I strongly approve of having this kind of film spend its advertising in this kind of space. It may be that this is based on a false premise regarding the receptivity of the Volokh audience to its message, but I am an optimist.

McRib is made of people!

It doesn't seem so clear to me.

These cows probably wouldn't even exist if McDonald's (or someone..I doubt they care what brand of hamburger they become) wasn't going to chop them up for meat. Arguably they benefit from hamburger eating since it at least gives them several years of existance before it is taken away.

Moreover, it isn't totally clear that death itself is such a great harm, i.e., more than just an abscence of the goodness or life. As humans killing is particularly harmful as we are aware that we will die and fear for ourselves and mourn for our family. The cows probably don't realize they are going to be killed.

In other words killing an old cow to make room for a new calf might be a net good, or at least neutral.

Of course I think the question really being asked is to compare the plight of the cows not between fast food and vegetarian restaurants but between fast foot and non fast food meat eating.

Yes, I know I am taking this way too seriously but it's an interesting question and the reasoning above is one reason I'm not convinced of vegetarianism.

logicnazi says:

These cows probably wouldn't even exist if McDonald's (or someone..I doubt they care what brand of hamburger they become) wasn't going to chop them up for meat. Arguably they benefit from hamburger eating since it at least gives them several years of existance before it is taken away.

Let's say that some parents decided they'd have a child. This child would be prostituted out until the age of 5, and then killed and eaten. The child wouldn't be molested EVERY night, and would be given some toys and be fed well and all that.

If the parents were not allowed to do this, they wouldn't have the child at all.

Would one say, well, arguably the planned child molestation and cannibalisation benefits the child, because without it, the child wouldn't exist in the first place? If not, why not?

Hmmm, so which James of England is posting here???

I get really tired of this absurd mcdonald's bashing. NOBODY forces anybody to eat at McDonald's. It's a choice, and part of the free market. Health (lol) information is readily available on every product they sell. I also find it ironic that the reason they have hi-trans-fat hydrogenated oils in some products is because years ago, the PETA fanatics got all over them for using animal fat products, that were actually (ceteris paribus) HEALTHIER than what they changed to.

FOr the first time in recorded history, the poor are more obese than the middle or upper classes. And that is compltely a behavioral (ie a choice) problem. Nobody makes people eat McD's or wonder bread etc. People make these choices, and they live (or don't) with the results. McDonald's provides tasty cheap food, and they only survive, because people want to eat there. People who think McDonald's food is unhealthy rubbish, should provide a market ALTERNATIVE (that's how capitalism works) instead of bashing MCD's.

I work out 4-5 days a week, and pay a lot of attention to my health. I also occasionally eat McDonald's. In moderation, it's fine, tasty, cheap, and I'm glad i have the choice to eat there.

The food fascists (almost overwhelmingly leftists) want to inch their way into eliminating every aspect of choice and individual responsibility in our society.

Years ago, McDonalds introduced a healthier lower fat burger called the MCLean. People didn't buy it, so they discontinued it.

Fast food nation was a joke. Of course, if you eat big macs every meal, three times a day with sugary soda and fries, you will have health problems. If you go to a french restaurant and eat pate every day, you will have the same problem.

I have a friend who is a competitive bodybuilder, and dieted down to about 6% bodyfat, and he eats at McDonald's (semi-regularly). People need to be responsible for their own discipline, and food choices. I am glad McD's is available as a choice, and people who abuse fatty foods have themselves to blame, not McD's

Not to disagree (at least generally) with your post (although I would never legislate anything of the like, I think parents should generally be more cautious of feeding young children too much of any one thing).... the fact that you have a bodybuilder friend who eats McDonalds adds nothing to this conversation.

Bodybuilders, at least the serious ones, go through bulking and cutting stages. This is due to the fact that muscle is only increased where an individual maintains a calorie surplus, and that fat is only lost when an individual maintains a calorie deficit. So bodybuilders can eat whatever the hell they want when they are in the "bulking" (i.e. building muscle stage). I doubt that your friend, if he is a serious bodybuilder would eat McDonalds during his "cutting" stage.

I guess my problem is that to me, at least as a libertarian in most areas, what matters is externalities and you were pertinent up until mentioning your bodybuilder friend. It has nothing to do with the general population. That being said, lift on.

You mean that order of Children McNuggets that I got such a kick out of eating was made from animals after all? I feel cheated.

Ilya Somin wrote:

Maybe we should rethink our policy on which advertising we permit....

And miss commentary about slaughtering workers and consumers, child prostitution and cannibalism, bovine existentialism, bodybuilding techniques, obesity, capitalism, moral choices and incisive restaurant reviews?

Where else might readers turn to find such intellectual diversity?

Paul: Just yesterday in fact. :-}

Personally, I'm with logicnazi on this one. The animal kingdom is absolutely chock full of animals that have found mutually beneficial ways to live together. From a biological perspective, it is equally valid to say that humans are cultivating cows or vice versa. The net is result is that the resulting super-organism (if you will) is more likely to survive and pass both genomes into the future.

Vegans like to talk about the quality of life and the abuse of the animals and so forth but they commit a serious category error. Humans are concerned with higher matters but for an animal perpetuating a series of DNA bases is the only measure of success whatsoever. Judging an animal's life by any other criteria is simply wrong.

A quarter pounder with cheese is only some 550 calories, an order of fries is less than that(now sans trans fats!). I eat there all the time and have a BMI of 20. I know the food isn't great, it just brings back childhood memories when goin to MickeyD's was a big deal. Too bad you can't get popcorn popped in coconut oil anymore.

PS. I should add that it's not always the genome of the animal in question that gets duplicated, per se. 99% of the bees in a hive are sterile and will never mate and yet the toil endlessly to make sure that the queen does. Similarly for ants, monkeys (only the top social rung breeds), many dogs (only the alpha male) etc. . .

It's a silly, "gotcha" question that does not deserve any attention whasoever - probably not even this comment...

I think the question "Is it better for someone to be born than not to be born?" is totally incoherent.

I think the question "Is it better for someone to be born than not to be born?" is totally incoherent.

