American Food Culture and More

Why Is a Big Mac Cheaper Than a Salad?

2012-02-14T22:16:00.000-06:00

Why Is a Big Mac Cheaper Than a Salad?
Thanks to Food Facts for originally posting this.
Between the arrival of 'dollar' menus at fast food restaurants and the rising cost of fresh fruits and vegetables, we've reached an era where it is actually cheaper to feed your family at McDonald's than to go to the produce department, buy raw vegetables and cook a healthy meal at home. There are many and varied reasons for this trend. One, of course, is that McDonald's has more control over the market than the individual consumer.

But government policy comes into play as well; in particular the Farm Bill and the subsidies that support different types of food production in vastly different amounts. The Farm Bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies primarily to huge agribusinesses producing feed crops for animals, which, in turn is a subsidy for meat and dairy production. Fruit and vegetable farmers on the other hand receive less than 1 percent of total government subsidies from the Farm Bill. This and much more information on this disparity is nicely presented in an article from Good Medicine magazine, a publication of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Also from the article:

Can Educating Parents Have an Impact on Whether Children Receive Their Immunizations?

2012-02-01T09:25:00.003-06:00

While this topic might not be directly related to American food culture, I think that the food we eat these days has contributed to the increased number of autism diagnoses. Pesticides, hormones, artificial ingredients, etc. must be having some kind of negative effect on our physiology and genetics. This article Gina wrote discusses how there is no clinical proof that immunizations cause autism; it seems the cause lies elsewhere. - Mike
Check her article out here http://www.infobarrel.com/Can_Educating_Parents_Have_an_Impact_on_Whether_Children_Receive_Their_Immunizations

Scary Fast Food Statistics & Facts

2012-01-25T20:51:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Gina (my wife) for sending me this link, you can go to the original site here. While these may not be verified facts, we can safely assume that they aren't too far from the truth. I love the picture. -Mike

Scary Fast Food Statistics & Facts (maybe)

"Interesting Fast food statistics - you decide whether fast food causes obesity..."

The average distance from a fast food restaurant in the US to a school is half a mile. The density of fast-food restaurants within 1 mile of a school is three to four times the average distribution throughout a city.
Over the last 35 years sales in the US fast-food industry has grown by almost 1000%. In 1975 sales equalled $16.1 billion and in 2009 sales were about $160 billion.
The National Restaurant Association reports that there are around 280,000 fast-food restaurants in the States of which around 200,000 are strictly fast-food and 80,000 casual-dining.
The US Fast-food industry serves more than 50 million Americans every day and generates $65 billion annually.
Half of the average American's yearly food budget is spent at fast-food chains.
On any given day around one third of American children eat fast food.
In the past 5 decades some fast food portion sizes have increased by 600%.
In the 50s a typical fast food hamburger weighed one ounce while today it weighs six ounces. The average fast food restaurant meal nowadays contains a staggering 1,500 calories!
A double gulp soda (7-11) has 64 ounces (half a gallon!) and the sugar content of 48 teaspoons.
The Federal Trade Commission reports that the US fast food industry spends approximately $1.6 billion each year on marketing aimed at children.
Fast food statistics:
The fast food industry donate money to professional nutrition associations. Coca Cola sponsors the American Dietetic Association. Why? Political lobbying...
According to studies (by the University of Michigan School of Public Health) living in neighborhoods with a high density of fast-food outlets could increase your risk of stroke by 13%, compared to living in neighborhoods where fast food restaurants are infrequent.
Americans spend more money per year on fast food than they do on education.
The amount of food produced daily in the US amounts to 3,800 calories per person. Twice the daily calorie requirement of the average male or female, and three times the daily calorie requirements of children.
The United States Center of Disease Control and Prevention reports that from 1970 to 2000 the average US male has increased his daily calorie intake by 168 calories and the average woman by 335 calories a day.

McDonald's New Special Seasoning.....

2012-01-19T09:21:00.000-06:00

Mealbreaker (n.): a nasty, non-edible surprise found in food while it is being eaten; often lawsuit-provoking, sometimes fabricated, always disgusting.

Karruim Demaio, a former McDonald's employee, shot a cell phone video of a mouse trapped in a bag of Big Mac buns at a Philadelphia McDonald's. In the video below, the frantic mouse tramples across many different buns. According to the Demaio, the manager ordered the employees to serve the buns, and has previously wiped off mouse droppings from buns and then served them. When Fox 29 asked the manager, she denied the claims.
"I was working there from October of 2010 to January of this year. There hasn't been a time when we couldn't go in the back and see mouse droppings on the bread," Demaio told Fox 29.
According to the Philadelphia Health Department, this particular McDonald's is not in satisfactory compliance with health standards; the owner is investigating the claims.

