Wankers go around and see poor people doing something. They assume, because it is liked by poor people either A) They are poor because they do it or B) it must be evil because the poor do it. So they try to ban it, warn off the poor who enjoy it, and so forth until such time that rich people like it, then it gets rehabilitated in the best Soviet fashion and becomes encouraged. Look at the history of Italian food. When Italians were the low man on the American ethnic hierarchy totem pole, their food was campaigned against as being toxic, unhealthy, and dangerous. Well, now that Italians are cool to the point we have an Italian-American Speaker of the House, Italian food is a beloved American staple served to children everyday without comment.

I thought it was already

by Anonymous on May 13 2009, @02:40 pm I thought it was already chic for hipsters to eat fast food. Like the Comedian in Watchmen, by embracing everything under the cop-out of irony and camp, they don't have to have standards for anything, and this is supposed to be seen as profound wisdom. Banning fast food is more Communist than Libertarian, though. It is rather amazing the way this Micah White guy always posts about relatively obvious subjects as if he's just discovered them, and then calls for the most simpleminded, least thoughtful solution possible, the solution which any politician or bureaucrat would have come up with just as fast, which in this case is to ban something. Adbusters claims to be a "Journal of the Mental Environment". They're supposed to be going deeper, trying to figure out the epistemological roots of contemporary problems. Simply picking something as obvious as fast food and calling for an astonishingly stupid reaction to it shows a lazy lack of interest in ever really bothering to think about what's going on in the world. Adbusters--Listen up! Have you noticed that every time you post something you get overwhelmingly negative response? You need to take a step back and rethink whether your recent approaches have been effective or well received. You definitely need to replace a lot of your staff, beginning with Micah White. There is a need for a "Journal of the Mental Environment", but right now you are not that journal.