That is because it implies certain axioms which are unstated and which you may disagree with. You have a choice of premises and two people arguing the point of whether it is or isn't better for the creature in question to be have been born may not agree on a shared premise. All of the above make it rather difficult to debate the topic, but not impossible. Get a rabbi, a priest and a philosopher in a room together, and they will debate it for hours. Then get them to walk into a bar.

a rabbi, a priest and a philosopher in a room together, and they will debate it for hours.

Slightly off topic, but how would I find a philosopher? There aren't many philosophy shops in Miami. And going to a University philosopher seems to be begging for an academic philosophic view when my Rabbi and Priest may have real world experience with people.

That is because it implies certain axioms which are unstated and which you may disagree with.

No, I think it's incoherent in the same way that the following math problem is inccoherent:

Which value of "y" is greater?

a. y=0
b. y=x/0

The ensuing argument over whether "zero" is greater or less than "undefined" is inately incoherent.

"Slightly off topic, but how would I find a philosopher? There aren't many philosophy shops in Miami. And going to a University philosopher seems to be begging for an academic philosophic view when my Rabbi and Priest may have real world experience with people."

Actually, my sister (who is a phil. PhD) tells me that for a moment there looked to be a movement toward commercial philosophy practice in place of conventional "therapists," sort of a philosophical life questioning. Ask-a-philosopher. I think it makes a lot of sense - less self-indulgent than regular therapy -- looking for rational answers rather than sympathy. The NY Times wrote it up and all, but then it sort of petered out. I think people prefer to just pay to talk about themselves for endless hours, than actually get answers.

To Jeff B.:

You said "The corn fields they are fed from displaced animals which lived naturally - not confined, castrated, branded - and probably enjoyed life more than the cows." While not castrated, branded, etc., where do you think the animals go when a soybean field is planted? These miles of cubed tofu at Whole Foods are the result of the displacement and killing of animals. Do you think corn farmers are keen on crows eating their crops? I know that they see crows as a sap on their profits, so they frequently and routinely kill them (shotguns, usually).

Also, if it is just the quality of life of the cows, what about the plants? You aren't some kind of fascist who believes animals deserve life more than plants, do you? When farmers raise crops, most often the plants must be KILLED. So, when you buy tofu, you are supporting the MURDER of those soybean plants. How do you sleep? ;-)

Mr. Bulking and Cutting,

Actually during cutting stages, the bodybuilder would eat one fillet o' fish, and one quarter pounder per week. My point was that McD's food does not make you fat, and is not bad for you. Too much of it (heck, too much of almost anything will make you fat) will make you fat, and is bad for you.

Saturated fat, contrary to public opinion is not bad for you. Too little saturated fat (seen in some dean ornish fans and some vegans) is bad for you, just as too much is. Too little saturated fat results in low T levels, and depression among other things. The same can be said about cholesterol.

Strom,

BMI is almost as much of a silly joke as Fast Food Nation was. It is totally biased towards the sedentary population (as is RDA I might add) and does not take a host of athlete factors into account.

I have a BMI of 31.6 - obese. Yet, my body fat is the same as when I used to run marathons and 5k's. Why? Because BMI is useless for outliers, athletes, etc. but is never qualified as such. It is supposed to be a measure of bodyfat, and health risk. In fact, it is yet another example of bad, inaccurate, pseudoscience foisted on us by the AMA etc. who are usually about 20-40 yrs behind the curve in nutrition science. After all, they were still saying "fat is bad" years after sports scientists were touting the benefits of EFA's, etc.

Personally boycotting McD's is fine, but what it ultimately comes down to is trying to eliminate people's choices by being their mommy. And it is based on bad science and on the idea that nothing is ever the responsibility of the individual - it's the evil corporations' fault.

With VERY rare exceptions, a person who is obese, is such because of personal choices. But, lord forbid we recognize that. It's McD's fault, the media's fault, etc. etc. etc.

Fast Food Nation appeals to the elitist nannystater who wants to feel superior to the common hordes that like McD's as a cheap location to eat a tasty meal, and that often wants more govt. regulation, etc. etc. etc. vs. recognizing that (especially in cultures with little cultural capital or insistence on personal responsibility) McD's bears no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that some people refuse to exercise self-discipline.

The loadedness of these FFN questions would make any cross-examiner proud.

buddingeconomist writes:

I would argue that the life of some of these cows is not that bad, and if they had the mental capacity to decide, they might well prefer that life to [no] life at all.

I'm sure that if the cows could choose, AFTER THEY WERE BORN, they would choose life too. So would I. The reason that I find this to be not the best way to judge things, though, is through the child prostitution example I gave. I'm sure most abused children would choose to have been born AFTER THE FACT. Once there is a person there, he has choice: if his life is so miserable, he can kill himself.

But as a society, I find that to be a dangerous justification. After all, logically speaking, if a child is better off having been born and then abused, rather than not born at all, then why can't I have a child for the purpose of prostituting it? Better than no life, right? So why should I be prosecuted for this? I've done a good thing, I've benefited the child.

My problem with this logic is that the child didn't exist when I made this decision. It would be a different situation if there was an already existing baby, who was going to die, and who I agreed to take in only if I could abuse it. Then an argument could be made that at least the child is getting to live. But if I CREATE a child simply for the reason of abuse, I see that as a different set of circumstances.

“Humans are concerned with higher matters but for an animal perpetuating a series of DNA bases is the only measure of success whatsoever. Judging an animal's life by any other criteria is simply wrong.”

Animals are not programmed to replicate their DNA. They are programmed to do things that tend (over time and on the average) to replicate their DNA. For example, they are programmed to eat, to breed, to fight or flee in response to a threat.

Moreover, their programming operates largely through a carrot and/or stick system. An animal that eats experiences pleasure feedback. An animal that is being chased by a predator experiences terror feedback.

Accordingly, the animal can be said to be a “success” if it does things that generate lots of positive feedback and little negative feedback. A bull that eats well, ranks high in the herd, and bangs a lot of cows is probably very pleased with itself, even if all those cows are sterile and never calve.

