The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Cheeseburger Woes

And what about the argument that people in South-Central need the government to block unhealthy food options because they're "in a poor situation" to locate better choices? This is the argument normally made for restricting children's food options at school—that they're more dependent and vulnerable than the rest of us. How do you feel about treating poor people like children? (emphasis added)

Probably similar to the way he feels about treating readers like children. The sensationalism of that last sentence is almost as cheap as the four-buck Happy Meal he so doggedly defends. And the suggestion that the salad menu at Jack-in-the-Box should constitute a healthy food option for a low-income neighborhood is preposterous. I won't even dissect his fleeting, unexamined suggestion that the law is racist ("Opening a McDonald's in South-Central L.A. is not government-enforced racial discrimination. But telling McDonald's it can open franchises only in the white part of town—what do you call that?"). Why do we think that poor neighborhoods shouldn't benefit from the organic food movement?

I think it's deliberately ignorant to suggest that poorer neighborhoods currently have real choices in what they eat. Of course fast-food chains offer salads. But once you throw dressing and chicken on these limp-leafed feasts, they're practically as unhealthy as the burgers. It's important that high-quality, healthy food at least be accessible to every person—even if they don't always prevail. Fast-food chains often crowd out smaller competitors with healthier fare. As a result, the neighborhoods are saturated with Dunkin' Donuts and the like. Shouldn't a poorer neighborhood have the option of an actual organic market or a restaurant that offers fresh ingredients? The higher cost of these healthier foods isn't necessarily prohibitive either; it may just mean that families will be exchanging quantity for quality. That means smaller portion sizes and a healthier meal. If the families so desire they can still go to McDonald's since, from what I understand, it isn't as if the law aims to eradicate existing establishments.

Saletan is quick to defend the right of poor neighborhoods to choose. But he doesn't seem to realize that "Burger King or McDonald's" is not a legitimate choice. This law proposes enforcing true alternatives. And while it is hardly a comprehensive solution—a smattering of Whole Foods supermarkets isn't going to change eating patterns or attitudes—I think it's a step in the right direction ...