Philosophical Musings of a Book Nerd

There has been a lot written about the obesity epidemic that the United States (and to a lesser extent Australia) is facing and in many cases the finger is pointed directly at fast food franchises. Many people have probably heard of and even watched Spurlock's documentary where he sets himself a task (to the horror of his vegetarian girlfriend) of eating only McDonalds for a period of 30 days. Personally, there are a couple of flaws in his methodology, however I do believe it is something that we need to be aware of, especially if we ourselves want to live healthy lives.

I must admit that the better book was Fast Food Nation, however this book should be read alongside Spurlock's film not only because it is a companion guide to the film, but also because it is somewhat more light hearted than Eric Schlosser's more academic and journalistic look at the fast food culture. Anyway, the one comment that I have of the methodology is that it appears that Spurlock is generally a healthy eater, and as such switching from a relatively healthy diet to one consisting entirely of fast food can have significant health problems. I guess the closest analogy would be letting a car sit in a garage for six months, and then immediately using it to pull a trailer containing all of your worldly belongings halfway across town (I did that once). The reason that I use that analogy is because after sitting idle for six months, the car's engine needs to be warmed up and worked for a while before turning it into a workhorse, otherwise it will clog up and break down (which is what happened to me).

Like Australia, in America fast food is cheap and quick to make, and as such it tends to be the staple diet of the poor. I actually lived with a guy whose main meal of the day was McDonalds (and it didn't help that we lived across the road from one). This friend of mine was used to eating lots of fast food, so his body was used to it (though he wasn't the healthiest person that I knew). As for Spurlock, it seems that being on a healthy diet meant that switching to a high fat, high sugar diet, was going to have a worse effect on him than somebody who is already on such a diet.

In a way there is nothing strictly wrong with fast food, and since the beginning of the century we have seen a gradual change in the fast food culture. Okay, I don't like Subway on the grounds of certain franchising practices, however that is an example of a more healthier form of fast food franchise (though some do criticise the fact that they sell crisps and soft drink alongside their healthy sandwiches). The other thing about fast food is that it is quick to make and it is cheap, so where as going to a restaurant means that you might wait ten to twenty minutes (and sometimes more than forty) for your meal to arrive, with fast food it arrives within a minute or two. Our society has become so fast paced, and time such a commodity, that we simply cannot wait for our food any longer. However, one again, it is not necessarily something new. I still remember the food courts from the late eighties (and they still exist) where you would wonder past the Indian and Asian shops, and their offerings are laid out under a glass case, and all you do is point at what you want, the shopkeeper then fills a container with rice or noodles, and adds one or more toppings to it. That is just as fast.

I remember reading a book once where they talked about obesity being a sign of wealth (Creation by Gore Vidal). In many ancient cultures only the incredibly wealthy would have the access to food to gorge themselves and as such only the wealthy would suffer from obesity (though we still see this among some of the wealthy today, particularly one lawyer I remember waddling into a conference room). Today we are seeing something that we have never seen in the history of the world, and that is obesity arising amongst the common people. Either food is getting cheaper or we are becoming wealthier. I suggests that both answers are correct.

However, when I travelled to Hong Kong I noticed something significant, and that was while food was somewhat cheaper, particularly in the many restaurants that dot the back streets of Kowloon, the price of a meal at Burger King was the same as I would expect to pay here in Australia (though having gone their a second time I realise that that is not strictly the case). In fact, I questioned why I would want to eat at Burger King since I could get a meal half price or less in a small family run restaurant around the corner. This has led me to a bit of a dispute with a couple of guys at work. They are performing a task of attempting to live on only $2.00 a day to try to help them understand what it is like being poor. However, I pointed out that $2.00 will actually go further in places of Hong Kong and China (among other places) rather than here in Australia. They argued that the value has been adjusted to reflect prices here in Australia, however I have a feeling that that is not the case. There are laws and regulations that exist in Australia that do not exist in Hong Kong and China, as well as other aspects, that make food in Australia much more expensive.

As for the book, one of the things that stood out was a comment made very early on that the size of a portion of food that can been bought at a restaurant has increased over time. This is something that I can relate to especially since some restaurants that I have been to I struggle to finish the meal. My mum generally served us smallish portions when she cooked dinner, normally about half the size of what they serve at restaurants. However, the increased portion also comes along with an increased price, and there generally is no options (in many cases) of having a half-portion. This I don't like because it is effectively wasting food, and I do not like wasting food. Granted, while our scraps and left overs will not make it to Africa, at least they could be composted and used to return nutrients to the soil.

I won't go too deep into the production aspects of our food because that is covered more in Schlosser's book 'Fast Food Nation' (and it is quite scary at that, especially when you realise that our entire production system is reliant on the cheap and easy access to oil). Spurlock does look at this, however he is more concerned about what we eat and what we are giving our children. Then there is the addictive nature of fast food, particularly with things like transfats. We need to remember that our ability to freeze and preserve food is actually a double edged sword. When we freeze and preserve food we destroy its taste, meaning that we have to create artificial taste so as to make the food palpable. Then there is the Happy Meal, which includes a toy. In a way it is a work of marketing genius, however it is of concern because it is like giving an addictive substance to our children at a young age. It is not so much the food itself, but the fat and sugar that goes into the food.

Look, I'm not the healthiest eater myself, eating crisps and curries, as well as drinking bucket loads of beer. The catch is that buying and eating healthy food is not the easiest thing to do, especially if you live by yourself and feed yourself. Meat is expensive, and fresh vegetables and fruit, unless used quickly, end up spoiling. When I buy potatoes, carrots, or even lettuce, unless I am using it quickly, it ends up going off and needs to be thrown out. However, that is no excuse to regularly eat McDonalds. In fact, as I consider it, and I am sure if I were to do some research and do my sums correctly, I suspect going to the supermarket and buying groceries for the week will end up being substantially cheaper than buying takeaway on a daily basis. I guess that I why I always try to take a packed lunch to work. In fact, I look at all my collegues who complain about not having any money, and then at lunch time running down to Subway or another nearby takeaway, and buying their lunch.