More Profits for Fast Food, More Dirty Tricks?

Is it possible for a fast food chain, beholden more so to its corporate number crunching than its customers' waistlines and heart valves, to be socially responsible, or dare I say, sustainable?

My gut is telling me no.

On Sunday in the New York Times, the business section focused on the recent surge in profits occurring at McDonald's, and found that behind the upswing was a change in strategy. All white meat chicken nuggets, apple slices, lattes, wi-fi, flat screens and a host of other targeted, customer-enticements are reinventing the hamburger shack, all seemingly a result of the blistering criticism received in the last 10 years from books like Fast Food Nation and the film Super-Size Me.

But is what McDonald's is doing helping or hurting our movement to change the food system?

On one hand, sustainable food fighters can rejoice in the fact that our criticism matters. We will not be left unheard in the debate on food.

But we aren't primarily the ones we're fighting this revolution for; as food conscious individuals, we can grow our own produce, join a CSA, avoid the drive-thru in favor of our own kitchen's fare or better dining. It's those on the fence, folks who could be swayed to avoid corporate-sponsored food with its unpronounceable, prepackaged and preservative-laden ingredients -- who could make the largest dent in the policies coming out of Washington. Without their determined protesting for more sustainable food, and their willpower to resist McDonald's and their ilk, our movement has no legs.

That is not to say our numbers aren't increasing. But this article proves that there is some level of pacification that occurs when a restaurant chain greenwashes itself.

My husband and I have gone at odds over the British chain Pret-a-Manger (McDonald's owned 33% stake in the company until February 2008), which could arguably be a more virtuous chain restaurant -- they prepare salads and sandwiches in house, using occasional organics, and serve in more environmentally conscious packaging. He would go out of his way to go there for lunch and a slice of their carrot cake (there are a few restaurants here in New York), while I'd rather pack a sandwich -- with handshake-assured lettuce and tomato, and local farmer cheese.

This is partly because I didn't want to support McDonald's bottom line indirectly, and partly because I am convinced that it is impossible to have a virtuous fast food restaurant, especially if fast food still insists on world domination. It seems inherently contradictory to have a chain of restaurants from coast to coast (and beyond) that source locally, seek out sustainably raised meat (and don't focus on a meat-centric menu), buy organic, compensate employees fairly, keep prices low, produce food quickly without the aid of a deep-fryer and maintain an already cola and MSG-addicted customer base. Cheap food and fair wages might only be possible if there is a garden on the premises, but then, what to do with the variety of vegetables grown? For me, thinking Big in the food system always means a degradation of quality.

Eating Liberally (and Huffington Post) blogger Kerry Trueman recently discussed a similar topic -- Wal-mart's effect on the organic food market. The giant box store has of course brought organic into the hands of many who might not otherwise have access. But she asked the Ethicurian's Elanor Starmer whether this is a good thing. Starmer described how big organic, the only firms large enough to provide on the scale Wal-Mart sells, are known for cutting corners, and by proxy lowering standards.

This blogger fears that both corporations' attempts to be virtuous will only serve to dilute the fervor of our movement. Let's be straight -- McDonald's all white meat chicken nuggets are still coming from Tyson, the largest chicken processor in the nation, where one can only speculate at the quality of life and death given to each chicken. (They process 25 billion pounds of chicken, beef and pork annually). And its not like those lattes are being made with fairly traded beans either. And yet Wal-Mart and McDonald's are the only two companies whose shares rose in 2008 amid what is shaping up to be a second go-around of the Great Depression.

To be truly sustainable, we need to think beyond the Ponzi schemes McDonalds and Wal-Mart are force-feeding us today, to setting up real virtuous roots for a conscious food future. This means more farmers, more shaking the hand that feeds you, and better food. (Aaron French gives some great suggestions in his post on Civil Eats yesterday, too). We must not forget what we are fighting for: good soil, and the future of our species.

Originally posted to Civil Eats

Comments

[Sumocat]

"Is it possible for a fast food chain, beholden more so to its corporate number crunching than its customers' waistlines and heart valves, to be socially responsible, or dare I say, sustainable?" -- Corporations are owned by people... so, the answer is usually no. Social responsibility is rare in a mostly irresponsible society. There are exceptions, of course.

Starbucks, which I would consider "fast food" by virtue of their drive-thru locations, engages in several socially responsible practices, such as health insurance for all employees working at least 20 hours a week (it is believed they spend more on health insurance than coffee), buying renewable energy, and paying above-market value for coffee rather than using their size to bully suppliers into lower prices. SBUX is by no means a perfect company, but they show how a fast food chain can be socially responsible... for an often-criticized higher product price.

[benne]

I am very interested in this topic, and it's one of the reasons I've been so upset at all that we are going to spend on this new stimulus package. I don't understand why we can't invest in more quality of life issues. I'd like to see all small communities and neighborhoods have a community center with exercise equipment, an aquatic center (for disabled, elderly, and kids), and a place with cheap pre-cut vegetables and fruits. (Perhaps you could throw in a low-cost clinic there too and/or a community garden). People would eat better food if it was easily available. I wish we'd invest in more of these things rather than roads, roads, roads.

[fleaba]

I don't wonder that McDonalds is soaring in profits. Have you seen their prices lately? I hadn't been into a McDonalds for several years until last weekend, when I needed to grab a couple of quick and "cheap" salads. I only chose Mickey Dee's because of time constraint and closeness. I was in shock after I saw the prices and paid the bill. I'm thinkin' it's going to be many, many more years before I'm back in there.

[timezone]

When any company goes "big", it generally seems to be the beginning of degradation of quality. As long as profit rules over personal responsibility and commitment to public welfare, I don't see this ending.

[verdantthoughts]

(i'm copying my post from civil eats to share you hp readers!)

excellent post, paula! i saw the nytimes article, have read various accounts of big “organic” agriculture and have read around the green web about walmart of late, and it all makes me feel uncomfortable. shouldn’t organic inherently imply small-scale? here i tout the slow food idea, but shouldn’t people be connecting with their food and not further disconnecting by going to anonymous, capitalist monsters like a fast food chain or super duper, no-ethics whatsoever store?

perhaps we should view organics and increased food quality at places like mcdonalds or walmart as babysteps for the masses, but i fear that the term “organic” is losing its meaning in its mass commodification. local is a good starting point, along with the education that comes with reaching out to your local food producers.

keep the great posts coming!!

and to the issue of cost: yes, mcdonalds is cheaper than eating at a fancy restaurant, but nothing beats cooking at home and buying in bulk. and with a little research eating locally and organically through csa shares and food cooperatives can totally be cost effective. i make 20k a year and have 100k of student loan debt and i seem to manage to eat in tune with the environment...

[LADawson]

I wish I could believe that it was the lattes and apple slices encouraging people to eat at McDonald's, but I'm more of the belief that it is a lot more simple than that: It is the cost. There are not many restaurants you can go to where you can feed a family of four for around twenty bucks People's disposable income is not what it was even a few short years ago, McDonald's has always been an easy solution to eating a meal out, but not emptying one's wallet - quality entirely aside. No matter how you look at it, the second you put the label "organic" on something, the cost is increased. Eating healthy and conscientiously is simply more expensive, when not as much money is out there floating around.

[showbizkid]

Here are a couple of films I purchased recently which cover this topic, worth checking out:

Processed People (one to buy)
http://www.processedpeople.com

An eye-opening film. You've heard it before, but this was entertaining and thought provoking anyway.

Food Matters (one to borrow)
http://www.foodmatters.tv

Makes some good points, but gets WAY too caught up in pushing vitamins.

Thank goodness to Huff Post for getting the word out!