Fast Food Nation

[Devotay]

The trailer for Fast Food Nation is now upon YouTube.com.

I believe that given enough exposure, the book and (hopefully) the movie can have the same sort of positive effects as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had 90 years ago. With the caveat that, as Sinclair himself said, "It is difficult to convince some of something when when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

What do you think?

[rockandroller]

oooh! *rubs hands together with glee* I didn't know Greg Kinnear was in it. I can't wait.

[barritz]

The trailer for Fast Food Nation is now upon YouTube.com.

I believe that given enough exposure, the book and (hopefully) the movie can have the same sort of positive effects as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had 90 years ago.  With the caveat that, as Sinclair himself said, "It is difficult to convince some of something when when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

What do you think?

←

I'd be interested in what you think. You obviously think the book is an important read. In ten words or less, why? (Okay, you can go over ten words.) For bonus points, compare the book to A Scanner Darkly (Linklater's other current movie).

[Devotay]

Well, I can't get the extra credit, because I have neither read nor seen A Scanner Darkly, however, here's what I had to say about Fast Food Nation when the book was released, from a review I published online and in the local paper.

Fast Food Nation

By Eric Schlosser,

Published in 2001

by Houghton-Mifflin, New York.

Reviewed By: Chef Kurt Michael Friese

Copyright © Kurt Michael Friese, 2001, All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission from myself.

The Dark Side of the All-American Meal 

In a world where he could, given enough time and publicity, have an impact similar to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, Atlantic Monthly's correspondent Eric Schlosser has written a well-researched exposé of an American business marvel - fast food.

Schlosser finds the roots of this post-war phenomenon in such unusual coincidences as the fact that McDonald's founder Ray Kroc served in the same WWI ambulance corps as Walt Disney. From there he traces the impact fast food has had on the world, its economy, its people and its cultures. Fast food has led to what he calls the "malling of America." It is an industry that, while founded by big business outsiders, has led to a standardization of taste that is reaching around the globe.

It even led to this bizarre and ironic spectacle: after noting that the ancient Romans once paraded the kings of conquered nations through the streets of Rome to the Circus, Schlosser takes us to a fast food franchiser's convention in Las Vegas in 1999. The keynote speaker? "Mikhail Gorbachev (former President of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, winner of the Orders of Lenin, the Red Banner of Labor, and the Nobel Peace Prize) was at the Grand Ballroom of the Mirage, giving the keynote speech before a fast food convention."

The book shows how the McDonald's corporation came to control the beef industry (by being it's largest customer) while this fast food giant makes more of its money from being the world's largest holder of commercial real estate than it does from selling food. One statement from McDonald's got testing equipment for the deadly food-borne pathogen e coli 0157-h7 into almost every major meatpacking house in America. Yet since McDonald's has shown comparatively little regard for the workers in those plants, meatpacking remains one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. 1 in 3 workers is injured to a point beyond mere first aid every year. We learn the story of Kenny Dobbins, of Keokuk, Iowa, who was worked very nearly to death by the meatpacking industry. There are stories of actual deaths, too, of drowning in chemical vats and being shot during late-night hold-ups at burger joints.

Though he never mentions it by name, Schlosser has written a 270 page rock-solid argument for the need for the Slow Food Movement. Fast Food Nation may just startle and anger enough people to make a real difference in the world.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Devotay (log)

[Grub]

Devotay, that's an excellent review... I only know of the book from an NPR interview with the author, which focused mainly on the food aspects of the book. Very interesting stuff, what you write about.

[barritz]

Thank you for that review, Devotay. Have you seen the McDonalds vs Schlosser vids on YouTube?

http://youtube.com/results?search=McDonald...s&search=Search

[Devotay]

Thanks and thanks. Yes I did see those debates, and to me they came off like this:

Schlosser: Your food is bad for people, the environment, animals and our health system

McD's: Yeah, but we're getting better

Schlosser: Perhaps, but not better enough

McD's: Well can't you just give us credit for trying

Schlosser: I have, but the changes in the UK are miniscule compared what needs to be done in the US and worldwide

McD's: Nuh-uh

Schlosser: Ya-huh

I'd love to see a formal, Harvard style debate on the subject. Meanwhile, the movie looks like fun.

[Moopheus]

For bonus points, compare the book to A Scanner Darkly (Linklater's other current movie).

←

Both are depressing accounts of the damage people willingly inflict on themselves because of their addictions to harmful substances, and the evil of the corporate interests that exploit them.

