Fast Food Restaurant Report: Janua Ry 201 2

Fast Food Restaurant Report
P r o mo t i n g H e a l t h y D i n i n g i n S o u t h L o s A n g e l e s
Nicky Bassford, MPP
Lark Galloway-Gilliam, MPA
Gwendolyn Flynn
Breanna Nicole Morrison, MPL
J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2
Our thanks to the many organizations and individuals who contributed to this project.
Their cumulative efforts made this publication possible.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Community Health Councils is a non-proft, 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 frst report
in this series, Food Desert to Food Oasis: Promoting Grocery Store Development in South Los
Angeles, focused on food purchased for the home and proposed policy recommendations to
overcome barriers and encourage the establishment of new full-service grocery stores, healthy
corner stores, farmers markets and mobile produce vendors. The fnal 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
Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the offcial views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Community Health Councils, 2011
Public Health Law and Policy
Manel Kappagoda, JD, MPH
Amy Ackerman, JD
Karen Kramer, JD
Heather Wooten, MCP
Samantha Graff, JD
Principal Authors:
Lisa Nicky Bassford, MPP, Policy Analyst
Lark Galloway-Gilliam, MPA, Executive Director
Gwendolyn Flynn, Policy Director
Breanna Nicole Morrison, MPL
Design:
Aaron Makela, Print Media Collective
aaron@printmediacollective.com
www.printmediacollective.com
Editor:
Janice Taylor, Communications Director
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Paul Simon, MD
Jean Tremaine
Mabel Everette, RD
FOR MORE INFORMATION,
CONTACT:
Community Health Councils
3731 Stocker Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90008
Tel.: 323.295.9372
e-mail: info@chc-inc.org
www.chc-inc.org
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
Conclusion 30
Appendices 31
South LA Fast Food Restaurant Maps
Watsonville Healthy Eating Ordinance Points System
and National Fruit & Vegetable Program
Potential Constitutional Challenges
Land Use Planning Tools
Encouraging Restaurants to Offer Healthy Meals
Endnotes 39
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 governments
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 fnancial incentives and offered
assistance to identify potential sites, navigate the Citys permitting process and fnd qualifed 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 Citys 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 Citys fast food restaurant
development policy and Sit-Down Restaurant Incentive Program to create a healthier environment in South LA. The
recommendations are specifc 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
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
Pr o mo t i n g He a l t h y Di n i n g i n S o u t h L o s An g e l e s
The recommendations also acknowledge that fast food restaurants are defned 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.
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 in South LA to locate at least 750
feet from bus, rail and other transit stops.
4. Defne 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
defnition.
6. Strengthen the Citys 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 fnancial incentives for continued compliance
with the healthy restaurant criteria and establish
penalties for non-compliance.
The report recommends that the City of
Los Angeles adopt the following policies:
3
Community Health Councils (CHC), a nonproft 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. CHCs role in addressing the
South LA food retail environment began in 1999 with a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control
and Preventions 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 research-
ers 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 signifcantly less likely
to promote healthy items compared to restaurants in West LA.
2
Similarly, assessments of markets and physical activity
facilities revealed signifcant 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 fnancial incentives such as loans, grants, tax credits, and breaks on utility services
with assistance identifying potential sites, navigating the Citys permitting process and fnding qualifed 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 refning its marketing strategy
and developing a new website to promote the Incentive Package.
5

4
BACKGROUND
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 stand-
alone establishments to address developers 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 suffcient 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 Citys severe budget defcit 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
CommunlLy PealLh Counclls 3