Video Shows Mouse In Bag Of Big Mac Rolls: MyFoxPHILLY.com

2012-01-02T21:16:00.000-06:00

Here is a brief but interesting take on fast food culture in America. The policy changes Murray suggests make sense. What do you think of them? Any other suggestions?

Fast-food culture serves up super-size Americans

Stop blaming people or their genes--it's an abundance of unhealthy, heavily advertised, low-cost food that underlies the nation's obesity crisis.

By BRIDGET MURRAY
Monitor Staff
December 2001, Vol 32, No. 11
Print version: page 33

America is overlooking the real cause of its ever-expanding waistline, said Kelly Brownell, PhD, at APA's 2001 Annual Convention. The problem isn't so much people's lack of self-control, he said. It's a "toxic food environment"--the strips of fast-food restaurants along America's roadways, the barrage of burger advertising on television and the rows of candies at the checkout counter of any given convenience store.
"Whoever thought you could go eat at a gas station?" said Brownell, a Yale University psychology professor, adding that, with a new concept being test-marketed, "While you're pumping your gas you punch in the Fritos, the Twinkies and the Coke, and somebody brings it to your car. So the physical activity required to go in and get it is eliminated."
To be sure, Brownell acknowledged, genes and self-control play a role in obesity and the diabetes and other health problems that result. But, in his view, both face a losing battle against the ubiquity of bad food. The problem with medical and psychological interventions for individuals, he said, is that the costs of treatment outweigh the benefits, and weight-gain relapse rates remain high.
What's needed instead, he said, are broader-scale policy fixes that promote healthier foods and behaviors across American society.
"It's important for us to look at this from a public health point-of-view, where we're not so concerned with how overweight an individual is, but how overweight the population is," said Brownell. "Genetics is what permits the problem to occur, but environment is what drives it."
Of particular concern to Brownell is America's passive acceptance of unhealthy food. Americans fail to recognize, for example, the possible damage done by such fast-food icons as Ronald McDonald. "We take Joe Camel off the billboard because it is marketing bad products to our children, but Ronald McDonald is considered cute," said Brownell. "How different are they in their impact, in what they're trying to get kids to do?"
Certain "toxic signs" alarm Brownell:

Unnutritious foods reign. High-fat, high-sugar foods are widely available, taste good and cost less than healthier foods. Vending machines are ubiquitous, Kentucky Fried Chicken delivers and most fast-food outlets now serve breakfast. "Could there be a better fat-delivery vehicle than a bacon-egg-and-cheese muffin?" said Brownell.
Serving sizes keep increasing. Buffets abound and food outlets offer "value meals," providing more food for less cost. 7-Eleven's Double Gulp serves up 64 ounces of soda, and "McDonald's has made 'super-size it' a verb."
The food industry has run amok. Advertisements for prepackaged and fast foods saturate the airwaves, newspapers and magazines. Colorfully packaged single-person servings make processed foods appealing.
Physical activity has declined. Most Americans get less exercise than ever--walking less and driving more.

As further evidence that environment is to blame, Brownell noted that obesity has risen notably in other countries, including China, and that migrants to Western countries have much higher obesity rates than their relatives back home.
Particularly vulnerable to the problem are American children, said Brownell. Soda companies and fast-food outlets increasingly ink contracts with schools and gear advertising to kids. "The most intrepid parents can't win this fight," he said.
That is, they can't win it alone. But, said Brownell, they might stand a chance through the following proposed policy changes:

Make activity more accessible, by, for example, building communities to allow more walking or biking.
Regulate TV food ads aimed at children and mandate equal time for pro-nutrition messages.
Ban fast foods and soft drinks from schools, instead forging school contracts with sports-related companies.
Restructure school lunch programs to include more healthy foods.
Subsidize healthy foods and drive down prices of fruits and vegetables by 70 percent.
Discourage consumption of poor foods through a "fat tax," earmarking the funds for nutrition and recreation.

Brownell believes such measures would take the blame off people with obesity and are the only "real path to doing something constructive about this problem."

