As the article astutely pointed out, this could have been done only if the city promoted the moratorium (it isn't a fast food sales ban, it is a new fast food restaurant ban - I wish they would clarify that better in these articles) as a way to promote *more* choices.

Well, as the fast food industry plainly pointed out, you can't force "healthier" restaurants set up business there. If they wanted to be there, they would be there already.

The idea that you cannot get healthy food anywhere is a joke - McDonalds has salads and Burger King has apple slices. Grocery stores have cottage cheese and Wheat Thins. People must start holding themselves responsible for their own bodies! When you think of it, it is completely ridiculous that such a statement even need be made!
This brings us to the next point in the article: this kind of paternalistic behavior is usually reserved for our public grade-school lunch treatment. The inescapable conclusion at which one must arrive now is that we are "treating poor people like children."

The comparison is only avoidable if one can prove that the common point in comparison is not our treatment of "children" but our treatment of "uneducated people." Simple displays of calories and fat are not education; they are glorified statistical artwork to those who are unable to intelligently process the information.

Therefore, I don't believe that we are treating poor people like children. We are treating them worse than children because at least the average child will be given a supportive environment in which to take a biology and a health class.

Education needs to start earlier than Burger King and Taco Bell, it needs to start in decent public schools.

Give a man a fish and he will eat healthily for one day - teach a man why fish is good for him and he will eat healthily for the rest of his life. Prevent future McDonalds' from opening... and that teaches man exactly shit.