D#-!MN!8&*%B!H.O$!EB+))!;&44*,A%L!>2#,!.+)#$!!
!
Source: navlgaLe LA. ClLy of Los Angeles, 8ureau of Lnglneerlng, ueparLmenL of ubllc Works. Avallable aL:
hLLp://navlgaLela.laclLy.org/lndex.cfm. Accessed november 17, 2010.
WlLh Lhese barrlers Lo Lhe communlLy plan updaLes, Lhe ClLy lannlng ueparLmenL developed an
alLernaLlve soluLlon LhaL amends Lhe ClLy's Ceneral lan by addlng a fooLnoLe" Lo regulaLe permlLs for
new sLand-alone fasL food resLauranLs ln Lhe Lhree SouLh LA CommunlLy lans areas. 1he fooLnoLe ls ln
lleu of a more comprehenslve (and Llme lnLenslve) soluLlon such as compleLlng Lhe communlLy plan
updaLes or creaLlng a Speclflc lan or CommunlLy ueslgn Cverlay.
l
Cn uecember 8, 2010, Lhe Los
Angeles ClLy Councll approved Lhe Ceneral lan AmendmenL
ll
requlrlng new sLand-alone fasL food
resLauranLs Lo meeL slx crlLerla Lo address Lhelr overconcenLraLlon and requlrlng deslgn and landscape
guldellnes Lo mlLlgaLe Lhelr vlsual lmpacLs on Lhe communlLy. 1he crlLerla are Lhe followlng:
1. LocaLe aL leasL a half-mlle radlus, or 2,640 llnear feeL, away from any exlsLlng fasL food
resLauranL

l
lor deflnlLlons, see Appendlx 6.
ll
1he AmendmenL had prevlously been approved by Lhe ClLy lannlng Commlsslon on CcLober 14, Mayor AnLonlo
vlllaralgosa on november 24, and Lhe lannlng and Land use ManagemenL SubcommlLLee of Lhe ClLy Councll on
uecember 6, 2010.
MAP 1. South LAs Three Community Plan Areas
With these barriers to the community plan updates,
the City Planning Department developed an alter-
native solution that amends the Citys 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 Specifc Plan or Community Design Overlay.
i
On
December 8, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council
approved the General Plan Amendment
ii
requiring
new stand-alone fast food restaurants to meet six
criteria to address their overconcentration and re-
quiring design and landscape guidelines to mitigate
their visual impacts on the community.
1. Locate at least a half-mile radius, or 2,640 linear feet, away from any existing fast food restaurant
2. Provide a continuous building wall along the street frontage and sidewalk
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.
The criteria are the following:
5
i
For defnitions, 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.
6
The ICO was arguably the countrys frst 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 McDonalds, 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 McDonalds 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 benefts.
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 Citys 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 signifcant number of healthy menu options. While the General Plan Amendment is a good frst 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.
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 malls
iii
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 fve 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.
7
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 diffcult 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 affuent 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, disproportion-
ately 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 affuent 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 residents exposure to fast food restaurants.
Defned as the following zip codes: 90001, 90002, 90003, 90007, 90008, 90011, 90016, 90018, 90037, 90043, 90044, 90047, 90059, 90061, and 90062.
Defned as the following zip codes: 90024, 90025, 90034, 90035, 90045, 90049, 90064, 90066, 90067, 90077, 90272, 90291, 90292, and 90293.
iv
v
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 defned by Service Planning Areas (SPAs), not zip codes.
Indicator South LA
iv
West LA
v
Population 805,108 people 442,446 people
Population density 15,436 people/sq. mi. 5,163 people/sq. mi.
Average household size 3.61 people 2.15 people
Table 1. South LA and West LA Demographic and Restaurant Comparison
Income
Median household income $33,044 $67,621
Households under the federal poverty level* 28.3% 10.3%
Vehicle Ownership
Households without a vehicle 25.4% 7.9%
Households with 1 vehicle 40.2% 45.8%
Households with 2 vehicles 23.2% 36%
However, these fgures as well as data in other national business databases, such as Dunn & Bradshaw and Claritas,
signifcantly undercount the number of restaurants when compared with the Los Angeles County Environmental
Health Offces 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 data-
bases 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 fgure 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 exemplifes 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
City Council Districts 8 and 9 and just blocks from the University of Southern California, 16 fast food
8
Racial / Ethnic Mix
Latino* 63.6% 17.4%
African American* 32.4% 6.5%
White* 2.2% 63.2%
Asian and Pacifc Islander 1.6% 12.7%
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 4.97 4.13
Ratio of limited-service/full-service .44 .39
restaurants line both sides of the street: Taco Bell/Pizza Hut, Grinder, Del Taco, McDonalds, Dominos Pizza, Subway
Sandwiches, Chinatown Express, KFC, Panda Express, Jack in the Box, El Pollo Loco, Carls Jr, Chanos 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. Dominos 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, McDonalds, and
Taco Bell) and six fast food restaurants in shopping centers (Chef Marilyns Place, El Pollo Loco, Subway, Yoshinoya
Beef Bowl, Chinese Fast Food, and Little Caesars Pizza). Several of these restaurants are examples of independently
owned, mom-and-pop restaurants that fall under the Citys defnition 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 (McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Carls Jr., and Yoshinoya Beef Bowl)
and four included in shopping centers (Subway, China Express, Panda King, and Little Caesars 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 stand-
alone 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 Citys policy.
9
10
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
food restaurants, are at increased risk of weight gain,
overweight, and obesity. The strongest association between
fast food consumption and obesity is when one or more
fast food meals are consumed per week. As a result
of the changing food environment, individuals need
to deliberately make food choices, both at home and
away from home, that are nutrient dense, low in calories,
and appropriate in portion size.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010
The South LA food environment is of particular concern
because of the disproportionately high rates of obesity
and chronic disease present in this community. South
LA has the highest rate of adult obesity in the County
(35 percent) and an additional 38 percent are over-
weight. It also has the highest rate of childhood obesity
(29 percent). In comparison, obesity is found in only
10 percent of adults and 17 percent of children in
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