The Sad Life of a Hamburger Part II

2011-12-24T08:44:00.000-06:00

Here is the rest of the "Sad Life of a Hamburger" essay. I hope it makes you think differently about the fast food industry and hamburgers in particular. I'm planning to write a follow-up essay on some alternatives to CAFO beef (we buy beef direct from a family friend who farms and raises cattle in Salem, Illinois). -Mike

Written 16 March 2010

The Sad Life of a Hamburger

The hamburger is an icon of American culture. This cheap, portable meal, made ubiquitous by numerous fast food chains, spends most of its life behind the scenes in a world deliberately hidden from consumers. Hamburger patties do not magically appear at your local McDonald’s or Wal-Mart; hamburger is made from low grade cuts and scraps of beef that used to belong to a real living cow. These cows are no longer raised on the bucolic settings of farms with red barns, white fences and the small flock of chickens scratching around the picturesque farm house. Instead, modern beef production has become a product of industrial agriculture and CAFOs: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“Food, Inc.”). Once the veil is lifted on how a hamburger lives out its life and later contributes to numerous health problems, you may no longer want to eat one.

Interestingly, the life of a hamburger begins with corn. Cows do not eat corn in nature, but cheap corn means cheap cattle feed, and to the delight of producers, low-cost meat production. Corn is the feed of choice for cattle because it has become so incredibly inexpensive to buy, especially when compared to the cow’s natural diet of grass. Corn became economical and abundant shortly after World War II ended as huge surpluses of nitrogen, previously used for bombs, were made available to be converted into fertilizer. Corn harvests increased, and excesses were quickly amassed. Something needed to be done with all this extra corn. It did not take long for farmers to discover that this corn could be fed to cows, and that cows could be fattened much quicker on corn than on their natural diet of grass (“King Corn”).

There is only one problem; cows should not eat corn. Cows are ruminants which are multi-stomached herbivores that evolved to eat grass. Corn kernels are not grass but rather grass seeds, or grain. Cows cannot digest corn properly and after some time, less than a year, the cows will develop ulcers and eventually die. According to C. Kingsolver, “Cows that are fed grain diets in confinement are universally plagued with gastric ailments, most commonly subacute acidosis, which leads to ulceration of the stomach and eventually death” (239). This is why antibiotics are used so extensively in cattle production. These cows are constantly fighting disease and infection and their lives are artificially extended with antibiotics so that producers can fatten the cows on corn a few more months; the very same corn that is slowly killing the animal. Producers argue that the corn creates the desired marbling in meat that American consumers demand, but fail to mention that corn fed beef has much higher percentages of saturated fat than naturally raised grass fed beef. The nutritional value and health costs of this corn fed beef are a whole issue in its self, but first it is important to find the more insidious correlations between cheap corn and hamburgers.

Finding new and novel uses for corn surpluses attracted the attention of the largest industrial food corporations. These corporations knew that they could buy the corn to feed cattle cheaper than they could grow the corn. The next step was for these corporate giants to lobby Congress and make sure laws, most notably the Federal Farm Bill, kept the price of corn unnaturally low. Prices that are so low in fact, that it now costs more for a farmer to produce the corn than what they can sell it for. In essence, this is the Farm Bill: if a farmer sells a bushel of corn for $2.00 and it costs him $4.00 to produce it, the United States Government writes that farmer a check for the difference. This money does not help the farmers. Hopp offers, “It used to, but ever since its inception just after the Depression, the Federal Farm Bill has slowly been altered by agribusiness lobbyists. It is now largely corporate welfare” (206). That hamburger really costs more than what the consumer pays for it at the drive up window; taxpayer money funds the Federal Farm Bill subsidy.

The corporate mentality and drive for ever cheaper costs and higher profits are not confined to the big industrial agriculture giants like ADM, Cargill, and Tyson. In the 1930s, the McDonald brothers embraced the factory system in order to reduce costs. They eliminated their carhops in an effort to cut labor costs and implemented an assembly line system for making the hamburgers at all their McDonald’s locations. The drive-thru window and inexpensive hamburgers caught on quickly. The McDonald’s brothers were able to cut costs which meant they could provide a product that was inexpensive, making it available to more and more consumers. As the demand grew for this fast food, so did the demand for larger and cheaper suppliers of ground beef. The McDonald’s Corporation continued to grow, and in their effort to keep consistent quality in all their food they insisted on larger producers to supply a reliable product.

Farmers with small and medium sized cattle operations were unable to produce enough for this demand, and as a result, a handful of large producers began to confine an unimaginable number of cattle on relatively small factory farms: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs were born. All the farmers who had previously been raising cattle now turned to growing corn on their land. More corn on the market meant that these CAFOs could buy corn even cheaper, and, therefore, raise even more cattle. More cattle meant more beef and the price fell as a result, making the hamburger the headliner of the 99 cent menu.

