What Makes A Burger Place Fast Food?

[Holly Moore]

On reflection, it strikes me that "fast food" really should be "fast food restaurant" because it describes the way the food is produced, sold and consumed more than it does the food itself.

←

I agree that the term makes little sense without a food-service context.

The term "Fast Fppd" was originally applied to the hundreds of primarily franchised walk up counter restaurant chains such as Burger King, McDonald's, KFC, JAX, et al that sprung up in the 60's and 70's. 

←

According to this blogger, who seems to have done his homework, it dates to the 1950s:

The “fast food” term became popularized with the New York City-based publication Fountain & Fast Food Service in 1951, later titled Fountain & Fast Food and then simply Fast Food. The term “fast food” appears in newspapers from the mid-1950s, although a “fast food restaurant” such as White Castle, for example, has existed since the 1920s.

My sense is that the term fast food to define a segment of the restaurant industry came into use in the 70s to apply to all the various franchise fast food restaurants. I do not recall McDonald's, when I worked new products in the late 60s, considering itself "fast food."

A McDonald's of today can not produce a burger that approaches the quality of the 1970's McDonald's hamburger.

Most of the major chains serve inferior food today to what they served when I was a kid. I'm not sure that reality bears on the definition of fast food, though.

←

It bears on the evolution of a fast food hamburger from its prime to the mediocre version that is served today.

[Susie Q]

A friend gave up fast food for Lent. Her criteria was that if the business had a drive through window it was fast food.

I know my quip doesn't add much to the topic but I couldn't resist.

[Busboy]

Fast Food is anything where one goes up to a counter, orders and waits for it to arrive as opposed to table service. Some FF is faster than others and some FF may be slower than some table service establishments like diners.

←

By this definition, drive-through would not be fast food -- a bizarre omission that reveals the problem with taxonomies like this!

←

Your drive-through point is one of semantics and nothing more.

←

Dave Thomas would disagree.

←

How so?

←

"It's waaaaaay better than fast food. It's Wendy's."

I's arguably possible that we're all thinking a little too much here. But let me throw in a suggestion: if the food is always served ready to carry out -- save for substituting a bag for a tray -- it's probably being served in a fast-food restaurant.

[Chris Amirault]

When did "fast food" go from being a largely positive descriptor to a largely negative one?

[slkinsey]

When the quality started to decline greatly (like Holly, I can remember when McDonald's used to actually be pretty good).

And also, when we began to see that increasing percentages of the population were eating a very large proportion of their meals at fast food megachains, and the epidemiological health consequences of this diet became too obvious to ignore.

Both of these things, I'd guess, began in earnest sometime in the mid-1980s.

Edited April 20, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[genarog]

There are many examples of fast food being good food, primarily outside of the US.

A burger is bad food if quality is lost just so that it can be served faster. Pre-cooked burgers are bad food to me. However, if someone could prepare a pre-cooked burger so that no quality was lost, then I wouldn't consider it bad food.

By quality I mean texture and taste. Bread of course has a lot to do with it; I don't find a hamburger bun to be a good match for a hamburger.

[Toliver]

I also think of a fast food restaurant as being a place without waitstaff. Granted, the inverse doesn't mean it's a fast food place (lots of Mom & Pop restaurants have no wait staff but they can't be considered a fast food place). But generally speaking, I think having no waitstaff can be one descriptor of a fast food restaurant.

While the local Carl's Jr. will hand me a number and then deliver the food to my table (when I'm eating in the restaurant), the worker who brought me the food isn't waitstaff. Carl's Jr. is still considered fast food.

Compare this to the Farmer Boys chain which I consider higher end fast food (meaning similar fast food fare but costing you more). They also give you a number and a staff member will bring the food to my table. But they will also refilll my drinks, bring extra napkins, bus the table, etc. They work for that tip.

So is it the time from ordering the food to receiving that food the deciding factor as to whether a restaurant is a fast food joint or not?