FAST FOOD & HEALTH
11
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 fve 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 fber.
23-28
Fast food consumption has also
been associated with weight gain
23,26,29
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 diffcult 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 sit-
down 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
12
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 concentra-
tions 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 barri-
ers 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 infuenced 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 schools
41-42
and are most prevalent
in urban lower-income neighborhoods
43-45
with higher proportions of Hispanic
34,44,46
and African American
47
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 fve 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 lower-
income children
50
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

13
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 fnancial institutions making investment
capital diffcult 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 infuences 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 childrens meals in 2006.
55
In comparison, the budget
to promote the Federal governments 5 A Day Campaign was only $9.55 million.
56
The fast food industrys 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. McDonalds
and KFC specifcally target African American youth, and these teens see 75 percent more television ads for McDonalds
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 magazines consumption ads, but only one percent of the ads in Cosmopolitan.
57

14
The Institute of Medicine
58
and World Health Foundation
59
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 encour-
age healthy eating among children and prevent obesity.
60
While
some fast food restaurants have responded (McDonalds and
Burger King) by joining the industry-sponsored Childrens Food
and Beverage Advertising Initiative pledging to limit childrens
advertising to better-for-you menu choices, studies have shown
that their ads do not encourage consumption of healthier choic-
es 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 McDonalds fulflled 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 oth-
er 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 in-
crease has occurred at fast food restaurants.
63
In 1955, the
only available McDonalds 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 fve times larger than the original.
64
Larger portions en-
courage people to consume larger quantities and make it
diffcult for people to self-regulate what they eat.
65

15
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 con-
sumption.
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 diffculty 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 diffculty 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

16
Local municipalities do not have the fnancial resources to counter fast food chains investment and marketing practic-
es. The Institute of Medicine and National Research Council,
73
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
74
American
Planning Association,
75
Center for Law and Public Health at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities
76
and other
public health and planning professionals
64,77
suggest that one way to mitigate the infuence of fast food restaurants on
peoples 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 publics 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 publics health, and
public health has provided the strongest legal basis for zoning ordinances. While until recently, no zoning laws had
been enacted specifcally 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, affuent
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
specifc plans: the South LA Conditional Use Approval for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Specifc Plan and the Crenshaw
Corridor Specifc 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.
REGULATING FAST FOOD
RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT
17
Box 1: South LA Specifc Plans
Adopted in 1987, the South LA Alcoholic Beverages Specifc Plan requires establishments in portions of the three
South LA Community Plan areas that wish to dispense alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption to frst obtain con-
ditional 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 Specifc 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 revitaliza-
tion, 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 proftable without it.
76
Signage is also limited to one window identifcation 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 justifcation, such
as preventing excess traffc congestion to
protect pedestrian safety and air and envi-
ronmental 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.
18
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 traffc congestion and
preserve and enhance the communitys 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, standard-
ized 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 restau-
rants: 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 Specifc 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 areas unique character and ensure the retail serves the needs of the
surrounding community.
83

