Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
The health alliance is a bad idea because it represents two parties with opposing goals. The Villages half of the partnership seeks to promote business, which involves the promotion and sale of fast food (i.e., processed foods). (This covers all types of food outlets including supermarkets.) And the USF half of the partnership seeks to promote healthy eating habits as part of an overall healthy lifestyle.
Do you see the conflict of interests, or the push and pull of opposing goals? These two should never have tied the knot. Is it too late for an annulment? It's like two people getting married in a hurry and then discovering that he wants to have a lot of children and she doesn' want to have any. They can't have it both ways.
To the extent that USF succeeds, the Villages fast-food business will fail. Picture two people an a seesaw....as one goes up, the other comes down. Failure is built into this health study because we don't have both parties working together, even though, on the surface, it may appear as though they are.
|
No mater how wildly successful USF is: The fast food business is here to stay. I also see many 'locals' at the fast food places on 466 and 441.
I don't think that we, having over 100K population, have any concerns when it comes to restaurant choices. (Except a locally owned finer dining establishment. but that is a different topic).