One would think that the CAFOs’ transformation of corn into inexpensive meat would be a great accomplishment, but here is where the veil must be lifted. Wendell Berry suggests, “The designers of animal factories appear to have had in mind the examples of concentration camps or prisons, the aim of which is to house and feed the greatest number in the smallest space at the least expense of money, labor and attention” (11). The conditions and treatment of the animals is a shocking fact that industrial agriculture has kept well hidden. When these operations are concentrating animals, they are also concentrating their wastes, diseases and pathogens. “A pall of fecal-contaminated dust hangs over western feedyards, where tens of thousands of beeves are confined in corrals for months at a time” (Salatin 22). Joel Salatin continues, “This pathogen-laden fecal dust invades the body through the respiratory system. If we tried to house humans in circumstances as unnatural…we would see disease epidemics” (22).

The air is only the beginning, what is on the ground and in the water of the CAFOs is even worse. The cows often stand in feces and urine up to their knees. The amount of waste is truly staggering; a factory farm with 2,500 cows produces as much waste as a city with 411,000 inhabitants (Weber 24). So much manure is produced that it cannot be used as fertilizer or even composted, so it is kept in manure lagoons where contaminants leach into the ground and pollute nearby waterways. “Feedlot wastes also contain heavy metals and hormone residues, persistent chemicals that end up in waterways downstream, where scientists have found fish and amphibians exhibiting abnormal sex characteristics, CAFOs…transform what at the proper scale would be a precious source of fertility-cow manure-into toxic waste” (Pollan 79).

Pathogens and disease are common in CAFOs, and due to the close confinement if one animal gets sick, infections will quickly spread. Perhaps the most insidious is Escherichia coli O157:H7, a deadly bacterium that develops in the stomachs of cattle that are being force fed corn. The cows cannot easily digest corn and therefore their stomachs become nearly as acidic as the human stomach. This new form of E. coli is only found in cattle on CAFOs, and did not exist prior to 1980. Usually, bacteria from cattle are killed off in the acidic environment of our stomach because it evolved to live in the neutral pH of a cow’s stomach. When corn was introduced into the cattle diet and the stomach became more acidic, this new type of E. coli developed; a strain tolerant to both the newly acidic environment of the cow stomach and that of the human stomach. Ingesting as few as ten of the E. coli O157:H7 microbes can produce a toxin that destroys human kidneys, and ultimately results in death (Pollan 83).

The waste that the cows stand knee deep in is full of this deadly bacteria. When the cows go into the slaughter house their hides are caked with the bacterium infested feces. Not only is the pathogen in their stomach, but it is also on the outside of the animal making it extremely difficult to properly clean off before the animal reaches the kill floor. At this point the E. coli O157:H7 bacterium may enter the human food chain, in the form of hamburger meat. Since literally thousands of cows go into a single hamburger patty, the risk of contamination is enormous. When a shipment of ground beef is found to be contaminated, “The federal government does not have authority to recall the beef, only to request that the company issue a recall. When the voluntary recall is initiated, the federal government does not release information on where the contaminated beef is being sold…” (Hopp 230).

Such a voluntary recall came weeks too late for one family. Barb Kowalcyk and her husband were vacationing with their two and a half year old son when their lives were forever changed by a hamburger. Kevin, their son, was a beautiful and perfectly healthy child until one day he ate a hamburger purchased from a fast food chain tainted with the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. Kevin developed a lethal infection from the bacteria and within twelve days he was dead, one of the thousands of victims of food borne disease who die in the United States every year. Even after Kevin’s death, it took weeks for the tainted meat to be removed from the market-a shocking comment on the failure of our regulatory system to enforce meat recalls (Weber 35).

Food borne illnesses may affect thousands each year, but health related issues stemming from fast food beef consumption number in the millions. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes and stroke are a few of the illnesses that affect countless Americans- illnesses caused or exasperated by cheap fast food. “The majority of our food dollars buy those cheap calories, and most of our citizens are medically compromised by weight and inactivity” (Kingsolver 116). Kingsolver adds that, “The incidence of obesity-associated diabetes has more than doubled since 1990, with children the fastest–growing class of victims” (116). These health related issues come at a great cost as “One out of every three dollars we spend on health care…is paying for the damage of bad eating habits” (116).

Since hamburgers are indirectly subsidized by the government (remember: corn subsidy), this food is comparably inexpensive. The fresh fruits and vegetables that would help alleviate many health problems are often much too expensive to buy, especially for lower income families. For 99 cents the dollar menu at any of the large fast food chains offers a significant portion of food. The same amount used to purchase fresh fruit or vegetables may only be enough for an apple or small head of broccoli. Americans are feeding themselves almost as poorly as the CAFO cattle are being fed.