19
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 Citys Green Building Ordinance that establishes minimum environmental
standards for obtaining building permits and a reward system for projects meeting specifc 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 certifcate; for 13 points they get a Golden Carrot Award, both of
which come with promotional benefts.
Most community members do not desire a complete ban on new fast food restaurants, and the diffculty 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 LAs 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.
20
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 over-
concentration 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 insuffcient 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.
SOUTH LA SOLUTION
21
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 Citys defnition 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 sacrifce 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 defnition
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.
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. Defne 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 defnition.
In addition to the six criteria for obtaining a construction permit in the General Plan Amendment, the policy
should also do the following:
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 evidence-
based 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).
22
DEFINING A HEALTHY
RESTAURANT
A restaurant classifed 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 restaurants 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 fexibility. 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 classifcation, 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 fve food groups. The following criteria are modeled after
the Federal Governments 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
See Appendix 4.
The following criteria are used to defne a healthy meal, main dish, side dish, or dessert:
23
In addition to meeting the requirements for offering healthy
menu options, the healthy classifcation should also be lim-
ited to restaurants that promote healthy menu items and do not
promote unhealthy menu items in signs, table tents, other dis-
plays, 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 spe-
cial 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.
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 Offce. Available at: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/healthieryou/contents.htm. Accessed July 12, 2011. Page 19.
vii
The fat naturally found in fruits and vegetables does not contribute to the limits above.
24
Using the Watsonville Healthy Eating Ordinance point system as a model
vii
restaurants could be expected to meet
some, rather than all, of these additional requirements.
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.
To be classifed as healthy, a restaurant must also meet at least half of the eight criteria described below:
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 specifc plan, an overlay zone, or other zoning regulations (see Appendix 6). A specifc 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 signifcantly
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 Specifc Plan, Crenshaw Corridor Specifc Plan, and Westwood Village
Specifc Plan set a precedent for using a specifc plan to address an overconcentration of uses that is detrimental to
the communitys 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
See Appendix 4.
25
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 Citys 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
defnition.
2. Include additional incentives directly related to the added cost and complexity of meeting the healthy
restaurant defnition, such as assistance with nutritional analysis of menu items, recipe modifcations
and identifying suppliers of fresh produce.
3. Develop a promotional campaign to educate the public about restaurants meeting the healthy defnition
and drive consumer demand.
Establishing fnancial 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 fnancially 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 modifcation 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.
SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT
INCENTIVES
Additionally, menu analysis costs can be supported by grants and loans provided by municipal and/or non-proft entities.
A number of community-based organizations, such as community fnance 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 fnancial consulting and cost-sharing opportunities with other businesses
within the area. A pipeline between businesses applying for the healthy restaurant classifcation and these fnancial
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 de-
mand 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 offces, schools and organizations in South LA and encourage
them to use these restaurants to fulfll 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 faades. Decades without suffcient 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
27
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 frst receive a certifcate of compliance
based on an evaluation of the restaurants proposed menu items and corresponding nutritional content. This
certifcation should be conducted by any Department of Public Health-approved nutritionist with a registered dietician
degree and be based on the qualifcations included in the Healthy Restaurant Guidelines.
For building permit approval, restaurant owners should submit to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning the
certifcate of compliance, a completed building permit application, and a signed form under penalty of perjury that
includes the owners 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 Certifcate of Occupancy will be given to the
restaurant owner, which would allow the restaurant to fnally open its doors to the public.
In order to ensure continuing compliance, City Planning should conduct a compliance monitoring evaluation one
year from the Certifcate of Occupancy issuance date. This evaluation will require the restaurant owner to resubmit
the menu for verifcation that the food items certifed in the previous years evaluation continue to be served at the
restaurant. If a restaurant no longer serves the certifed menu items, the new menu items must be certifed and veri-
fcation submitted to Planning.
The restaurant owner must also provide verifcation that the restaurant has successfully implemented 3 of the 8 ad-
ditional Healthy Restaurant Incentive requirements indicated in the initial program application. If these qualifcations
are verifed 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 certifcations will be deemed noncompliant and will be subject to signifcant fnancial
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 signifcant weekly penalty while not in compliance. If the
restaurant remains out of compliance for an entire year, a fee equivalent to the Citys cost of granting the exemption
should be charged in addition to the weekly fees.
28
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.
PREVENTING UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES
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 affuent 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 un-
healthy 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
APPENDIX 1
South Figueroa Street Between West 27th Street and West 31st Street
Community Health Councils 25

