What We Eat

In "What We Eat", Eric Schlosser's argument was that the fast food industry was dominating smaller food businesses, the consumer's health, and the way society eats and acts. These fast food chains, especially McDonald's, have become powerful enough to the point where nothing seemed to stop them. McDonald's was considered a powerful icon of American economy, where it was the nation's largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes. In addition, McDonald's is the largest owner of retail property and was even more invested in advertising and marketing than any other franchise (Schlosser 668-669). Basically, the fast food industry has had an effect on our lives, whether we liked it or not.

Schlosser's main concept was that fast food chains, much like McDonald's, has become an issue for the way people live. We could not escape what was inevitable, which was the fact that fast food restaurants were controlling how we ate, acted, and lived. "Fast food and its consequences have become inescapable, regardless of whether you eat it twice a day, try to avoid it, or have never taken a single bite" (Schlosser 668). We could fight back by ignoring fast food all together, or even by encouraging others to look away from fast food. On the other hand, we could stop resisting and join the conformity with society. Either way, the fast food industry would impact us somehow.

In "What We Eat", Eric Schlosser used several methods in explaining his argument on fast food's dominance over society. Schlosser used cause/effect and compare/contrast to prove his point. In relation to the method of cause/effect, Schlosser gave my interesting examples of cause/effect throughout his article. The main cause could be the foundation of McDonald's and its ways. Various effects could be that Americans were becoming more obese, smaller businesses were collapsing, etc. However, McDonald's "...basic thinking behind fast food has become the operating system of today's retail company, wiping out small businesses, obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country..." (Schlosser 669-670).
McDonald's had become powerful enough to control everything in its path. Not only was this company spreading its ideology to other franchises, McDonald's controlled the workers as well. Besides the low wages for workers, "Farmers and cattle ranchers are losing their independence, essentially becoming hired hands for the agribusiness giants or being forced off the land (Schlosser 672). McDonald's could make millions every week through its sales, but would not even raise their workers' salaries so the head people could make an extra dollar. Is this the new definition of greed?

In addition to cause/effect, the method of compare/contrast was used to enhance the intensity of the issue on fast food. Schlosser compared American McDonald's workers to migrant farm workers (670). This was to show how both classes were roughly making the same amount of money while doing practically the same amount of work. Well, not the "same amount of work", but the stress behind the work was basically the same for both fast food employees and migrant workers.

The benefit of combining these two methods was that it enhance the intensity of the issue. Personally, I felt more interested in reading about this article because of all the information, examples, and analysis Schlosser presented. Combining two methods into one article definitely helped me in understanding the issue of fast food's dominance. Schlosser's writing style was also unique in the sense that it was very educational and impressive. At times, Schlosser would be serious by proposing facts and examples on certain topics he brought up. Then every once in awhile in the article, Schlosser would make his reading interesting by presenting something good. For example, Schlosser stated, "The early Roman Republic was fed by its citizen-farmers; the Roman Empire, by its slaves. A nation's diet can be more revealing than its art or literature" (668). In addition, he stated, "The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross" (669). These statements ever so often were sort of funny and interesting to me. I would not expect him to state these things, but then again, Schlosser was a true nonconformist in revealing the truth in society.