Just came back from seeing A Scanner Darkly, and it was cool, reasonably faithful to the book, but based on the reports from Cannes I'd guess the Fast Food Nation movie is going to be more like Dazed and Confused or Slackers.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Moopheus (log)

[oesophagus]

I saw the Fast Food Nation movie at a preview screening a couple of weeks ago, and I have to say that as a fan of the book and Mr Schlosser's writing in general, I was very disappointed.

The tone is all wrong. The rationality, the freshness and the (relatively) unbiased voice, the things that made the argument in the book so strong are largely missing from the film. There are a couple of okay performances in there (Bruce Willis in a particularly good cameo), but they're generally playing clangingly to type. Ethan Hawke as a slacker with a heart of gold? Greg Kinnear as Mr Middle America? Hold the front page! (And Avril Lavigne? Let's not go there.)

It doesn't work as a piece of entertainment (think after-school special with snacks) and it doesn't work as "factional" documentary. The preachiness and the thudding, predictable manner in which the director pushes his message reminded me of Michael Moore at his hamfisted worst, doing more harm than good in the eyes of an audience that likes a well reasoned argument, though, like some of Moore's films, it might be the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-walnut approach needed to get through to some of the dumber, more burger addled-masses.

[azurite]

Thanks and thanks.  Yes I did see those debates, and to me they came off like this:

Schlosser: Your food is bad for people, the environment, animals and our health system

McD's: Yeah, but we're getting better

Schlosser: Perhaps, but not better enough

McD's: Well can't you just give us credit for trying

Schlosser: I have, but the changes in the UK are miniscule compared what needs to be done in the US and worldwide

McD's: Nuh-uh

Schlosser: Ya-huh

I'd love to see a formal, Harvard style debate on the subject.  Meanwhile, the movie looks like fun.

←

A book came out a 5? 6? years ago, I think the title was "McLibel" about McDonald's UK filing a libel lawsuit against a very small group (called Greenpeace but not connected in anyway with the Greenpeace most of us have heard of) for handing out leaflets saying about the same things Schlosser says on the first line ("Your food is bad for people. . .). and also criticising McD's employee practices/policies. Apparently this is (or was) common McD's practice in nations w/no 1st Amendment rights and libel laws like those of England's at the time (actually such lawsuits are filed in the US, called SLAP suits). It became the longest running civil suit ever in the UK. The defendants ended up representing themselves as the court decided that Legal Aid didn't apply in such an action. They did get some help from a libel attorney but only out of court assistance--it was very difficult for the defendants to get good assistance as well as represent themselves as apparently libel law in the UK is pretty byzantine and there are not many lawyers (or barristers?) who specialize in that area of the law. I think some kind of film was made about the defendants and what they went through during this lawsuit.

There is a website that keeps people up to date on what's happening--I think the two defendants have filed suit in the International Court of Justice (or Human Rights?) in the Hague. Or is it Brussels? Despite the huge burden of proof that libel law placed on the defendants, the English court actually found in their favor on several issues: that McD's targets children in their advertising, that the food isn't particularly good for one and perhaps one other issue. I think McD's declined to collect the damages rewarded--because the of the bad publicity they gotten because of the lawsuit (most people back off as soon as McD's lawyers threaten to file, so their practices aren't really exposed to public/media scrutiny). McD's attorney fees were astronomical. Their lawsuit and the website seem to have become a kind of rallying point or call for others and the website keeps people up to date on annual global events, etc. Or was the last time I looked at it, probably 6 to 8 months ago.

It's a very interesting book--I hadn't been aware of the types of tactics employed by McDonald's and I imagine some of the other large fastfood chains. Just to stop anyone from criticising them--or informing people of some of the downside of McD's food and business practices.

I haven't read Schlosser's book yet, although I bought a second hand paperback copy of his book last year. It's still waiting for me to read it.

azurite

[Allura]

Thank you for that review, Devotay.  Have you seen the McDonalds vs Schlosser vids on YouTube? 

http://youtube.com/results?search=McDonald...s&search=Search

←

I'm watching part 2 right now. Err.....you know, I don't particularly like McDonald's myself, and only eat it maybe once a quarter, usually when driving and need a quick bite...and I eat their salads and a bottle of water. But, are we adults? Do we raise our own children? I can make plenty of healthy choices if I eat at McD's. When my husband orders a Big Mac, it's his choice...and he doesn't now that he's learned what the nutrition info is.