Or are the menu items the gauge? That being said, doesn't Keller serve his version of a fast food burger that can't really be called fast food though it imitates it?

[Fat Guy]

There are many examples of fast food being good food, primarily outside of the US.

←

What examples are you thinking of?

[Fat Guy]

When did "fast food" go from being a largely positive descriptor to a largely negative one?

←

Was it ever a largely positive descriptor? I'm not old enough to remember the early uses of the term in the 1950s and 1960s, but when I was a kid in the 1970s it was certainly not a positive descriptor among my peers' parents -- even though at the time most fast food was pretty tasty, as opposed to now. I searched for New York Times mentions in the 1950s and 1960s and they all seemed pretty neutral. There was no "gee whiz, isn't this futuristic fast-food stuff great! It's so much better than home-cooked food!"

The reputation of fast food probably hit a low with the publication of Fast Food Nation, but as an overall trend I wonder if fast food hasn't of late been fighting back against its bad reputation. The whole fast-casual segment, where you have billions of dollars invested in the proposition that it's possible to have high-quality fast food, seems to be a statement that fast food can be good food. There have always been countless examples of good, fast food.

Of course having a discussion about fast food's reputation presupposes meaningful agreement about what the term means. I don't think such agreement exists.

[genarog]

What examples are you thinking of?

Arancini

Pane e Panelle

Baccalà fritto

Gyro

Falafel

Choripan

[slkinsey]

There are many examples of fast food being good food, primarily outside of the US.

What examples are you thinking of?

One example I can think of is a paninoteca in Italy. This translates, more or less, as "sandwich shop." Only it isn't like a NY deli, where the sandwiches are all made to-order. Rather, various panini and tramezzini, often with fanciful names, are made fresh each morning. You walk up to the counter, choose the sandwich you want, which may or may not be briefly grilled in a panini-press, and they give it to you wrapped in wax paper.

I frequently ate lunch at the paninoteca Harnold's* just outside the Teatro Rossini in Pesaro. Their sandwiches are far better than anything I have ever had at a fast food restaurant in the United States, or even most middlebrow restaurants that serve sandwiches. All the ingredients are fresh. Bread is delivered daily. They use high quality salumi and local cheeses, etc. They even make their own mayonnaise each morning. This is considered fast food (google harnold's pesaro "fast food" and you will see that it is described as "self service fast food"). And it does fit all of the commonly-listed criteria given above for a fast food restaurant.

But, aren't there plenty of examples of much-better-than-McDonald's fast food right here in America? Doesn't that describe, for example, a NYC slice shop? Or a Philly cheesesteak place? Or a gyro place? Or a taco truck? Or a fried clam shack? Or a falafel cart? This is part of what I was getting at above: That somehow we have collapsed all fast food into a single category that is defined in the public imagination by the lowest-common-denominator fast food megachains.

* The name of the restaurant always puzzled me, because in my mind somehow I couldn't get past the "H" in the name. Then, one day as I was eating one of my favorite sandwiches there, which was named the "Mister C," it dawned on me that the owners were evoking Happy Days ("H" is silent in Italian, so the name is pronounced "Arnold's").

(Edited to fix spelling.)

Edited April 20, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Fat Guy]

What examples are you thinking of?

Arancini

Pane e Panelle

Baccalà fritto

Gyro

Falafel

Choripan

←

I guess I have two thoughts upon seeing that list of examples:

First, all of those things are readily available in the US. And like a hamburger they can all be high- or low-quality. Gyros and falafel, in particular, can range from sublime to junk.

Second, a lot of those are deep-fried foods consisting mostly of carbohydrates. A diet consisting purely of falafel is probably just as bad as a diet of french fries. As in toxicity, it all comes down to dosage. The occasional serving of falafel, just like the occasional meal at McDonald's, is surely harmless. Eat it every day and you might have trouble. The problem with fast food -- whether it's McDonald's or falafel -- isn't its existence or periodic consumption. The problem is when people start living on the stuff and it crowds other foods out of the ecosystem. That's the health problem, at least. There are also economic and cultural problems with the mega chains that would exist even if they all sold salad.

