I find myself being inspired by a lot of freakonomics posts...
So, needless to say, check out their blog if you haven't already!
As for my actual topic, as much as it pains me to type it, it's time to play devil's advocate for the fast food business.
I'm not sure what readers out there know about me but I am a vegetarian. I haven't had meat in a little over 4 years. Due to their meat-centric (or meat like substance-centric) menu, I haven't had much desire to dine at fast food chains such as McDonald's. On numerous occasions, I've also watched the movie Super Size Me (which you can conveniently watch on hulu if you click here). My favorite part of the movie is in the 'bonus features' in which Morgan Spurlock, director and star, seals away food in air tight containers. He takes items from McDonald's menu, and he takes their 'real restaurant' equivalent. While the 'normal' french fries grew mold in a day, McDonald's french fries went 7weeks with out a single sighted spore, until they were accidentally thrown away.
Well, with all those preservatives, I know had another reason to never eat at Mc-D's.
I assumed Spurlock's analysis on why the food hadn't molded was correct; it made sense and he had evidence right in front of him. It wasn't until I read this post that I even thought about an alternative explanation.
Now, I consider both to be partially right. I'm not sure how much surface area can explain the same disdain for mold the french fries had. I don't think we can entirely dismiss Spurlock's study. However, these new studies prove another factor, maybe the only factor in the hamburgers.
What I had to ask myself, and will suggest you do the same, is 'why was it so easy to believe Spurlock'? There's probably a few factors such as 1) it was presented in a documentary, which has professional connotations 2) Spurlock was very good in gathering sources when he was commenting on anything else in the film, and 3) it made sense. I can live with those assumptions, there's some logic. Some assumptions are necessary to drawn conclusions and make decisions.
The assumption I was disappointed in, was probably that Spurlock was right because he was proving how everyone else was wrong. Think about it. Spurlock was trying to prove the health dangers and general problems behind McDonald's food. He was already, in some fashion, trying to unveil assumptions.
Never let someone control how you see the world entirely. You may listen, and change your mind, based off people like Spurlock, but always question. You don't know the assumptions Spurlock's making, or even me.
Maybe McDonald's doesn't inject poison in it's food....however it still probably gives out heart attacks(but that's for another time).
Alyssa, I was totally thrown by your idea that perhaps viewers believed Spurlock simply because he was challenging assumptions in documentary form. I'd never thought of it that way because I already agreed with what Spurlock was proving when I sat down to watch the film. You raise a very valid point: we shouldn't always assume that the person discrediting something is in the right. Though we shouldn't just assume that the majority is either. I'm glad you're writing a blog that will get us to think before we decide, not just assume based on limited information. But I'll definitely have ot go back and watch "Supersize Me" again because when I first saw it several years ago, I didn't think that Spurlock had a major agenda.-- Kate H
ReplyDelete