And why do you allow humans to opt out of this system? They don’t. They can’t. They can consider “higher matters” only because doing so has tended (over time and on the average) to replicate their DNA.

your last post is exactly what i would expect. i'll respond point by point. imo, this post typifies, the "it's everybody's fault but the individual mindset"

"If you have never been to a grocery store in a poorer area (if they are even lucky enough to have something besides a local convenience store), then you are likely in for a shock. Much of the produce and meat is at levels that would be completely unacceptable to other generic groceries. More importantly, the prices are frequently higher due to lack of choice in the area."

ok, first of all, i have spent many years shopping at grocery stores in very poor areas. that is often where i would buy my lunch/dinner when working as a beat cop in the hood. there are TONS of healthy and cheap choices. But I saw time and time again, people choosing wonder bread over wheat bread, people NOT buying healthy staples like whole grain rice, eggs, tuna, etc. that are all VERY cheap, and nutrient dense.

second of all, the reason why the prices can be higher (many yuppy grocery stores in my area are much more expensive than the hood grocery stores) is because of SHRINKAGE. there is more shoplifting in the poorer area grocery stores, and grocery stores generally operate on razor thin margins. not to belabor a point, but go to these stores and WATCH WHAT PEOPLE BUY. especially, watch the fat ones. over and over again, i saw confirmed that fat people (especially the grossly obese) make exceptionally poor choices as to the foods they buy. oatmeal, eggs, tuna, brown rice, etc. are rarely seen in their shopping carts. iow, i repeat. it's personal choice, and it;s the individuals fault.

you are again falling into the bogus paradigm of "unhealthy foods" etc. a hamburger (even a fast food one) is not unhealthy. eating too many of them is. it is not this simple thing of "bad food, good food" and furthermore it is FAR FAR more important to eat a healthy diet that has the essential fatty acids, lots of fiber, vitamins, essential aminos, etc. than eliminate fast food hamburgers.

obesity is caused by one thing (in the vast majority of obese) - stuffing one's fat face. it is not a corporate problem, it is not a poverty problem, etc. it's a lack of discipline, self-esteem, and personal responsibility.

you also completely ignore the fact that, in large part, many of the factors that make people REMAIN poor are because they continually make bad choices. anybody can fall prey to bad circumstances, but poverty is not merely something that just HAPPENS to people, it is a cycle that is often perpetuated by bad choices. it is not external factor's fault , in many cases, just as obesity isn't. choices are made. again, as somebody who worked (and lived at times) in very poor neighborhoods, i saw this all the time. somebody who makes 25k a year and then goes and spends half their disposable income at rent-a-center getting a wide screen tv, couch etc. that they chew up their disposable income on, is making a choice to perpetuate poverty.

somebody that chooses to keep stuffing their face when they know they are fat, that chooses to buy terrible food, and eat 'mass quantities' is choosing, whether they like to admit or not, to remain fat.

Cows and chickens and turkeys and pigs would have been extinct long ago if they weren't tasty.

I appreciate fast food joints because I am busy being economically productive, travelling, and doing community service, as well as my chosen sport, which is very time intensive to participate in. If I didn't have fast food joints, the quality of my life would be much less.

When I fix my own food, it's healthy. When I drive through, sometimes I get naughty food and many times I make healthy choices. How do I know? Download the nutritional info and look at your typical unhealthy choice, then figure out what menu items are better choices. Crunch the numbers. It's enlightening. I like junior burgers, baked spuds, salads, mandarin oranges or fruit cup, from Wendy's for instance.

Super Size Me was a silly movie because no one eats the way Morgan Spurlock did for that month, and if someone eats that way, they can't claim ignorance because everyone should know better just from common news stories. His whacko vegan girlfriend would have us eat roasted veggie quiche! Yuck. I don't know a man with any self respect who would eat that. (Maybe as a side dish to a nice big steak.) She calls McD's food immoral and evil, but she has a weird sense of priorities when it comes to morality--she's shacking up with her boyfriend outside of marriage, and she talks about their sex life to the entire world. She is entirely mercenary; her vegan catering business is mentioned in the credits. Now that's what I call a whore! She doesn't have any moral credibility to 98% of Americans.

Also, I have family who are beef producers. Maltreatment of animals is bad for their market value. Any farm hands who treat the animals with unnecessary roughness are fired on the spot. These cows have beautiful pastures and hills to roam, with fresh spring water, high quality food, and good health care. There's probably a fairly high percentage of the human population on the earth that envy these cows' lives. The hyperbole about cruelty to farm animals just doesn't resonate with me because I know better--I know farmers.

Fast food as employers--good entry level jobs for teens and longterm unemployed unskilled people (what the Department for Employment Services calls the "hard cases"). Learn work ethic, customer service, accepting supervision, productivity, teamwork, initiative...then move on to a better job. Anyone who aspires to stay in fast food employment is an actual or figurative idiot. What does the opportunity structure tell us? "Your raise is effective when you are!"

Congrats to McD's in finding efficiencies effectively--and for bringing down prices for consumers. Thanks for the convenience that adds to my quality of life, streamlining a necessary task for me when I am busier with more important things.

Those commenting on crop raising completely miss the elephant in the living room, farm subsidies.

Lots of land is used for crop production simply because the US government provides a large amount of money to those who raise crops. If it were not for the government farm subsidies this land would have never been farmed.

"It is significantly more difficult to eat healthy on a limited income."

Not true. You just have to try. In NYC you can go to the farmer's markets which are very cheap and/or Chinatown and/or some of the cheaper health food store, nowadays you also have Whole Foods which has some cheap options. I have done all of these on very limited budget. Most rural places make it even easier -- the supermarkets are extremely cheap plus you have gardens, farms, etc -- all much cheaper than buying a meal at McDonalds. Its just completely a lie to say that its more expensive to eat healthy. As for ignorance, that is no excuse in todays information-saturated world. Let people take responsability for themselves! You are very condescending to imply or to state that people don't know better. They know exactly what they are doing.


"And why do you allow humans to opt out of this system? They don’t. They can’t. They can consider “higher matters” only because doing so has tended (over time and on the average) to replicate their DNA."

This is true, but morally it is different; for whatever reason we have evolved this capacity, the capacity now exists. Once you have consciousness and higher functions, you can experience the brutality, know the difference, understand the treatment, etc.