Appendi x 1
South Fi gueroa Street Between West 27
th
Street and West 31
st

Street

32
APPENDIX 2
Crenshaw Boulevard Between West Adams Boulevard and West 29th Street
!"##$%&'()*+,-'.)!"$%/&-0) ) 12)
)
!
"##$%&'(!)!
!
*+$%,-./!0123$4.+&!0$5/$$%!6$,5!"&.7,!0123$4.+&!.%&!6$,5!)8
5-
!95+$$5!
33
APPENDIX 3
Manual Arts High School
Community Health Councils 27

Appendi x 3
Manual Arts Hi gh School

34
APPENDIX 4
Points are earned by providing the following:
At least four choices of fruits or vegetables prepared in a low fat way
Fruits or vegetables as a substitute for less healthy side dishes such as fries
At least one fat free or low fat salad dressing
Skim or 1% milk
Water free of charge
Whole grain bread instead of white bread or a no-bread option
Meat, fsh, 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
At least one vegetarian dish not exceeding 500 calories
Butter, margarine, sour cream, salad dressing, or mayonnaise on the side or not at all
Smaller portions or half portion meals at a lower cost and allowing customers to split a meal
Training for staff members about knowing the menu thoroughly, including portion sizes, ingredients and preparation methods
Calorie information visible at the point of purchase or provide healthier option stickers on the menu
Corn tortillas instead of four tortillas
Whole beans instead of refried beans
TOTAL POINTS
Points
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
18
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.
Watsonville Healthy Eating Ordinance Points System
For meals, main dishes and sides:
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.
National Fruit and Vegetable Program: Criteria for Recipes that May Feature the Fruits & Veggies
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
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)
4. The fat found naturally in fruits and vegetables does not contribute to the limits above.
Further oz. 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)
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 b. fruit group c. vegetable group d. milk, yogurt and cheese group
e. meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts 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
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 publics 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 benefts 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 benefts, 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).
Specifc 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 specifc 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: specifc 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 Healths 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 McDonalds, which see promotion
and being viewed as a community leader as key benefts 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 fexibility 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.
Winners 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 Winners 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, favored water,
non- or low-fat milk or soy milk, 100% real fruit juice).
38
END NOTES
1. Los Angeles, Cal., Ordinance 180103 (2008).
2. Lewis LB, Sloane DC, Miller Nascimiento L, Diamante AL, Jones
Guinyard J, Yancey AK, Flynn G. African Americans access to
healthy food options in South Los Angeles restaurants. American
Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:668-673.
3. Sloane DC, Diamant AL, Lewis LB, Yancey AK, Flynn G, Nas-
cimento LM, McCarthy WJ, Guinyard JJ, Cousineau MR. Improv-
ing the nutritional resource environment for healthy living through
community-based participatory research. Journal of General Inter-
nal Medicine. 2003;18:568-575.
4. Sloane D, Nascimento L, Flynn G, Lewis L, Guinyard JJ, Gallo-
way-Gilliam L, Diamant A, Yancey A. Assessing resource environ-
ments to target prevention interventions in community chronic dis-
ease control. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved.
2006;17:146-159.
5. City of Los Angeles, Cal., Council File 09-3063.
6. Los Angeles City Planning Department. Recommendation Report
to the City Planning Commission, Case No. CPC-2010-2268-GPA.
October 14, 2010.
7. Los Angeles, Cal., Council File 07-1658-S1 (2009) and 07-
1658-S2 (2010).
8. City of Los Angeles Council File 10-1843 public comment submit-
ted December 6, 2010. Available at http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacity-
clerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccf.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-1843.
Accessed December 10, 2010.
9. Tootelian DH. McDonalds Economic Impact with Rebuilding
and Reimaging its Restaurants in Southern Los Angeles, California.
2010.
10. City of Los Angeles Council File 10-1843 public com-
ment submitted December 6, 1010. Available at http://
ci t ycl erk.l aci t y.org/l aci t ycl erkconnect /i ndex.cf m?f a=ccf i .
