Absolutley, people should eat fast food if they choose to, but making them more informed consumers can't be a bad thing. If people get the big picture about the impact of the fast food industry, they can use that information to decide whether or not they want to support that industry through buying their products.

Reply

But if you let people eat what they want, they'll sue later. Actually they can't now that the "cheeseburger law" (I think that's what they're still calling it) is in effect. But nonetheless, people will still complain years down the road, "You should have warned me! You should have saved me from myself!".

Reply

Unfortunately, the cost to society of people choosing to eat fast food and other cheap unhealthy foods in large quantites is not only to those that eat it. Even though we do not have universal health care in the US, the public does pay for medical benefits for a large number of people who have diabetes and other obesity related diseases. So even though this seems like only a personal choice, it does behoove us to try to get everyone to moderate their junkfood intake.

Reply

I think it's harnful and dangerous eat fast food, because it almost 100% consists of not natural ingredients.

Reply

Fast Food Nation is NOT just about the health effects of fast food on those who EAT it. By framing the terms of the debate as "should we let people eat it if they want to" you are doing the book and your readers a great disservice.

The book does talk about some of the health effects of fast food, but that is a relatively minor part of the book. The book is about the detrimental effect that fast food chains have had on U.S. agriculture, and in turn the environment. It is about the deplorable conditions of those that work in fast food chains. It is about the destruction of local economies and local eateries. In short, the book is a beautifully written, well researched documentation of the very real (and very vile) politics of fast food, not a mere critique of overeating.

To be fair, I don't know if the movie covers the same issues, but it's pretty clear that neither the OP nor Cinematical have read the book (or didn't pay attention for most of it), and just assumed it was another stunt like Super Size Me.

Reply

I have also read the book, and I feel strongly about the vast costs of the fast food industry that effect all of us. I do not support the industry, but that is a personal choice I made based on the information available to me. I also hope that making that information available to a wider audience will lead more people to draw the same conclusion that I have. So, I do not believe that we should leave the fast food industry alone, but that does not prevent this choice from being a personal one for each individual.

Reply

Here's Nicole again with another full-throated defense of processed and fast foods, similar to this post from March where, in my reading, she advocated not taking junk-food machines out of schools until physical education is improved:

http://www.slashfood.com/2006/03/27/sugar-phobic-schools-ban-snacks/

And just as that post had nothing to do with "sugar phobia," this has nothing to do with anyone "preventing" anyone else from eating fast food. As other comments already show, the book does not chronicle the effects of a fast-food diet on your health, like "Super Size Me," but instead looks at the role of fast food in the US and world economies.

Did you know that the average length of employment of a fast-food worker is 12 weeks? Did you also know that because of high-powered lobbying by the fast-food industry, they get the equivalent of 12 weeks worth of tax breaks for every new worker they hire because it's a "training" period, even though actual training usually lasts less than half a day? On average, US taxpayers are the ones who pay the salaries of fast food workers, since they usually only last 12 weeks, and for every dollar the companies spend on wages in those 12 weeks, they get a dollar taken off their taxable income.

How, exactly, does knowing this amount to "prosecuting" the fast food industry? Why does an industry that spends billions and billions of dollars per year in advertising have to start a "Best Food Nation" Web site to "counter" the message of a single book or movie?

The only significant issue under discussion with processed and fast foods is that the companies who make them desperately want to avoid you knowing what goes into them, from the nutrition content to the production process to the way the workers are treated. Not because they're trade secrets, but because if you knew those things, you'd be less likely to eat their products.

And reliably, there's SlashFood on their side, devoting fanatical obsession in some posts to the exact quality of ingredients in recipes, but turning around for processed and fast foods and asking if you "really" need to know what's in those foods - and implying that even asking is "opposing" the industry.

C'mon, Nicole, Andrew, you guys. You're better than this.

Reply

"C'mon, Nicole, Andrew, you guys. You're better than this."

better than what? better than having an opinion about something? this is a blog. it's not a news site. it's not a place where people force their beliefs on you. it's a blog. people (usually a number of people, who all have different opinions and beliefs) write stuff, tell you what they think, perhaps ask readers what they think.

"Here's Nicole again with another full-throated defense of processed and fast foods..."
full throated defense? how is asking the question "should we just leave the fast food industry alone?" a full throated defense of the fast food industry? the answer: it's not. she asked a question, that's it. and i don't believe Slashfood and it's staff are on anyone's side. like i said, it's a blog. if they're on anyone's side, they're on the readers' side, by putting up posts related to food that they think may be interesting, and may interest readers. this isn't some big conspiracy involving Slashfood, the fast food industry, candy bar manufacturers, the government, big tobacco, etc. it's a blog.

Reply

Should we stop picking on the fast food industry? In one word, NO! For all I know this article was written by fast food industry lobbyists. Why don't we stop picking on the petroleum, tobacco, meat and sugar industries too? (Sarcasm implied) I don't want to hear the media's OPINION, they are obligated to report the facts.

I WOULD say let people eat, smoke, pollute whatever they want BUT the bottom line is that it indirectly affects other people, not just those individuals! Most importantly it affects our future generations. I mean did you forget about this already?

Reply

I agree with FatSlim, there are absolutely no natural ingredients in fast food. The ingredients used to be natural at one point (on the farm) but that was like 5 processing steps ago.

The "creator" of tomatoes didn't put disodium EDTA and coal tar derivatives in them simply because they're not supposed to be there. Tomatoes aren't meant to be shelf-stable and fire-engine red. Same goes with every other ingredient in fast food restaurants. Their excuse is shelf-stability and enhanced palatability. Apparently, if they don't have these qualities they can't turn a profit worth a gold toilet seat.

Anyway back to this issue, Fast Food Nation isn't so much about the health of the individual, but rather the detrimental environmental and social effects the fast food industry has on everyone despite whether they patronize fast food places.

Reply

We can sit here and argue about this until we all turn blue, but the bottom line is there will always be those who love fast food. It's not about blaming the FF chains, but about taking personal responsibility for oneself! I was raised in a home where going to MacDonald's was a treat, most often when we were on a road trip (yeah, remembering driving places for vacation?!) and guess what? That's how I'm raising my kids. Sure, it's a pain to cook, but if my mom did it, then so can I and I feel so much better for it too!

Reply