If these cows were not continuously fed corn not only would the instances of E. coli O157:H7 be virtually eliminated, but the nutritional value of the beef would be much higher. ”In nature, no herbivore eats grain. This grain eating adds unnecessary fat to the carcass, which translates into grease and fat for people” (Salatin 18). If cows were allowed to graze on grass as nature intended, the amount of saturated fat in their beef would be significantly lower. If cows are not meant to consume grain, they are also certainly not meant to be cannibals. Perhaps the most shocking ingredient in CAFO cattle feed is other cows, and not the good cow parts. “Animal feed has long been used as a vehicle for disposing of everything from road kill to “offal,” such as brains, spinal cords, and intestines” (Weber 21). Cows do not have a choice in what they eat, but we do. Remember the old saying “you are what you eat”? If the notion of eating a hamburger made from road kill and cow brains, spinal cords and intestines does not suit you, there are options.

Many conscientious consumers have chosen to “opt out” of the industrial food chain. This means making choices regarding what they eat, and being aware of where their food comes from. This does not mean hamburgers are forbidden. Cheap fast food hamburgers can be replaced with hamburgers made at home with grass fed ground beef. Trader Joes and Whole Foods both sell grass fed ground beef, as do a growing number of regional chain supermarkets.

Fast food is cheap, convenient and admittedly tastes good, but the costs on animal welfare and human health are just too great to overlook any longer. Growing corn for animal feed is a losing proposition for both farmers and Americans alike. Choosing to “opt out” will not only improve your health, but will also improve your conscience and allow that struggling corn farmer to raise cattle the natural way. You may bite into that grass fed burger knowing that a cow lived a natural, happy life, far removed from the squalid CAFOs of today’s industrial agriculture.

Works Cited

Berry, Wendell. Bringing It to the Table: on Farming and Food. Berkeley: Counterpoint, 2009. Print.

Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2008. DVD.

King Corn. Dir. Aaron Woolf. Balcony Releasing, 2007. DVD.

Kingsolver, Barbara, Steven L. Hopp, and Camille Kingsolver. Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: a Year of Food Life. New York: Harper Perennial, 2008. Print.

Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: the Myth of Nutrition and the Pleasures of Eating. UK: Penguin, 2008. Print.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.

Salatin, Joel. Salad Bar Beef. Swoope, Va.: Polyface, 1995. Print.

Weber, Karl. Food, Inc.: How Industrial Food Is Making Us Sicker, Fatter and Poorer -- and What You Can Do about It. New York: Public Affairs, 2009. Print.

KFC and PepsiCo donate to diabetes research in exchange for your soda purchase

2011-12-23T22:24:00.000-06:00

Here is a great article I found from NaturalNews.com. You can find it here with a lot of other enlightening food-related articles. The irony in this one is staggering (and insulting). -Mike

(NaturalNews) It could be one of the most ironically insulting "gifts" ever, but what it is, for certain, is a pathetic shame.

You might think that KFC is doing a good thing by pledging to help fund diabetes research, but when you figure out they are doing much more to cause diabetes than actually cure it, you have to shake your head in disbelief.

According to a recent advertisement spotted in a KFC store, the fast-food chain says it will donate a buck to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation for every meal it sells - along with a "Mega Jug" of Pepsi Cola that contains about 800 calories and about 56 spoonfuls of sugar.

Yes, that's right. KFC will donate the dollar to JDRF, but only if customers buy a half-gallon of soda. So despite the "good intentions" behind the donations, clearly by forcing consumers to drink so much soda, the chain is violating the spirit of its campaign by contributing to the very disease it claims to be helping cure.

It isn't as if a link between excessive soda consumption, fast food and diabetes isn't well-known. In fact, some of the latest research shows that hundreds of thousands of diabetes cases have been linked directly to soda consumption.

"The finding suggests that any kind of policy that reduces consumption might have a dramatic health benefit," said senior study author Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, the associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

But this isn't the first time the soda- and junk-food industry has teamed with diabetes research organizations. In 2005, for instance, the American Diabetes Association teamed up with Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages under the guise of wanting to combat obesity and diabetes in America. Though the deal was that the ADA logo could only be placed on the company's diet soda, the fact is Cadbury Schweppes at the time was the world's third-largest manufacturer of soft drinks and one of the largest makers of sugary candies.

The company spun it this way, according to CSAB Senior Vice President of Marketing Jim Trebilcock: "I acknowledge that it is a little bit of a tricky dance here, given that we also sell sugared beverages, it's about communicating the choice. And it's also really about doing the right thing. And the right thing is we do offer products that are great for diabetic patients or people who are overweight and we want to get that message out, but done in a way that contributes to an overall solution."

