Beth Slick (thank you, Beth) found for me the L.A. City Council's definition of fast food. The whole bill can be read as a PDF file at this link but the definition about which I was wondering turns out to be as follows…
…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 or containers.
Okay, first point: As far as I can tell, there are no more specific definitions in the bill. Nothing says how many menu items a place has to have to not be "limited" or even how they count. (If a place serves hamburgers, cheeseburgers, double hamburgers and double cheeseburgers, is that one item or two or four?) How fast does something have to be prepared or heated to constitute "fast food?"
There are also easy loopholes. A Wendy's could send one kid out to occasionally take an order at one table and it would no longer be a "fast food" establishment by these rules.
And there are places that fit these rules but are obviously part of the solution to the alleged problem. For instance, in L.A. we have a small chain called Fish Grill. They have fewer menu items than an Arby's, some of their offerings (like the clam chowder) are prepared in advance, they have no table orders and everything comes on paper plates. What do they serve? Grilled fresh fish, salads, fish tacos…healthier fare. Come to think of it, a place that just serves salads — they're prepared quickly — might fall right into the same classification as a KFC.
So just what are we trying to stop here? Restaurants that don't serve a wide selection? Restaurants that don't take a long time to prepare each meal? Restaurants that don't employ servers or use real plates? Is any of that a danger to anyone?
The premise of this bill is that the public health is suffering because of…well, here. I'll quote it from the bill:
…the linkage between fast food, poor nutrition and serious public health issues, such as obesity, hypertension and heart disease. In low-income communities, such as South Los Angeles, these issues are exacerbated by the lack of access to healthier alternatives.
That's the supposed wrong they're trying to right, not that food gets served in disposable containers. I could almost buy the argument that there's a public interest in making sure that "healthier alternatives" have a chance of establishing themselves amidst the flurry of Taco Bells out there. But at least part of the reason we don't have such places is that there's no evidence of any real demand for them…and legislation and a moratorium on opening new Yoshinoya Beef Bowls is not going to create that demand.
And if you could make it possible for folks in this area to eat healthier…well, what's wrong if that healthier food comes on paper plates, is prepared quickly and so forth? People go to McDonald's at least in part for the convenience. If someone want to replicate that convenience but offer organic goodies, why stop them? That might be the best way to create a marketplace for those "healthier alternatives." You market them exactly the same way as the Triple Whopper with Cheese and a King-sized order of fries (1850 calories, 1060 of them from fat).
I'm not sure the government has a lot of business trying to limit the sale of legal food. But to the extent they do, they oughta be going after the unhealthy menu items…not targeting some silly definition of a "fast food restaurant." Fast isn't the problem.