...
Show More
I could easily give this book a 5 for its well-researched and informative content, its engaging pacing, its excellent mix of dry facts and gossipy tone. I literally couldn't put the book down since I picked it up from my sister's bookshelf.
I started reading with high hopes. I heard so much about the book and how it changes people's perception on fast food. I do not eat a lot of fast food but I enjoy my occasional burgers from Burger King, crave Chicken McNuggets from time to time and adore KFC with heaps of fries, rice and ketchup.
The book begins with the history of McDonalds which encompasses not only the corporate history but also the history of fast food and its supporting industries. So far so good. As I proceed, I find it hard to accept its two major themes: big corporations are the big bad wolf who feast on little people and the king of the pack is McDonalds.
Although the author writes that he doesn't say McDonald and the fast food corporations are the roots of all American problems, he essentially implies so throughout the book. That is not fair. The reason for finger pointing to McDonald and some unknown Carl Jr and Jack in the Box is not apparent in the book. Brand-wise, I wonder how KFC fare in all these debacle although tacobell, owned by the same company, gets an honorary mention. Consumerism-wise, what about those insatiable American appetites?
Another strong message is that the big corporations sell cheap food, by taking advantage of suppliers and their poor, illiterate workers, not from the goodness of their hearts but for humongous profits. Fair enough. But he goes on to argue that the marketing tactics employed, though necessary, are unethical. I am not comfortable with this statement. Since when have we all lost our cognitive power and freedom of choice? When an advertisement says that drinking insecticide is good for us, won't our instinct warn us otherwise? If the kids insist on eating McDonald to collect the latest figurine from Nemo, where are the parents with conscience who will firmly tell them no when a no is warranted?
I have no problem with presenting selected facts to support a theory or argument. But I have problem with authors who do not explore or conveniently neglect the other side of the equation. One particularly disturbing fact-massaging is his argument that fast food restaurants are favourite crime targets and the crimes are mostly inside jobs. On the same page, he mentions that fast food industries have high labour turnover and can afford only to hire people with questionable background. Now, is it chicken first? Or egg?
The author offers obvious solutions in the epilogue. One of the most irritating ones is proposing that free-roaming cattle rearing is the way to go. He conveniently avoids these questions: How can he reconcile the math of vast overhead to maintain the land, huge labour cost (we want our workers to be paid and insured well), and small customer base (transporting meat to all over the country is bad!) with affordable prices? Aren't these organic, grass-fed beef normally sold in chic upscale supermarkets? Is he suggesting no-child policy to curb the population and to make way for those healthy, happy cows?
The book doesn't stop me from anything. Prior to reading, I already know that these fried foods are not good for my health and moderation is key to all my eating activities. I enjoy reading the book but feel misled by its content. The problem with the fast food nation is not the cheap end-product at high social cost but the lack of common sense and excessive gluttony of its consumers.
I remember someone who wrote an email full of expletive because, after reading this book, he felt McDonalds caused his children's addiction to the Happy Meals. Now I understand why he, like countless fans, was so readily bought: the book's theme is David vs. Goliath, its tone straight from tabloids, its information tasty morsels from the dark side of an otherwise wholesome industry. The book provides ammunition for people who prefer to absolve personal responsibilities. In short, this book is served the way people like it, regardless of its content.
I started reading with high hopes. I heard so much about the book and how it changes people's perception on fast food. I do not eat a lot of fast food but I enjoy my occasional burgers from Burger King, crave Chicken McNuggets from time to time and adore KFC with heaps of fries, rice and ketchup.
The book begins with the history of McDonalds which encompasses not only the corporate history but also the history of fast food and its supporting industries. So far so good. As I proceed, I find it hard to accept its two major themes: big corporations are the big bad wolf who feast on little people and the king of the pack is McDonalds.
Although the author writes that he doesn't say McDonald and the fast food corporations are the roots of all American problems, he essentially implies so throughout the book. That is not fair. The reason for finger pointing to McDonald and some unknown Carl Jr and Jack in the Box is not apparent in the book. Brand-wise, I wonder how KFC fare in all these debacle although tacobell, owned by the same company, gets an honorary mention. Consumerism-wise, what about those insatiable American appetites?
Another strong message is that the big corporations sell cheap food, by taking advantage of suppliers and their poor, illiterate workers, not from the goodness of their hearts but for humongous profits. Fair enough. But he goes on to argue that the marketing tactics employed, though necessary, are unethical. I am not comfortable with this statement. Since when have we all lost our cognitive power and freedom of choice? When an advertisement says that drinking insecticide is good for us, won't our instinct warn us otherwise? If the kids insist on eating McDonald to collect the latest figurine from Nemo, where are the parents with conscience who will firmly tell them no when a no is warranted?
I have no problem with presenting selected facts to support a theory or argument. But I have problem with authors who do not explore or conveniently neglect the other side of the equation. One particularly disturbing fact-massaging is his argument that fast food restaurants are favourite crime targets and the crimes are mostly inside jobs. On the same page, he mentions that fast food industries have high labour turnover and can afford only to hire people with questionable background. Now, is it chicken first? Or egg?
The author offers obvious solutions in the epilogue. One of the most irritating ones is proposing that free-roaming cattle rearing is the way to go. He conveniently avoids these questions: How can he reconcile the math of vast overhead to maintain the land, huge labour cost (we want our workers to be paid and insured well), and small customer base (transporting meat to all over the country is bad!) with affordable prices? Aren't these organic, grass-fed beef normally sold in chic upscale supermarkets? Is he suggesting no-child policy to curb the population and to make way for those healthy, happy cows?
The book doesn't stop me from anything. Prior to reading, I already know that these fried foods are not good for my health and moderation is key to all my eating activities. I enjoy reading the book but feel misled by its content. The problem with the fast food nation is not the cheap end-product at high social cost but the lack of common sense and excessive gluttony of its consumers.
I remember someone who wrote an email full of expletive because, after reading this book, he felt McDonalds caused his children's addiction to the Happy Meals. Now I understand why he, like countless fans, was so readily bought: the book's theme is David vs. Goliath, its tone straight from tabloids, its information tasty morsels from the dark side of an otherwise wholesome industry. The book provides ammunition for people who prefer to absolve personal responsibilities. In short, this book is served the way people like it, regardless of its content.