viewrecord&cfnumber=10-1843. Accessed December 10, 2010.
11. Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. The medical care costs of obesity:
an instrumental variables approach. National Bureau of Economic
Statistics Working Paper No. 16467. 2010.
12. Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. Neighborhood
characteristics associated with the location of food stores and
food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
2002;22:23-29.
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. Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:660-667.
14. Baker EA, Schootman M, Barnidge E, Kelly C. The role of race
and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to
dietary guidelines. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2006. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jul/05_0217.htm. Accessed
November 5, 2010.
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.
17. Sturm R, Cohen DA. Zoning for health? The year-old
ban on new fast-food restaurants in South LA. Health Affairs.
2009;28:w1088-w1097.
18. Misako Azuma A, Gilliland S, Vallianatos M, Gottlieb R. Food
access, availability, and affordability in 3 Los Angeles communities,
Project CAF, 2004-2006. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2010;7.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/mar/08_0232.
htm. Accessed October 15, 2010.
19. Food Access in Central and South Los Angeles: Mapping Injus-
tice, Agenda for Action. Center for Food & Justice, Urban & Envi-
ronmental Policy Institute, Occidental College. 2007.
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 Ange-
les County Department of Public Health June 2009. Available at
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/docs/keyindicators.pdf. Ac-
cessed November 8, 2010.
22. Preventable Hospitalizations in California: Statewide and
County Trends in Access to and Quality of Outpatient Care, Mea-
sured with Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs), 1999-2008. Offce
of Statewide Health Planning and Development. 2010. Available
at: http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/hid/products/preventable_hospital-
izations/pdfs/PH_REPORT_WEB.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2011.
23. Bowman SA, Vinyard BT. Fast food consumption of U.S. adults:
impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. Jour-
nal of the American College of Nutrition. 2004;2:163-168.
24. Bowman SA, Gortmaker SL, Ebbeling CA, Pereira MA, Lud-
wig DS. Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet
quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics.
2004;113:112118.
25. Paeratakul S, Ferdinand DP, Champagne CM, Ryan DH, Bray
GA. Fast-food consumption among US adults and children: dietary
and nutrient intake profle. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion. 2003;103:1332-1338.
26. French SA, Harnack L, Jeffery RW. Fast food restaurant use
among women in the Pound of Prevention study: dietary, behav-
ioral and demographic correlates. International Journal of Obesity.
2000;24:1368-1359.
27. French SA, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D, Fulkerson JA, Han-
nan 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.
28. Satia JA, Galanko JA, Siega-Riz AM. Eating at fast-food restau-
rants is associated with dietary intake, demographic, psychosocial
and behavioral factors among African Americans in North Carolina.
Public Health Nutrition. 2004;7:1089-1096.
29. Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CA, et al. Fast-food habits,
weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year pro-
spective analysis. Lancet. 2005;365:3642.
30. Rice S, McAllister EJ, Dhurandhar NV. Fast food: friendly? Inter-
national Journal of Obesity. 2007;31:884-886.
31. Stender S, Dyerberg J, Astrup A. Fast food: unfriendly and un-
healthy. International Journal of Obesity. 2007;31:887-890.
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
Working Paper No. 14721. 2009.
35. Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Stefen LM, Jacobs Jr DR, Popkin
BM. Regular consumption from fast food establishments relative to
other restaurants is differentially associated with metabolic outcomes
in young adults. Journal of Nutrition. 2009;139:2113-2118.
36. Binkley JK. Calorie and gram differences between meals at fast
food and table service restaurants. Review of Agricultural Econom-
ics. 2008;30:750-763.
37. Designed for Disease: The Link Between Local Food Environ-
ments and Obesity and Diabetes. California Center for Public Health
Advocacy, PolicyLink, and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Re-
search. April 2008.
38. Inagami S, Cohen DA, Brown AF, Asch SM. Body mass index,
neighborhood fast food and restaurant concentration, and car owner-
ship. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine. 2009;86:683-695.