"...the impoverished have fewer choices. It is significantly more difficult to eat healthy on a limited income"

Last time I took my family to McDonalds (two adults, two kids) it cost me about $16. A whole chicken can be had (granted, on sale) for $10, potatoes are a buck a pound in bulk, veggies $2-3 for the group.

It may be more work to eat healthily, but not more expensive...
***

"But the levels of unhealthy-ness in fast food never cease to amaze me. A fast food hamburger is probably three times as unhealthy as a regular hamburger"

Three times as unhealthy, based on what criteria, exactly? Surely you not would expect this group to accept such statements unchallenged?

not ... castrated

Castrating probably adds pleasure (or takes away discomfort) from the life of an animal that isn't going to be breeding anyway.

"I remain puzzled why movies like FFN focus so much time and effort on beef production. "

Its hard to get non-PETA members to sympathise with chickens.

Still Learning:

I can't answer that - I doubt there's an animal behaviourist in the house...?

The studies I've seen usually just look at a single species and determine their preference for clean air vs. ammonia-filled air, or look at the frustration of the animal through abnormal behaviours in crowded or confined conditions. I think it would be hard to compare across species.

CJColucci,

Maybe the solution is for activists to try and make sure poor people have the life skills, income, and kitchen facilities to fix a good, cheap meal.

Complaining about fast food is a remarkably ineffective way to get that task done.

TJIT:
Actually, I'm not complaining about fast food, I eat it, too often, myself. I do agree with your proposed agenda, which is remarkably ambitious when you think about it. Any other takers?

"Complaining about fast food is a remarkably ineffective way to get that task done."

Why? If addictive, fattening food isn't available, people may eat something healthier. Why not discourage the consumption of fast food? Why not ban it altogether? What's so special about this "choice" that it overrides societal health concerns? If healthy food is so cheap and easy to get and make, why let McDonald's monopolize the country?

Can any of the smart shoppers here tell me what's in a McD's Grilled Chicken sandwich? Hint: it isn't just chicken.

I'd venture to guess that 99.99% of the people who eat at McDonald's don't know what's in the food. If you've ever had a food allergy or been on a restricted diet, I can tell you that there is *nothing* you can eat there. There's no such thing as "just a salad" or "just a chicken breast."

Also, it isn't the calories that matter as much as the quality of the calories.

Finally, it isn't just that eating healthier requires better education, or more time, or a nicer kitchen, or a supermarket with better selection. Nor is it about "nasty corporations." It's a huge combination of things: advertising, media campaigns, toy tie-ins, the *illusion* that fast food can be harmless, etc. For an exhausted single mom picking the kids up from day-care and feeling guilty about never spending time with them, it's *easier* to treat them to McDonald's. You can say that's the "free market," but at a certain point it ceases to be a truly "free market" when numerous pressures combine to *effectively* limit people's choices.

Whit is right. I've watched people buy awful food in the stores, and hand it right to the kids to shut them up. Is it Frito-Lay's fault that Doritos are tastier than an apple? No. But when was the last time you saw an apple advertised on TV? Or got a free toy when you bought one?

Hmmmm. I wonder if all the posters here would accept the arguments they have made concerning cowburgers if McD's served catburgers or dogburgers of dolphinburgers?

I bet not.

What's so special about this "choice" that it overrides societal health concerns?

Wait, you're right. And what's so special about "choice" that it overrides society's safety concerns? We should ban cars. And what's so special about "choice" that it overrides society's concern about terrorism? We should ban assembly. And what's so special about "choice" that it overrides society's right of political correctness? We should ban churches.

Buddingeconomist, you didn't answer my question. We have safety devices in cars. You can't dump sewage into the street. Restaurants have to be inspected for health standards. Smoking is banned is most public and private buildings these days. So tell me, what's so special about McDonald's that it represents a critical "choice" that must be protected?

We have safety devices in cars. You can't dump sewage into the street. Restaurants have to be inspected for health standards. Smoking is banned is most public and private buildings these days. So tell me, what's so special about McDonald's that it represents a critical "choice" that must be protected?

And McDonalds is one of those restaurants that has safety inspections... whats so special about McDonalds that you get to take away freedom and choice from the people who want to 1) eat there, 2) work there, 3) invest there 4) run other similar outfits... that you would like to ban it?

McRibs rule! That said, the artificial flavoring is what gave me pause. The food is so bad in its processed form that they have to add phoney flavors to make it palatable. Add radiating the meat and heatlamps, and I bet the actual raw nutritional content of the food is close to zero. Zero.

Of course, just because it's zero doesn't mean that "gummint" should start passing laws. Laws aren't the solutions; in fact, the hodgepodge of federal and state laws make chains inevitable. Afterall, ma and pa can't compete. And thanks to antitrust laws, competing via exclusive purchasing coops can land you in the kitty. (Oh, and may I mention an agricultural policy that makes produce and meat far more expensive than it would otherwise be? Or maybe I should mention laws that make it a better business decision to freeze and ship meat than have it local? Etc.)

And therein lies my problem with fastfood nation, et al. Sure, there is an epidemic of bad food. But who do we blame? And what is the solution? Stupid laws made it possible and even stupider laws will make things worse.

-burp-

logicnazi says:

I tried to answer this question with the bit about how people were different than cows.

I agree and don't dispute this. But the principle that I derived from your comment was: because it is better for Being X to be alive and then killed prematurely rather than never to have existed, the slaughter of Being X benefits Being X.

Now, if what you meant was that there were other conditions (e.g. because it is better for Beings who are not sentient / conscious / possessing of a soul / whatever, to be alive and then killed prematurely . . .), then I see why it matters whether we are talking about cows versus babies. Otherwise, the logic appears the same to me.

The primary reason we can't let people go around having kids with 'timers' on them that die at a certain ago is because of the suffering this would induce in the kids and others. Unlike cows you have many people who would be hurt and horrified by the fact the kid was killed

Okay, new hypo. This kid will not be seen by others. He'll be locked in a basement, and johns will come to the house and have sex with him while he's in the basement. Short of me, my wife, and the tricks, no one will know he exists. Better?

and also unlike cows if we allowed children to be killed in some cases it would be tough to draw a line to stop parents from killing their kids at anytime.