Whatever you say, Jim.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032910_KFC_diabetes.html#ixzz1hQGXkG6M

False Advertising in the Fast Food Industry - A Picture is Worth 1000 Calories

2011-12-22T10:39:00.000-06:00

This article is reposted from Dario D's "Aphaila" website. We have all been disappointed with the squashed bundle of garbage that comes through the drivethru window. Here's another reason to stop eating it. This is some fascinating stuff! Thanks to Dario for all the hard work that went into this article and thanks for letting me repost. -Mike

False advertising 101.
So, I went to some fast food places (I won’t say “restaurants”, just “places”), and picked up burgers and tacos, so I could compare them with the ads. (I’m always on the hunt for little projects like this. Stoked.) I brought the food home, tossed it into my photography studio, and did ad-style shoots, with pictures of the official ads on my computer next to me, so I could match the lighting and angles.
-
People around the world know fast food as one of the most reliable distributors of disappointment ever produced by the business world. We know that if we ever feel the need to complain about something, we can just grab a page out of a coupon booklet, adorned in pictures of juicy burgers, go to a fast food place, then have a party. Why, the places themselves usually plaster their walls with pictures of juicy burgers – often hanging right over your table – so that you need only open your eyes to find something to compare your food with, while you eat it.
Needless to say, the results of my little project were unsurprising… which shouldn’t be a surprise.
The Rules:
1 – I only care about size. I certainly don’t need my lettuce arranged like the crown on Caesar’s head.
2 – I have to show the most attractive sides of the food, with lighting identical to the ads.

The taco on the right is my life experience with Taco Bell. (best of two tacos that I bought)
Once upon a time, occasionally dropping in to Taco Bell was something I did, and I always held this grudge: I said, “If you have a company called TACO Bell… and you have this item on your menu called “Crunchy Taco” – you know, like your flagship item – let us hope that it doesn’t look like THIS.” (seriously… we’ve got 3 ingredients in here: lettuce, “meat”, and cheese)
Since these tacos are pretty dry (and devoid of ingredients), I can only tolerate them with hotsauce, which, for me, is when they become good. Still, they’re no match for the Nacho Tacos at Carl’s Jr. or Hardees (same place, two names), of which I got to try the chicken ones recently. Those cost a tad more (somewhere around $1.50), but are only sold at the locations with “The Green Burrito” inside. (it’s like a little Taco Bell inside the Carl’s Jr./Hardees…)

(the tacos come in 2)
I picked these up at a location not half an hour from Jack In The Box’s corporate headquarters. Since I’m showing the largest tacos I could get, I can’t show you how they like to seal themselves shut, like a clam, so that you can’t even see inside. The cheese acts as a perfect glue at the edges… I swear, if you had to use one as a snorkel, to save your life, you would die.
They taste a lot better than they look, but that’s because I don’t actually think they’re tacos; they’re just tragically mishaped and misrepresented nacho pockets (or something). Pitching them as tacos is a crime against humanity, because we humans have standards of what a taco should look like. And not seal itself shut like.

As much as I like to bash fast food, bear in mind that I’m not going to take the common route of saying that just because I’m against something, it can’t have ANY possible good sides, such as fast food actually tasting good. (I say this because it’s important to understand the difference between extremism and rationality, and many people reading this – those who know that this site is about moving against the failures of man, but I guess don’t yet know my style – might expect me to be extreme in my judgment of fast food… probably assuming I’d go to the point of crossing my arms, and saying, “What? Fast food tasting good? Puh! Why it’s… it’s disgusting!”)
It’s not disgusting. The human mind is a physical, matter-based part of your body, and, as such, it has fixed tastes that can’t easily be changed. My brain, for instance, has been programmed from the day I was born to accept western-world tastes, and that means, yes, I quite like the taste of fast food. (now, I could easily just leave out all positive mentions of taste, simply to keep from contributing anything helpful to fast food here, but I think making this point is more worth the effect.)
Taking this a little further, note that there are many things that the brain can’t pick-and-choose its acceptance of, no matter who you are. Anyone part of a religion, for example, WILL laugh at a funny enough joke that insults their figure-of-worship, even if they actually hate the joke so much that their skin starts to burn, and they feel the need to literally go out and kill somebody. You can laugh and hate at the same time. (the decision-making sectors of your brain are completely separate from the parts that perceive humor, and various other things… In this way, there are SEVERAL parts of your brain that act completely on their own, causing you to feel things that may be against what you believe. Fear is a good example of how this works: you never believe there’s a monster in the dark, but you still fear (and feel) its actual presence…)
So, most fast food may be worthless garbage – and buying it may give life to a parasitic institution that sucks away man’s longevity of life, health, and motivation to resist the failures of society – but if someone asks me, “But do you like fast food? I mean, does it taste good?” the answer is yeah.
I like how fast food tastes… I resent what it means… and I tell people that if the future of mankind means anything to them, don’t touch this stuff with a 20ft pole.
I think this is something people need to think about… what it means to be rational and balanced, not extreme. To be an extremists often means to be one-sided to the point of self-delusion, and, when the time comes to pitch your points – as extremists always feel the need – the unbending one-sidedness can make you look biased and desperate, reducing how much the other side feels they should consider what you’re saying.
I really do hate Whoppers, though:

Burger King has had this a long time coming. The Whopper I got the other night was a sight to behold; probably the ugliest Whopper I’ve ever seen in my life (though exactly the size I remembered them being). I’m certain it was just a collection of all the disappointment Burger King has ever served, manifest into a curse, which was now coming back to haunt them.
I had a childhood of eating these, but, back then, they were a buck… not $3.69 (they have the nerve to charge you extra for cheese).

Okay, let’s give Burger King one more chance here…

They need to fire the guy who does his yoga on top of the Whoppers.
…while I was at it, I caught sight of a gargantuan Whopper Jr. photo on the menu, and couldn’t resist:

—
Before we continue, there’s something everyone should understand: burger size/presentation can certainly vary from location to location (just usually not that much). Example: once, when I was young, I went to a Burger King right next to the beach, and the Whopper I got was huge (comparatively), and had toasted buns! I never forgot that… though I later speculated it was probably because California is known for its great beach-side burger shops (REAL places), so, being next to the beach, this place had to compete.
MY nearest two locations, however, have issues. This is what I got when I asked them specifically for burgers as big as in the ads:

(the one in the middle has cheese. I forgot cheese on the one one the right.)
A fast food place can’t turn down a request for a burger the size of the ones in the ads (they can’t say, “I’m sorry, we aren’t able to make burgers that big.”)… so, I wanted to see if my nearest two locations would even honor the request. For both orders, I pointed specifically at the giant Whoppers on the menus right behind the cashiers (very politely), and the cashiers both turned and took strangely long, careful looks (as if nobody had ever made that request before).
Well… I like the pile of onions I got with the second one.
(Note: I’m sure you can find SOME location where they’ll at least TRY – it’s surely just a matter of getting the right people – but, considering that my first two tries were misfires, I wonder exactly what the ratio is between employees who will try, and ones who won’t…)
-
Back to price… things always get worse at McDonald$:

$4 now will get you one of these. ($3.99, to be exact, but that 99 is BS psychology that I think should be illegal.)
The size was actually pretty close to the ad. (though I’m still trying to determine the planetary origins of the lettuce I ended up with…)

(that’s actually a pickle in the upper right)
For those who don’t know, Big Macs come in a little box. Looking down into the box, and lifting the top bun, you ask yourself, “What is this empty, dry thing?” Apple fans know of Apple’s famous “unboxing experience” – when you open the gloriously friendly, won’t-destroy-your-hands packaging of an iPhone/iPad/iMac/etc – but, well, Big Macs are still working on theirs. (they should come with little pink, polka-dotted bow-ties on top, or little top-hats… and, given the price, they should be made out of real fur)
Big Macs taste really good, though, at least to me… even coming out of the fridge, the next day. In comparison, a leftover Whopper, coming out of the fridge like a mushy old sock from a trash bin, is a different story.
-
After a little thinking, I realized something. I thought, “You know, these Big Macs I got seem to fit in the boxes pretty snugly… as if the boxes were designed ONLY to house the actual Big Macs you get at the place. I wonder if the advertised ones would even fit…” So, I did a test:

Oops.
My measurements are unscientific, but extremely carefully done, so I certainly hold my candle up to them.

