food providers, which include the grocery supermarkets, have been more responsive in providing and increasing their range healthier eating products. Research has shown that these non-fast food outlets increase the local population's intake of healthy foods such as fresh fruit and vegetables whereas the fast food outlets had the opposite effect.

Thirdly, there was the issue of concentration. Because of their pricing structure fast food outlets have been flourishing in the poorer areas of the US and, at the same time the ratio of supermarkets to population was much lower than in wealthier areas. Research has also shown that where an additional supermarket was set up in a poorer area the consumption of healthy foods such as fruit and vegetables increased by 32%.

Taking all of these factors into account, the idea behind the zoning laws was to target certain community areas and restrict the development of fast food outlets, while at the same time encouraging the development of the healthier food outlets such as grocery supermarkets and other food retailers.

There is actually a legal precedent for using the law in this manner. It the case of Cleaners Guild of Chicago v City of Chicago the judge ruled that if an activity was a danger to public health the local government had the right and power to prohibit or restrict that activity.

It can therefore be seen from this explanation that the healthy zoning laws are fighting the growing health issues resulting from fast foods by restricting their expansion within certain key vulnerable areas where their proliferation might lead to an unacceptable increase in the incidence of obesity and other health related problems.

Learn more about this author, Paul Lines.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

---

Add your voice

Know something about How healthy zoning laws are fighting back against fast food?
We want to hear your view. Write now!