So would it be wrong to have a calf so that, after a day, you could go at it with a blowtorch? He got to have one day of life . . . If we didn't allow this, he wouldn't have been born at all. If not, where do you draw the line?

Yet surely even if the act of killing a kid isn't wrong in and of itself the effects of allowing it on society would be horrendous.

Why? If it is better to have a child and abuse the child than not have the child at all, why should the effects be horrendous? Why shouldn't we encourage this?

I mean the best analogy to the cow case is whether it is immoral to get pregnant if you know the child will have a congenital condition that will cause him to die five years after he is born. This eliminates the confusion between the question of whether it is moral to kill a child you have when they are five and whether given the choice ONLY between having a kid and killing it at five and not having one at all it is moral to have one.

A congenital condition does not kill these cows, though. Slaughterhouses kill these cows. So I would say that if you want to make the analogy more apt, it should be that you know you will kill the kid in 5 years, when that kid could live longer, say to 15 or 25. Is it "moral", to have that kid? Or, to return to the original point, would one say that the practice of having kids to kill them at 5 *benefits* the kid?

"whats so special about McDonalds that you get to take away freedom and choice from the people who want to 1) eat there, 2) work there, 3) invest there 4) run other similar outfits..."

Nothing whatsoever.

"...that you would want to ban it."

I don't. But there's nothing sacred about junk food, nor should there be. When the proponderance of evidence weighs against the safety and healthfulness of certain products, and the costs to society overwhelm the issue of "choice," society deems it appropriate to intercede and either regulate or ban sales--alcohol, cigarettes, unsafe cars, you name it. I don't think we've reached that point with McDonald's yet, but we might.

"I don't. But there's nothing sacred about junk food, nor should there be. When the proponderance of evidence weighs against the safety and healthfulness of certain products"
\
again, you miss the point. there is NOTHING unhealthy about McD's, and certainly nothing more unhealthy about McD's french fries vs. MY french fries (well, except I leave the skin on, which has more nutrients).

what is unhealthy is eating TOO MUCH McD's. There is nothing unhealthy about, for example, eating a Big Mac or two a WEEK. There is something profoundly unhealthy about eating TOO MANY CALORIES of ANY TYPE OF FOOD, or eating so much McD's that you push out other more healthy foods from your diet. If you get yer EFA's, your EAA's, lots of fiber, water, micronutrients, minerals, phyto's etc. (which many people fail to get whether or not they eat McD's) AND you eat a supersized meal once or twice a week, it will not have any detrimental effect on your health.

And even if it did. SO WHAT? If I buy cane sugar, and make sugar water, and just drink that for my sole food souce, that would be profoundly unhealthy too.

If you want to change behavior, then support insitutions that teach people how to make healthy diet choices (which is a holistic approach and has nothing to do with a big mac or two a week), and stick to them. That's a positive thing. Taking away people's freedom of choice, and attacking a great american company that helps our economy, gives to charity, and is a vibrant part of our economy - is, to put simply - fascist.

Grover Gardener: "A two pound pot roast, about $10-12.
Vegetables, about $5-7. Milk, $3."

I'm not sure where you shop, but current Safeway specials are:

Rancher's Reserve Boneless Beef Round Tip Roast
1.99 lb

Large Beauregard Yams, 2 lbs $1

Dairy Glen Milk, Gallon. Whole, 2%,1% or Fat Free. 2 for $3.96.
***************

Cost of your sample meal from Safeway is $7 (figuring one gallon will suffice per meal). The cost to feed four at McDonalds is ?, more than$7, I'll bet.

Sorry the poor don't get steak or organic produce, but neither do I, mostly.

I'd still like to have my fries injected with beef tallow. Too bad I can't, but that's the way thearket works.

Clayton, I take it you're near Boise? No, no $1.99 pot roast here in DC. $3.59/lb is the cheapest I can find at Safeway's site today. Shopper's Food is $3.59. No specials on milk like yours. And you forgot the vegetable. So you're still looking at a $15 dinner in these parts. (And don't forgot the preparation--time is money!) But I'll bet a Happy Meal costs the same here is it does there.

Closer to Seattle than Boise. Can't say I'm familiar with D.C. having only changed planes there but I pulled an add off the internet from somplace in zip code 20001 called "Giant Food" which has the following advertised:

Spiral sliced honey ham $1.99/pound
Pork sirloin chops $1.99/pound
Leg of lamb $2.99/pound

Not pot roast, but if you're short on cash you buy what's on sale. And who says anyone has to eat meat? Beans and corn in combination supply all the protein needed, at a fraction of the cost of meat. Healthier too, maybe there ought to be a law...

I didn't actually forget the vegtable, Large Beauregard Yams, 2 lbs $1. Yams are cheaper out your way, 3 pounds for a buck.

Green Beans $1.29/pound

I'll give ya $4 for the milk and it's still cheaper than McDonalds. Happy meals probably do cost the same, but surely you aren't suggesting adults eat them.
***

As fun as this exchange has been, your last post is closer to the important issue - McDonalds did not rob me of anything. They chose to alter their offering and I have the choice to take my custom elsewhere. If every fast food outlet were closed tomorrow, people would still get fat. Will you close all non-vegan restaurants? Outlaw foods with a more than desirable calory density? Criminalize poor choices?

Where does it stop?

Whit, I agree entirely.

Carter, I hope you were joking when you said: "Beans and corn in combination supply all the protein needed, at a fraction of the cost of meat. Healthier too, maybe there ought to be a law..."

I'm horrified. "[M]aybe" there ought to be a law? Why? Because there is someone who eats healthier than someone else? Maybe we ought to pass a law [that more obviously is 'better'--at least physically] that requires people to exercise three times a week. I assume you're joking, but there do indeed exist people of such persuasion (and I hope you're just being comedic): "we know better, we're doing this for you, we're going to do our best to make sure you do what we think is best for you. Hey, let's use the government/law to make sure everyone does what we think is best for them!" Nice.

It's almost enough to make one want to describe themself as a "libertarian" sans footnotes and asterisks.