Ah, one of the burgers performed! The burger I got might even look a little weightier than the ad.
I forgot to get the regular one, without cheese, but here you go. $4, by the way (or, without cheese, $3.79).
Looking at the burger I got gives me this weird feeling, though, like the ad should have looked like this:

This is another “served in a box” burger, but the one I got probably passes the box text.
Onward…

Another $4 burger (mine was $4.29, plus tax)…
Well, I really liked the lettuce I got with this one. You’ll certainly never see a Whopper or Big Mac with that kind of lettuce. BUT WHERE’S THE MEAT?! It seems to be on a diet, whereas the ad burger meat was only missing a cowbell…
Flavor-wise, for me, it’s a pretty average burger. When trying to figure out what keeps these on the menu (for that price, at least), I think either some people out there really like them, or they sell as one-time-buys, intended for people who drop in late one night, and are deceived by the juicy picture… (and have a LOT of money).
-
This one also comes in a box (a wider, bigger box than the Big Mac), so, I had to test again:

Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end, for McDonald’s… (even though all I really want is for them to make their burgers healthier, and stop their ridiculous advertising). What I think we learn from this is that these two burgers not only don’t look like the ads, but physically CAN’T, which is a minor problem.
I’m wondering if the other Third Pounder burgers don’t fit in the boxes, and, for that matter, if there are other ways to show that ad burgers can’t realistically be served at the fast food places, given their procedures. Examples I have in mind:

Are some wrappers too small to be folded the way that employees are taught to fold, if carrying an ad-sized burger?

Should you be able to call the “Third Pounders” that name if it’s only a third pound of meat while frozen, not when it’s served to you? (when buying meat, it makes sense to see the pre-cooked weight, because you mentally classify that differently… but, when you’re being served something off a menu, if they say you’re getting a “third pound” of meat, who actually realizes that you’re supposed to be getting less than that? When they say you’re getting a third pound of cheese, that’s what you’re getting… it’s not the cheese’s weight in milk)

I’m fairly certain that many ad shots have all of the ingredients crammed up in the front. Is it legal to do this, if the human mind perceives that the thickness seen in front must be wrapping around the entire burger, equally? (and maybe it is, just with props holding up the buns in the back. Complete trickery.)

Anything else? Please chime in here.

Don’t ask me how this advertising is legal. It seems that the law – at least in the US – is sometimes designed only to appease the God of Technicality, while insulting man’s ability to perceive and judge.
The law for this stuff should take into account things like the “innards-to-bun ratio”… (in other words, if the ads show 70% innards, 30% buns, the real thing can’t be 10% innards, 90% buns). Better yet, advertising should have to be able to stand up against an ordinary group of people, who can vote on whether or not something seems truthful to THEM. (It seems that today’s advertising may SOMEHOW please the God of Technicality – don’t ask me HOW – even though we people simply don’t subscribe to his technical glory).
Understand that there are several different types of correctness… and we’ll see if any are being met here. We have:
- Technical correctness
This is what is ACTUALLY correct, whether a person can perceive it or not. 99.99% of fast food locations will not serve you a burger that is technically as big as the ads, so there is virtually no technical correctness.
- Perceptual correctness This is what we ordinary people PERCEIVE to be correct. It’s most often the only form of correctness that has any meaning to us – unless we went to business school – whether something is technically correct or not. Fast food advertising is NEVER perceptually correct, in any way. 100% of the time, someone will look at a fast food ad and think it’s just a flat-out lie.
- Plausible correctness (or occasional correctness)
Plausible correctness would say that if even one fast food location COULD, in theory, serve you a burger the size of the ads, then, plausibly, the portrayal in the ads is correct, because there isn’t a natural force stopping a burger that you buy from turning out that big. (it can be argued that plausible correctness isn’t a presentable form of correctness at all, but rather just overemphasizing the possibility that, given infinite time, correctness can eventually occur.)
And there we have it.
I happily pitch the idea that lawmakers are committing a crime against us people by allowing us to be continually insulted by this advertising, and consequently this pursuit of mere plausible correctness, in defiance of human perception and feelings.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Studio Setup

I used a greenscreen, a rotating chair, and three wireless flashes (often only firing two). My camera is a Nikon D80…

This is what the original shots looked like…
(this is the Big Mac I got when I did the box test)

Behind me was this computer, where I had the ad shots on the screens…

I also shot this Jack In The Box “Jumbo Jack” (their flagship burger – attractive angle on the left), but decided to only give limited attention to US-only fast food chains. (in fact, many parts of the US don’t even have Jack In The Box). I also wanted to cover Carl’s Jr. (aka Hardee’s) – the eternal gods of false advertising – but, when thinking globally, they’re just too little of a chain, so, it would waste the time of lots of readers.
-
In all cases, I gave the items as fair a chance as absolutely possible, though I didn’t take the time to buy multiples of everything, whether that would’ve been to choose the BEST stuff I could find, or pick out an average… though, you know, ALL of the Whoppers really are from Hell. I want to leave them, just so the Burger King people can enjoy a little, what, maybe disappointment?

The Sad Life of a Hamburger

2011-12-21T18:52:00.000-06:00

The Sad Life of a Hamburger: Part 1