An Argument Against Fast Food Establishments

Generally, whenever we wish for something that has the possibility to benefit our society or individual lives, we think mostly of the positive aspects such a change could bring. However, with nearly every positive change, there are at least a few negative consequences or drawbacks. There is an anecdote that sums up this paradigm perfectly, which is the warning to "be careful what you wish for-you might just get it!" Many years ago, Americans made a wish for food that was fast, convenient, and available at a whim at a reasonable price and presto, this wish was granted in the form of an ever-growing series of fast food business that were centrally located to their homes, workplaces, and schools. Although the wish for convenience was made out of a true desire for a better society, the lack of care and understanding of the complications of this granted wish might cause was not taken into account as society has suffered more by the existence of fast food chains than it has benefited from them. Still, society benefited from the added convenience and freedom from long hours in the kitchen, but when society got what it wished for, it should have heeded the advice from the anecdote and understood that one must be careful when wishing. While fast food restaurants have benefited society, individuals, and even the national economy, they have also replaced valuable traditions associated with sharing meals and have caused a number of significant health and even environmental problems.

Despite the fact that there were many drawbacks to the granted wish of fast and convenient food, the positive aspects of the creation of these establishments cannot be underestimated. This was an incredible revolution in the traditional way people understood mealtimes and it made life much easier as people were freed from their kitchens and offered opportunities to grab something on the run. When fast food restaurants began to emerge on a large scale, there were numerous obvious benefits, particularly to those primarily responsible for the preparation of three meals per day. Considering that fast food chains began cropping up en masse between the 1950s and 60s and also considering that this was still not a time when the women's liberation movement had taken hold of mainstream America in a hugely significant way, it can be reasonably assumed that it was, for the most part, women who were doing this vast amount of cooking. In addition to preparing and cooking these meals, many women were also charged with the task of taking care of children as well as the home. In short, the possibilities offered by the wide-scale numbers of fast food restaurants freed women up for more important or pressing tasks. Arguably, the opportunity to "skip" the preparation of a large family meal by merely running out to the drive-through had the possibility of revolutionizing the way the housewife of this period might have planned her week. Other benefits, such as the ability for people to actually take a legitimate lunch break and go somewhere to get a bite offered diversity in diet and a break from the tradition of workplace cafeterias or bland packed lunches. On a macro-level, with these restaurants came the rise of the fast food restaurant offered a significant boost to the national economy as Americans spent millions of dollars per year of hamburgers, French fries, and other often low-cost fare. Fast food locales were also central to job creation as well and offered the opportunity for unskilled wage laborers (and students) to make money outside of the traditional factory or other industrial setting.

Although there were a series of positive changes brought about by the introduction of fast food establishments, there were many negative consequences. Interestingly, for every positive benefit brought about by the prevalence of fast food restaurants, there is an equal and correlated drawback. For instance, while these establishments allowed for people to escape the traditional ways of dining together, particularly during a large homemade meal, this in itself had a very negative impact. Not only was the quality of the food significantly less than that of a homemade meal, it was far less healthy. While the average meal for a family would probably have consisted of a meat, starch, and vegetable, many of the offerings from fast food restaurants were less diverse and full of artery-clogging fats, high levels or salt, sugar, and MSG, and other damaging preservatives and additives. Equally damaging was the fact that coming together over a large prepared meal was no longer something families were obligated to do every night. Instead of knowing that every evening it would be the standard for all members of a family to sit at the same table over a meal prepared (by varying levels of participation, of course) at home through hard work, it became instead acceptable to eat more casually. When a meal was just bought, there would be no "investment" in it as it would be just something there for consumption purposes alone. The concept of sitting down for a family dinner was no longer a certainty for the average family and thus the positive communication aspects of dining together were diminished. Additionally, although women, who were often responsible for the preparation of these meals, might have had more time free, they were by no means freed from other complications. For instance, while it would be possible to go to the grocery and buy everything needed for meals at a good price, the possibility (and temptation to avoid cooking) of fast food was a more expensive option. As a result, men (speaking, of course in the traditional gender-role sense of pre-feminist America) had to work harder to keep up with the demands of their wives for less cooking and children for novel foods. In terms of economics, on the individual level, people who left work to go to drive-through places were spending more money than they would with packed lunches and on top of that, they were spending money on the gasoline required to leave for lunch as opposed to stay and eat at work while communicating and socializing with co-workers. While the large-scale economy benefited greatly from this increase in personal spending, it prompted the building of an increasing number of new chains, which then led to clogging of the environment with overbuilding of competing but similar restaurants. In short, while the introduction of these restaurants offered convenience, there were related negative consequences for any potentially positive aspect.

Although the opportunity to have food without preparation at one's beck and call is a tempting pleasure or wish to make, such a possibility is not worth the drawbacks and negative consequences it creates. On a social level, fast food chains offer nothing-they do not encourage families, co-workers, or friends to sit down and eat together and instead encourage immediate consumption for the mere sake of consuming (as opposed to eating together as a communicative act). On an individual level, fast food establishments offer the opportunity to free up time for more important things than cooking, but the very cooking that may have been tedious offered far more health benefits than fast food. Americans have an incredibly high obesity rate and one cannot help but link this, at least in part, to easy and quick access to fatty and high-calorie food. On an economic level, the wide variety and level of competition among fast food chains and the high level of profits derived from consumers is great for national interests, but the increasing health premiums due to obesity are not worth it. Also not worth it are the negative environmental effects ranging from over-building of these chains, increased emissions from cars waiting in lines or driving short distances to wait in fast food lines, and of course, the high level of consumption of food and cleaning products (which need to be dumped somewhere, of course) these places require. In short, the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Although it was an inspired wish when Americans demanded cheap quick food within a few miles from home, work, or school, there was no heeding of the warning to "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it." By not being careful by weighing the short-term benefits of fast food with the long-term social, individual, economic, and environmental issues, we got far more than we wished for and far more than we ever bargained for, particularly in terms of health problems, environmental damage, and more generally, the changes in the way food acts as a tool to bring people together.