By the way, I consider it unhealthy for you to be posting so late (whether Seattle or D.C.). I encourage your legislature to pass a law banning "sunset internet posts". Sleep is important, wheher you know it or not. As such, I shall enforce it.

I admit the whole BMI thing is a little rediculous. "W" himself is overweight by the standard formula. McDonalds is getting a raw deal though, check out the Pizza places with their crusts stuffed with cheese and topped with 3 different types of sausage. If thats not enought they package it with some fried chicken tenders or wings, and throw in a free 2 liter bottle of pop.

Carter, as a fellow WA stater, living in the leftwing nannystate (lap dances banned, fortified liquor ban in downtown seattle, etc.) I "feel your pain".

As for the BMI thing, I am not merely "overweight". I am OBESE by the ridiculous BMI formula - at about 14% BF.

It is anti-scientific AMA (that's redundant) rubbish.

The pizza analogy was an excellent point.

Let's talk Chicago style pizza - Sausage (do we even have to TALK about Sausage? Pig Snouts, Upton Sinclair, bla bla bla) layered thick, TONS of Saturated fat and cholesterol, refined flour, etc. etc.

Do we see FFN attacking Chicago Style Pizza?

How about philly cheese steaks?

These are fat laden, salt laden, cholesterol laden foods.

As for the fries example - as I explained, the reason McD's SWITCHED to trans fats was because many years ago, many misinformed morons convinced them to switch to supposedly HEALTHIER (lol) hydrogenated oils, when they had previously used healthier (but animal based) oil.

As for the seatbelt thing. I do not think people should be required to wear seatbelts, or obey any speed limit law - ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

When they drive on publically financed and regulated roads, I support seat belt laws. On private property (where they do not apply in my state) I do not.

It's a stupid analogy. And I really don't want to hop down that bunny trail, but if you were trying to make a "libertarian analogy test", that is my answer.

Addiction is define as, "an enslavement which is physically or physcologically habit forming to the point where cessation causes physical trauma." I suppose that "food" in general could fall under this definition, however McDonalds' food is no more addictive than any other.

I ask again, when will it stop? Should I be allowed to smoke? Drink alcohol? Engage in unprotected sex? Skin cancer can be dangerous, but so is Osteomalacia.

"But this isn't "freedom of choice""

But it IS Freedom of choice, no scare quotes required. What I or you chooses to eat (and to not eat) is about as fundamental a freedom as there is. EVEN incarcerated prisoners have rights in regards to that - vegetarian meals, halal, kosher, bla bla blah

There are few more fundamental freedoms that we exercise on a daily basis than what we choose to eat. And like so many personal choices, the choices we make, have consequences. It is not McD's fault that some people choose to eat too many calories, for example, and if they do so, it doesn't matter if they eat gardenburgers or Big Macs, they will gain weight.

McD's has exactly ZERO power to dictate what we eat. Every person who goes to McD's is voting with their $$$. McD's has thrived for decades because they provide food that the public wants, and they do so efficiently, cheaply, and consistently. That is a good thing. FFN makes the (obvious) point that eating supersized meals of Big Macs etc. for every meal for every day is unhealthy.

groovy. If u ate chicago style pizza for every meal, you would see the same health problems- ditto for pate, philly cheesesteak, RI style clam cakes (deep fried dough with clam strips inside), etc. etc. etc.

It's a ridiculous and meaningless exercise in McD's bashing.

"--it's a national addiction, especially when it comes to kids."

And it is the responsibility of parents and social institutions (churches, etc.) to teach our kids right, that McD's should be treated as an occasional treat, not a food staple (at least not when it comes to big macs).

" We let ourselves be manipulated into being lazy and careless. We ought to have a little pride and not stick Coke machines in schools"

Schools are publically funded institutions, and then there is the whole in loco parentis thing. Furthermore, kids are basically captives there. They HAVE to go to school. They do not HAVE TO walk into McD's. Almost every liberty encroaching nannystate intrusion on our freedoms and our choices is made in the name of "the children" btw. It gets old.

" and lure kids to eat fast food with toys. It's like putting baseball cards in cigarette packs. "

No, it's not. That's another dumb mcd's bashing analogy. are we really going to compare cigarettes with hamburgers?

heck, let's go further. Are big macs the gateway to ecstacy? Actually, orange juice is commonly consumed with ecstacy. Let's go after Minute Maid.

Apparently, 16 yr olds should have the freedom to choose an abortion, but not a big mac.

"So tell me, what's so special about McDonald's that it represents a critical "choice" that must be protected?"

first of all, McD's etc. have a MUCH higher regulatory burden than most restaurants. Mom and Pops etc., french restaurants, etc. do not have to (and don't) list their nutritional content. McD's DOES.

And if we are going to ban McD's, then we need to ban philly cheesesteak, Chicago Pizza, etc.

furthermore, we are not protecting McD's (only). We are protecting the consumer. Because it is HIS wallet and HIS choice.

If he believes people should be required to wear seatbelts, it does make him a nanny-state ninny.

i believe that an activity like driving, that occurs on publically funded roadways ( i would not support seatbelt laws on private roads), is fairly regulatable by requiring seatbelts.

i would not lose any sleep if seatbelt laws were rescinded. iow, i do not think the laws unjust, but i am not some kind of steadfast proponent.

i am not claiming 100% libertarian purity cred.

i think the state does have the authority to regulate seatbelt use on public roadways. there is no privacy intrusion, there is exceptionally minimal inconvenience, etc.

but i agree this means i don't have 100% libertarian cred. i can live with that.

i do agree there is obviously some analogy. the right of people to make bad decisions. but if i need 100% libertarian cred to make an argument supporting food choices, then ... whatever.

Hmmm, so which James of England is posting here???

If it's James I, I hope he's not calling collect.