Mr. Schlosser's biggest complaint seems to be the marketing to children. But while I agree with his visual marketing example (World Cup-related marketing via the french fries on an ad when you walk in), I disagree with his complaint that McD's sells food in schools. According to the exec, they do not. Apparently, what's really happening is that the SCHOOL in question has made a decision to bring McDs in for the kids once a week, not that the company has opened a franchise within the school. I'm not seeing how this is the fault of the corporation; it's the fault of the school that thinks this is a responsible choice for a meal program.

McDonald's core products are probably not healthy on a regular basis, and they've frankly never claimed that. But nor would be a diet of hamburgers from any other source ranging from, say Jack in the Box, to Five Brothers (that's the one in the DC area, right?), to a burger at Peter Luger. A proper diet involves moderation, and, frankly, a consumer that thinks about what they're ingesting.

[Grub]

McDonald's core products are probably not healthy on a regular basis, and they've frankly never claimed that.

←

This is absolutely true, but the slogan that junk food sellers use, is completely misleading: That their food can be part of a healthy diet. This is disinformation at its best -- by the same logic, sitting on your ass and eating potato chips can be part of a healthy diet. The issue in both cases is, you just can't do it very often. And of course, this is the question they can't answer: does your diet become unhealthy if you eat at McDonalds more than once a week? More than once every two weeks?

Obviously, it depends on what else you eat: if someone eats Taco Bell, Carl's Jr and gas station hotdogs every other day, it won't matter a damn whether they eat at McDonalds once or five times a week.

The bottom line is, it's junk food. It is a negative part of a diet. Trying to portray it as anything else is immoral -- not that anyone would be shocked by that of course.

[Ohba]

The McLibel book might have been published 5 or 6 years ago, but the original leaflet on which the libel case was based was from 1986. This of course, was the pre-internet age, but by the time the case had been concluded, 1997, the leaflet, What's Wrong with McDonald's, was more widely and easily available than ever before.

Of course, since then, they've had worse publicity from Fast Food Nation and, particularly, Supersize Me. But then, as McDonald's pointed out, they would never advocate eating fast food every day for a month.

Does this count?

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/schinamp_12sep98.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/187292.stm

Edited August 2, 2006 by Ohba (log)

[JohnL]

Thank you for that review, Devotay.  Have you seen the McDonalds vs Schlosser vids on YouTube? 

http://youtube.com/results?search=McDonald...s&search=Search

←

I'm watching part 2 right now. Err.....you know, I don't particularly like McDonald's myself, and only eat it maybe once a quarter, usually when driving and need a quick bite...and I eat their salads and a bottle of water. But, are we adults? Do we raise our own children? I can make plenty of healthy choices if I eat at McD's. When my husband orders a Big Mac, it's his choice...and he doesn't now that he's learned what the nutrition info is.

Mr. Schlosser's biggest complaint seems to be the marketing to children. But while I agree with his visual marketing example (World Cup-related marketing via the french fries on an ad when you walk in), I disagree with his complaint that McD's sells food in schools. According to the exec, they do not. Apparently, what's really happening is that the SCHOOL in question has made a decision to bring McDs in for the kids once a week, not that the company has opened a franchise within the school. I'm not seeing how this is the fault of the corporation; it's the fault of the school that thinks this is a responsible choice for a meal program.

McDonald's core products are probably not healthy on a regular basis, and they've frankly never claimed that. But nor would be a diet of hamburgers from any other source ranging from, say Jack in the Box, to Five Brothers (that's the one in the DC area, right?), to a burger at Peter Luger. A proper diet involves moderation, and, frankly, a consumer that thinks about what they're ingesting.

←

Your post reflects a reasoned approach to this issue.

A case can be made that many foods are "unhealthy."

(most in fact--show me a food item and there's a case against it somewhere)

Hamburgers? You are correct to note that any hamburger (not just MacDonald's) is considered by many to be unhealthful.

The problem is--we have taste buds. eating involves pleasure.

Most pleasure involves some risk. we can temper that risk with moderation. we really can have our cake and eat it too.

I am all for information that enables people to weigh the risk rewards involved with eating and food.

That's where it ends though.

What is a bit scary to me is that there seems to be a growing movement of people who are setting themselves up as arbiters of what we should be eating (or not eating).

First we get the overheated arguments that we have a crises.

Then comes the demonization--the evil empire--the enemy (in this case a fast food chain).

Next when the warnings don't seem to be working-- the rationale is established--"they can't help themselves!--they are addicted!"

and we have the calls for bans for regulations--we can't save ourselves we are helpless so we need to be saved!

again--this is not just about MacDonald's or fast food chains-- it is about hamburgers it is about beef--it is about choice.

We need some reason and common sense here.