39. Li F, Harmer P, Cardinal BJ, Bosworth M, Johnson-Shelton D.
Obesity and the built environment: does the density of neighborhood
fast-food outlets matter? American Journal of Health Promotion.
2009;23:203-209.
40. Neumark-Sztainer D, French SA, Hannan PJ, Story M, Fulkerson
JA. School lunch and snacking patterns among high school students:
associations with school food environment and policies. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2005;2.
41. Austin SB, Melly SJ, Sanchez BN, Patel A, Buka S, Gortmaker SL.
Clustering of fast-food restaurants around schools: a novel applica-
tion of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. American
Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:1575-1581.
42. Zenk SN, Powell LM. US secondary schools and food outlets.
Health & Place. 2008;14:336-346.
43. Kestens Y, Daniel M. Social inequalities in food exposure around
schools in an urban area. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
2010;39:33-40.
44. Neckerman, KM, Bader MDM, Richards CA, Purciel M, Quinn
JW, Simon Thomas J, Warbelow C, Weiss CC, Lovasi GS, Rundle A.
Disparities in the food environments of New York City public schools.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010;39:195-202.
45. Zenk SN, Powell LM. US secondary schools and food outlets.
Health & Place. 2008;14:336-346.
46. Sturm R. Disparities in the food environment surrounding US
middle and high schools. Public Health. 2008;122:681-690.
47. Kwate NOA, MengLoh J. Separate and unequal: the infuence of
neighborhood and school characteristics on spatial proximity between
fast food and schools. Preventive Medicine. 2010;51:153-156.
48. US Department of Health and Human Services. A Healthier You.
US Government Printing Offce. Available at: http://www.health.gov/
dietaryguidelines/dga2005/healthieryou/contents.htm. Accessed
January 2, 2011. Page 19.
49. Davis B, Carpenter C. Proximity of fast-food restaurants to
schools and adolescent obesity. American Journal of Public Health.
2009;99:505-510.
50. Mirtcheva DM, Powell LM. Participation in the National School
Lunch Program: importance of school-level and neighborhood con-
textual factors. Journal of School Health. 2009;79:485-494.
51. Walton P, Pearce J, Day P. Examining the interaction between food
outlets and outdoor food advertisements with primary school food
environments. Health & Place. 2009;15:811-818.
52. California Department of Education, Statewide Assessment Divi-
sion. 2009-2010 California Physical Fitness Report.
53. Kuchler F, Golan E, Variyam JN, Crutchfeld SR. Obesity policy
and the law of unintended consequences. Amber Waves, US Depart-
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.
54. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, Sada V, Ustjanauska A,
Javadizadeh J, Weinberg M, Munsell C, Speers S, Bukofzer E, Cheyne
A, Gonzalez P, Rechetnyak J, Agnew H, Ohri-Vachaspati P. Fast Food
FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth. Rudd
Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University. 2010. Available
at http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.
pdf. Accessed November 9, 2010.
55. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing food to children and
adolescents: A review of industry expenditures, activities, and self-
regulation. A report to Congress. 2008. Available at http://www.ftc.
gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf. Accessed Novem-
ber 9, 2010.
56. Out of Balance: Marketing of Soda, Candy, Snacks and Fast
Foods Drowns Out Healthful Messages. California Pan Ethnic Health
Network, Consumers Union. 2005.
57. Godbold Kean L, Prividera LC. Communicating about race and
health: a content analysis of print advertisements in African Ameri-
can and general readership magazines. Health Communication.
2007;21:289-297.
58. Institute of Medicine. Food marketing to children and youth:
threat or opportunity? National Academy of Sciences. 2006.
59. World Health Organization. Marketing of food and non-alco-
holic beverages to children. 2006.
60. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. Solving the
problem of childhood obesity within a generation.2010. Available
at from www.letsmove.gov/tfco_fullreport_may2010.pdf. Accessed
November 9, 2010.
61. Lewin A, Lindstrom L, Nestle M. Food industry promises to ad-
dress childhood obesity: preliminary evaluation. Journal of Public
Health Policy. 2006;27:327-348.
62. Monsivais P, Drewnowski A. The rising cost of low-energy-
density foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
2007;107:2071-2076.
63. Nieelsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion
sizes, 1977-1998. Journal of the American Medical Association.
2003;289:450-453.
64. Dinour L, Fuenes L, Freudenberg N. Reversing Obesity in New
York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility
of Unhealthy Food. City University of New York Campaign against