"Nor do you have to be a raving liberal to contend that Americans eat far too much junk food and pay a heavy price for it. "

that has nothing to do with liberalism whatsoever. it is undeniably true, and thus cannot be a liberal point of view :l

nobody can rationally deny that americans eat too much good PERIOD (junk or otherwise), or that they pay a heavy (no pun intended) price for it.

nobody can deny that eating too many calories (of any type of food) makes you fat. period.

nobody can deny that it is easier to eat too many calories per day of big macs (since they are tasty and calorically dense) than of sprouts.

the same could be said of creme brulee, pate, cheesesteak or chicago pizza (i am a NY pizza fan so of course will bash chicago "pizza" any chance I get )

the CDC correctly says that over 60% of chronic disease is behavior/diet related.

it is disgusting that so many people have so little discipline, self control, and self respect.

it is also disgusting to me that people want ot blame MCDONALD's when in fact the fault lies with people who stuff their fat faces and then want to place blame elsewhere.

i spring to the defense of McD's because they ARE a great american company, they did do much to help the working and middle class, they do provide cheap and tasty food to millions (including me), they are a remarkably well run business, they have stood the test of time, they do contribute substantially to charity.

it is Apple-pie (which is a sugary junk food as well), and it is a big part of americana. it is woven into our national fabric, and that's a good thing.

the fault for our obesity lies first with individuals who keep stuffing themselves (with the exception of those rare individuals who have metabolic disorders, etc.), with parents who don't teach proper diet and self-respect, etc.

and like i said, mcd's is far more open about their nutritional (so to speak) content than any mom and pop, or expensive restaurant, almost none of which actually provide consumer information about nutrition. (and even as a libertarian minded dood, i support companies that provide more consumer info so we can make more informed choices).

i have great respect for McD's, but more importantly, i have great respect for the concept that people should be allowed to make choices, and not be penalized because some people have no frigging self-discipline whatsoever.

not wearing a seatbelt (to bring that back) is ALWAYS stupid and dangerous. cause even if u are a perfect driver, all it takes is somebody else to plow into you.

eating McD's is only stupid and dangerous, when u are one of those idiots who overindulges.

"You probably think motorcyclists should be required to weaar helmets too."

To be brief, you have no idea what I think.

----"it is Apple-pie (which is a sugary junk food as well), and it is a big part of americana. it is woven into our national fabric, and that's a good thing."

"I'm afraid not everyone would agree, including an older generation who was around when fast food burst upon the American scene, and who deplored the popularity of high-fat, high-sugar foods that lured the younger generation away from the dinner table. The fact that it is woven into our national fabric is due to huge amounts of money spent on advertising and promotion. The fact that it is popular is all to easy to figure out and speaks little to its quality or necessity. "

it is great as an occasional treat, and that is how i use it. if im working a beat in a cop car, it's a nice option. there are also TONS of healthy fast food options - wendy's chili is quite healthy, for instance.

it also helped during the advent of the 'working mom' etc. remember the whole "you deserve a break today?"

"As for apple pie being "sugary junk food," well, why not throw in that post roast full of fat and sodium as well. It's all just junk and empty calories, right, so what's the difference?"

my point is that there are treat foods, there are staple foods, there are sometimes foods, etc.

a sugary apple pie is certainly not a "health food" but it is fine if it is not a diet staple.

ditto for a Big mac.

I make sure to eat organ meat at least once a week (or twice) for a # of reasons. it is EXTREMELY nutrient (mineral especially) dense, provides great hormonal substrates, etc. it is not the kind of thing that would be healthy to eat EVERY MEAL.

McD's has consistent quality, it is tasty, and it's a great option and has been for decades, which is why it is so successful as a corporate enterprise.

and the great thing is that if you don't want it- don't eat it.

but DON'T blame McD's for gluttonous fatties.

Grover, does it bother you, that the populace doesn't recognise your (obvious) ability to see the correct and proper way to behave? And grant the accolades you so surely deserve?

McDonalds produces a decent product that has undesirable side effects when overused. The undesirable effects mostly harm the user, and frankly I don't even see a societal harm. Fat people die earlier, which saves Social Security payments. Looks like a plus :)

I am reminded of the definition of a Puritan - someone who's greatest fear is that sombody, somewhere might be having a good time.

I have personally boycotted McDonalds food for 25 years now, not because the corporation is bad, but because their food is.

Me too, although I don't think of it as a boycott, and I haven't been doing it for 25 years because I'm not that old.

It's just that when I'm making a choice as to what to eat, I avoid food that tastes bad. I occasionally end up eating at McDonalds due to a lack of choice, but generally will find something more tasty.

Grover,

Your first comment on this thread

"If addictive, fattening food isn't available, people may eat something healthier."

showed the fatal flaw in your position, it is the ever popular miracle mile problem. You have no idea, no suggestion, no clue on how to get from
"If addictive, fattening food isn't available" to the important part which is "people may eat something healthier."

At the end of the day what you are actually saying is

"If addictive, fattening food isn't available" and some kind of miracle happens "people may eat something healthier."

All of your comments on the topic complain about fast food and the companies that make it. None of your comments address four critical questions

1. How much of the obesity is caused by sedentary lifestyle and how much is caused by overconsumption of food.

2.How do the poor / obese people you are supposedly concerned about decide what to eat at a restaurant, or if they eat at home how do they get the ingredients, and prepare the food?

3. What tools and skills do the poor / obese people you are supposedly concerned about need to help them to improve their diet and physical condition.

4. How can the poor / obese people you are supposedly concerned about obtain these skills.

Your comments have richly made my point that.

"if anti fast food activists were really concerned about obesity and poor people they should be working to improve the life skills of the poor. This would actually help poor people have a better life.

Bitching about fast food may be personaly fufilling to the activists but it will do nothing to improve the quality of life for poor people."

"You have no idea, no suggestion, no clue..."

Indeed, I do, a whole bunch of them.

1) Educate people about fast food and junk food and the ingredients therein;

2) Encourage people to seek alternatives, especially for their children;

3) Get junk food and soft drinks out of our schools;

4) Encourage better-quality food choices in one's own neighborhood, especially in small, rehabilitated communities like my own where new businesses are being sought and citizens have a say in what constitutes the kind of community they want to live in;

5) Patronize and support local businesses that sell quality food, both fresh and prepared;

6) Keep up the pressure on fast-food corporations to improve their food as much as possible.

There. I've just named six courses of action off the top of my head, several of which I've pursued myself. None of them involve the government, except for the schools issue, which shouldn't even be one to begin with, IMO.

"You have no interest in forcing the issue, I'll bet mostly because you can't."