[slkinsey]

When did "fast food" go from being a largely positive descriptor to a largely negative one?

Was it ever a largely positive descriptor? I'm not old enough to remember the early uses of the term in the 1950s and 1960s, but when I was a kid in the 1970s it was certainly not a positive descriptor among my peers' parents -- even though at the time most fast food was pretty tasty, as opposed to now. I searched for New York Times mentions in the 1950s and 1960s and they all seemed pretty neutral. There was no "gee whiz, isn't this futuristic fast-food stuff great! It's so much better than home-cooked food!"

I don't really remember the words "fast food" being used all that often in the 70s. Rather, "junk food" (which dates to 1973) was the term used to describe undesirable foods. I can remember hearing "junk food" a lot in the 1970s, but not "fast food."

[Fat Guy]

I remember junk food being spoken about too, but as a larger term encompassing more than just food from restaurants. Cheetos and Doritos, those were junk food.

[weinoo]

But, aren't there plenty of examples of much-better-than-McDonald's fast food right here in America?  Doesn't that describe, for example, a NYC slice shop?  Or a Philly  cheesesteak place?  Or a gyro place?  Or a taco truck?  Or a fried clam shack?  Or a falafel cart?  This is part of what I was getting at above:  That somehow we have collapsed all fast food into a single category that is defined in the public imagination by the lowest-common-denominator fast food megachains.

←

In this vein, I'd be tempted to add most bbq places to the fast food roster. That is certainly food that is NOT cooked to order.

[slkinsey]

I remember junk food being spoken about too, but as a larger term encompassing more than just food from restaurants. Cheetos and Doritos, those were junk food.

Right, Steven. Exactly. I should have added that for clarity.

What I'm saying is that, if I heard anyone saying bad things about McDonald's hamburgers in 1977, it was likely that they were ranting about "junk food" and talking down McDonald's burgers together with potato chips, soda and candy bars, rather than ranting about McDonald's as "fast food" together with Kentucky Fried Chicken (which also used to be pretty good, before changing the name to KFC) and Taco Bell (eh... not so much).

Edited April 20, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[genarog]

I think that from the list, only Gyro and Falafel are widely available in the US, at least in NYC. When I need fast food that's what I seek. If for instance I wanted fried baccala at fast-food cost I wouldn't know where to find it in NYC.

In order for food to be good you need that people actually care about its quality. Countries where fast food is good have usually been preparing their food the same way for centuries. If a place is bad, it will only sell to tourists. Many places that are in business here wouldn't be in Europe.

Edited April 20, 2009 by genarog (log)

[Fat Guy]

Many places that are in business here wouldn't be in Europe.

←

Such as McDonald's?

[genarog]

Such as McDonald's?

Funny we were walking in Bologna near Piazza Maggiore and we were stunned to come across a McDonald's. Who could eat there? Hopefully not the locals.

I meant to say places who don't spend millions of dollars in advertising...

Edited April 20, 2009 by genarog (log)

[JimH]

To me fast food means or is derived from the intent of the person buying the food. If I go to one of the big chains, I don't intend to get my food and then linger longer than it takes to eat it. I'm not there to pass the time of day with friends, have a business meeting or have dinner with the family. I'm there to eat and get out, period. The one thing I like about the chains is that where ever I go in the lower 48 the food will be consistant, like it or not you'll know what you are getting.

The first McDonalds I ever ate at was on a highway between my house and my Grandparants down at the shore, it was considered a treat, not a daily source for our meals.

[docsconz]

An example of often wonderful fast food outside of the US are Spanish tapas. Of course as with any kind of food, the quality may vary widely, though it is difficult to find truly bad tapas in Spain. They are often reasonably nutritious too.