Diabetes and Public Health Association of New York City. 2008.
65. French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW. Environmental infuences
on eating and physical activity. Annual Review of Public Health.
2001;22:309-335.
66. DiPietro RB, Roseman M, Ashley R. A study of consumers re-
sponse to quick service restaurants healthy menu items: attitudes ver-
sus behaviors. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. 2004;7:59-
77.
67. Lucan SC, Barg FK, Long JA. Promoters and barriers to fruit,
vegetable, and fast-food consumption among urban, low-income Af-
rican Americansa qualitative approach. American Journal of Public
Health. 2010;100:631-635.
68. Binkley JK. The effect of demographic, economic, and nutrition
factors on the frequency of food away from home. Journal of Con-
sumer Affairs. 2006;40:372-391.
69. Battle Horgen K, Brownell KD. Comparison of price change
and health message interventions in promoting healthy food choices.
Health Psychology. 2002;21:505-512.
70. Acharya RN, Patterson PM, Hill EP, Schmitz TG, Bohm E. An
evaluation of the TrEAT Yourself Well restaurant nutrition campaign.
Health Education & Behavior. 2006;33:309-324.
71. Kennon LR, Reynolds JS. A study of factors infuencing parental
patronage of quick service restaurants. Journal of Restaurant and
Foodservice Marketing. 2001;4:113-122.
72. Davis GC, You W. The time cost of food at home: general and
food stamp participant profles. Applied Economics. 2010;42:2537-
2552.
73. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Local
Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. 2009. Available at http://www.nap.
edu/catalog.php?record_id=12674.
74. Public Health Law Program, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Se-
lected legal and policy resources on public health winnable battles.
2010. Available at http://www2.cdc.gov/phlp/winnable/index.asp.
Accessed November 10, 2010.
75. American Planning Association. Policy guide on community and
regional food planning. Adopted May 11, 2007.Available at http://
www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/food.htm.Accessed No-
vember 10, 2010.
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
and the Publics Health, John Hopkins University and Georgetown
University. 2005. Available at http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Zon-
ing%20Fast%20Food%20Outlets.pdf. Accessed November 10,
2010.
77. National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood
Obesity. Model Healthy Food Zone Ordinance. Public Health Law
& Policy. Available at: http://www.nplanonline.org/nplan/products/
model-healthy-food-zone-ordinance. Accessed November 10,
2010.
78. California. Constitution art XI, 7.
79. Davis JS. Fast food, zoning, and the dormant commerce clause:
was it something I ate? Environmental Affairs. 2008;35:259-288.
80. Ashe M, Jernigan D, Kline R, Galaz R. Land use planning and
the control of alcohol, tobacco, frearms, and fast food restaurants.
American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:1404-1408.
81. Creighton R. Cheeseburgers, race and paternalism. Journal of
Legal Medicine. 2009;30:249-267.
82. Beach BS. Strategies and lessons from the Los Angeles commu-
nity benefts experience. Journal of Affordable Housing. Fall 2007/
Winter 2008;17:77-112.
83. Westwood Village Specifc Plan, Westwood Village, Los Ange-
les, California. Available at:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/sparea/wwdvil-
lagepage.htm. Accessed November 10, 2010.
84. Market Briefng. Technomic. October 2010. Available at
http://www.technomic.com/_fles/Newsletters/Marketbrief/Market-
brief_201010.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2010.
85. Glanz K, Resnicow K, Seymour J, Hoy K, Stewart H, Lyons M,
Goldberg J. How major restaurant chains plan their menus: the role
of proft, demand, and health. American Journal of Preventive Medi-
cine. 2007;32:383-388.
86. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health
and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010. Avail-
able at: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.
htm. Accessed March 7, 2011.
87. Phillips R. Artful business: using the arts for community econom-
ic development. Community Development Journal. 2010;45:474-
493.
88. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
Colorado Physical Activity and Nutrition Program. Colorados Smart
Meal Restaurant Program. Available at: www.smartmealcolorado.
com/home.aspx. Accessed November 17, 2010.
3731 Stocker - Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90008
(323) 295-9372
Fax: (323) 295-9467
www.chc-inc.org

Fast Food Restaurant Report: Janua Ry 201 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fast Food Restaurant Report: Janua Ry 201 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fast Food Restaurant Report

S-ar putea să vă placă și