On a nationwide scale, no, but not because I can't. We all can if we want to raise enough of a fuss. But on a local scale, yes, I think communities have a right to determine their own residential and commercial character, and that includes the quality of fresh and prepared foods available in their area. And in my community we have done just that.

"Whether you are or are not alone on the issue is irrelevant."

Well, make up your mind.

Also, TJIT, if I may address your comments about the "poor" people:

How much more condescending can you get?

I live in a very moderate-to-low-income area. We are home to the nation's oldest vegetarian co-op, which is flanked by homeopathic medicine and spiritual health stores. These businesses offer CHOICES to the people in our area and are very much supported and patronized. Across the DC line, another moderate-income community lobbied for, and got, a new health food store, which has been a cause for much celebration there. These stores offer fruits, vegetables, dairy products and prepared foods at affordable prices, many of them cheaper than the local Giant. People of all income levels in these communities welcome these choices.

You seem to assume that low-income families are de facto ignorant of, and undesirous of, better food and restaurant choices, and/or that they lack the "skills" to know the difference. I think you're wrong.

"How does me having a Big Mac hurt you, let alone the 'nation'?"

If you don't buy the studies and statistics, don't. I think there's a good measure of truth there.

"We're not wasting taxpayer money on sports; we're letting people voluntarily contribute, and they benefit from tasty food at the same time."

No comment.

"I remember when my Calculus teacher said..." etc.

Have you examined these contracts?

According the the Washington Post, regarding schools in Prince Georges County:

"The machines are on all day, despite a federal law prohibiting schools from selling such products during lunch hours and a Maryland law prohibiting schools from turning on vending machines until after the final lunch period.

"Small wonder. The contract contains a clause that reads: '[I]f the Board of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines are turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be suspended.'"

"It is not objectively better to eat fruit than cupcakes. Which is better depends on one's personal preferences."

Any nutritionist or dietician would have a more piquant response to that than I could muster.

"Oh, and for the record, diet soda contributes absolutely nothing to obesity."

Says who? Just you?

The can says "0 calories." You have a theory how 0 calories contribute to obesity???

If you don't buy the studies and statistics, don't. I think there's a good measure of truth there.

The studies and statistics in what? What "study" says what happens to you if I eat junk food? For the purposes of this discussion, I am not disputing the health effects of eating junk food. But those are effects on the person who eats them, not on some random other guy.

Any nutritionist or dietician would have a more piquant response to that than I could muster.

That's possible. But they would be mistaken if they did. A nutritionist or dietician can tell you whether a cupcake or fruit is better if you want to lose weight, or if you want to get certain nutrients. They can't tell you whether you want to lose weight. That's a matter of personal preference. (They can tell you what might happen to you if you don't lose weight, but that's not the same thing.)

"The machines are on all day, despite a federal law prohibiting schools from selling such products during lunch hours and a Maryland law prohibiting schools from turning on vending machines until after the final lunch period.

It's unclear how a machine being "on all day" constitutes "PUSHing the contents of those machines" or "forcing the consumption of this junk".

By the way, fruit juice does NOT contribute to obesity, generally speaking. There *has* been some talk that pre-schoolers should limit fruit juice intake to avoid childhood obesity. A 1999 German study conducted over three years found it had no effect on anthropometric indices.

No. A nutritionist will tell you that the apple is the better choice for providing your body with the proper nutrients, period. Substituting a cupcake for an apple represents a negative in terms of how your body processes that food and puts it to use. By eating a cupcake instead of an apple, you've substituted more "empty calories," which the body turns into fat, and contributed to your own malnutrition. With rare exceptions, this is the case for all of us.

You're completely missing the point. I'm not disputing any of the things you wrote which I just quoted -- I'm saying that they're answering the wrong question. What if I don't care about those things? Being more "nutritious" is not the same thing as being the better choice. What if I just want the thing that tastes better? The nutritionist can't help me there. The nutritionist can only tell me which contributes to health -- but there's no objective reason to privilege health over taste.

Typically, the contracts specify that schools maintain certain quotas of units sold in order to get their money.

I don't care what the contracts "specify." I care about what schools allegedly do to "push" the contents of the machines or "force" people to eat them. You still haven't identified any mechanism for this "pushing" or "forcing" or coercion. Other than simply make the machines available, of course.

Assuming, as you say, that eating junk food is unhealthy, your employer probably won't be happy about the increases in his health insurance costs, nor the lost productivity due to associated illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. Your family won't appreciate the higher premiums you pay for life insurance, nor your decreased life expectancy. You're costing me money by increasing my state's Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. (It's also possible that you'll *save* me money by dying earlier, but that's not what I would consider a positive outcome.)

If your concern is money, and I save you money, how is that not a positive outcome for you? It may not be a positive outcome for me -- but that would seem to be a question for me to answer, not for you to decide. I'd prefer to eat cupcakes and die a little earlier, thanks for asking.

And as for Medicare and Medicaid, that's not me eating cupcakes that's affecting you; that's your decision to stick your nose into my health care that's affecting you. I didn't ask for either of those. Don't pay for my health care. And if you insist on doing so against my wishes, don't complain about the bill.

I recall a time when good hygiene and nutrition were promoted as essential to our national defense--drink your milk and beat the Commies. Given the current problems with military recruitment, this may be a bit of nostalgia worth revisiting.

Good for you, for taking care of yourself, whit. David says he doesn't have to and that it's none of my business. Is he right?

"and it is not mcdonald's fault"

Show me where I said it was.

"at least smokers end up saving society money, as studies show"

By dying early and often, and leaving behind their SS? I suppose they do.

"i hope he doesn't expect society to pick up the tab when he has a quadruple bypass"

Let's hope he knows he needs one. Friend of mine complained of shortness of breath, chest pains. Went to his HMO. Ran the treadmill tests, nothing. Did the breath test, passed with flying colors (he's an opera singer). Probably stress, try to relax, go home. Went to a high-end doc ($2500 up front, no insurance accepted). High-end doc sends him to Dick Cheney's doc (!). Three 90% blockages. Stents inserted, patient reprieved.

Moral: Either the standard tests leave a lot to be desired, or Dick Cheney's doc has a great scam going.