[docsconz]

When did "fast food" go from being a largely positive descriptor to a largely negative one?

←

Was it ever a largely positive descriptor? I'm not old enough to remember the early uses of the term in the 1950s and 1960s, but when I was a kid in the 1970s it was certainly not a positive descriptor among my peers' parents -- even though at the time most fast food was pretty tasty, as opposed to now. I searched for New York Times mentions in the 1950s and 1960s and they all seemed pretty neutral. There was no "gee whiz, isn't this futuristic fast-food stuff great! It's so much better than home-cooked food!"

The reputation of fast food probably hit a low with the publication of Fast Food Nation, but as an overall trend I wonder if fast food hasn't of late been fighting back against its bad reputation. The whole fast-casual segment, where you have billions of dollars invested in the proposition that it's possible to have high-quality fast food, seems to be a statement that fast food can be good food. There have always been countless examples of good, fast food.

Of course having a discussion about fast food's reputation presupposes meaningful agreement about what the term means. I don't think such agreement exists.

←

One attempt to give at least some fast food a positive connotation is Ferran Adria's Fast Good in Madrid, though that hasn't met with much critical success. The name itself implies that fast food has a generally bad reputation.

[prasantrin]

In order for food to be good you need that people actually care about its quality.  Countries where fast food is good have usually been preparing their food the same way for centuries.  If a place is bad, it will only sell to tourists. Many places that are in business here wouldn't be in Europe.

←

You can find crappy, poorly-prepared food in every country in the world, even in countries where there is a tradition of actually caring about quality.

Japanese cooking techniques haven't changed much in centuries, yet fast food places have proliferated and are quite popular. The standard places (McD's, KFC, for example) aren't much better in Japan than elsewhere in the world.

[Fat Guy]

Such as McDonald's?

Funny we were walking in Bologna near Piazza Maggiore and we were stunned to come across a McDonald's. Who could eat there? Hopefully not the locals.

←

This is a common misconception about Europe, which as of last summer (the last time I checked in on this issue) was actually a larger source of revenue for McDonald's than the US.

I highly recommend this article from Business Week for some basic factual background. To wit:

Europe is now McDonald's (MCD) largest region by revenues, despite having roughly one-quarter the number of outlets as the U.S. Last year, revenues from company stores and royalties from franchisees topped $8.9 billion in Europe, compared with $7.9 billion in the U.S. It's a trend that analysts expect to continue . . .

"The European business is growing much faster than the U.S.," says Steve West, restaurant analyst with St. Louis brokerage Stifel Nicolaus.

On fast food in Europe in general, this is a decent backgrounder.

Europe's gourmets, gourmands and gastronomes are feeling the fast food revolution.

One reason is that eating out at a fast food or "family" restaurant can be cheaper than buying and cooking the ingredients.

France, which has 547 varieties of cheese, is, not surprisingly offering more resistance to change but Spain is fastest on fast food, changing faster even than the US.

[Fat Guy]

One attempt to give at least some fast food a positive connotation is Ferran Adria's Fast Good in Madrid, though that hasn't met with much critical success. The name itself implies that fast food has a generally bad reputation.

←

The name implies that fast food has a generally bad reputation with Ferran Adria. It also has a bad reputation with anybody involved with Slow Food, and among gourmets in general, and among affluent, educated elites the world over. Fast food does not necessarily, however, have a generally bad reputation with the people who subsist on it. You might be surprised to find that there are plenty of people out there -- hard-working, decent people with limited free time trying to feed their families and stay sane -- who think those who are down on fast food are paternalistic, condescending and out-of-touch. They are grateful for the convenience that the chains offer.

To get back to the issue of what makes a burger a fast-food burger, I think the answer is that the question doesn't make sense. I agree with Sam that the designation is better applied to restaurants of a certain type, and covers whatever they serve. Although I don't think the term has much use at all, in any event.