I don't have a problem with regulating advertising to children. I believe we need to educate kids and parents about nutrition.

We need to step back and let people make their own choices and learn to live with it if people don't make the same choices we would.

By the way--I have no problem putting pressure on MacDonald's et al to improve their methods and offerings.

[Daddy-A]

What is a bit scary to me is that there seems to be a growing movement of people who are setting themselves up as arbiters of what we should be eating (or not eating).

First we get the overheated arguments that we have a crises.

Then comes the demonization--the evil empire--the enemy (in this case a fast food chain).

Next when the warnings don't seem to be working-- the rationale is established--"they can't help themselves!--they are addicted!"

and we have the calls for bans for regulations--we can't save ourselves we are helpless so we need to be saved!

again--this is not just about MacDonald's or fast food chains-- it is about hamburgers it is about beef--it is about choice.

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us" - Pogo (Walt Kelly, 1958)

A.

[Devotay]

What is a bit scary to me is that there seems to be a growing movement of people who are setting themselves up as arbiters of what we should be eating (or not eating).

First we get the overheated arguments that we have a crises.

Then comes the demonization--the evil empire--the enemy (in this case a fast food chain).

Next when the warnings don't seem to be working-- the rationale is established--"they can't help themselves!--they are addicted!"

and we have the calls for bans for regulations--we can't save ourselves we are helpless so we need to be saved!

again--this is not just about MacDonald's or fast food chains-- it is about hamburgers it is about beef--it is about choice.

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us" - Pogo (Walt Kelly, 1958)

A.

←

While there are those out there who are overheated about just about any argument one would care to make, I would not say that Mr. Schlosser is one of them. His argument is from the point of view of an investigative journalist who looked into an issue and reported what he found. He does not say that you should or shouldn't do anything, just that these are the facts he has uncovered.

While Morgan Spurlock might be accused of saying some folks are addicted, I don't think you'd get that fromSchlosser's book. As for the movie, I really don't know what to expect from it.

I also would suggest that Schlosser offers no regulatory or goveernmental solutions whatsoever, and acknowledges that it is indeed a choice. He argues only that it should be an informed choice.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Devotay (log)

[BryanZ]

I saw this today at a screener. It's really not good, not good at all. The three story lines which are supposed to interconnect don't. It has no resolution, even though it is a plot-driven film. And to make matters worse it drags so bad, you're just waiting for it to end.

It's not even tragic in the way say Requiem for A Dream (the film) or even The Jungle (the novel) is. There's not feeling of emotional despair, no anger at the evil capitalist machine, just plain boredom. Bruce Willis' cameo brings the only touch of reality to what was otherwise a big waste of my time.

And to top it all off, Avril Lavigne is in this movie. Avril Lavigne!

Please don't go.

[Fat Guy]

Fast Food Nation was on Showtime the other night, so I decided to watch.

Although I disagreed with much of the Fast Food Nation book, I was nonetheless able to recognize that it was a very well written, provocative, thought-provoking piece of work. So I know it's possible to separate one's critical judgment from one's opinions about issues. Why, then, has it been so difficult for professional film critics to realize what an awful movie Fast Food Nation is?

For example, A.O. Scott, writing in the New York Times, positively gushes over the film:

“Fast Food Nation,” while it does not shy away from making arguments and advancing a clear point of view, is far too rich and complicated to be understood as a simple, high-minded polemic. It is didactic, yes, but it’s also dialectical. While the climactic images of slaughter and butchery — filmed in an actual abattoir — may seem intended to spoil your appetite, Mr. Linklater and Mr. Schlosser have really undertaken a much deeper and more comprehensive critique of contemporary American life.

Really? "Far too rich and complicated to be understood as a simple, high-minded polemic"? The film is neither rich nor complicated. It is painfully shallow, lecturing, leaden and utterly predictable.

Peter Travers, writing in Rolling Stone, claims:

Eric Schlosser's nonfiction 2001 best seller, Fast Food Nation, started life at this magazine, but the bucking maverick of a movie he has scripted with director Richard Linklater (A Scanner Darkly) is cut from a different side of beef. It's less an expose of junk-food culture than a human drama, sprinkled with sly, provoking wit, about how that culture defines how we live.

There is nothing sly or provoking about the film, nor are any of its cultural observations the slightest bit clever. It's a simple-minded, poorly made piece of propaganda: an insult to the excellent book upon which it was based. I could agree with, worship and love Eric Schlosser and Fast Food Nation but I would still think this was one of the worst films ever made. It's so bad that Avril Lavigne is just as good as the other actors.