The Tiny Slap to the Wrist for a Morbid Issue:

History:

The first drive-thru restaurant debuted in 1947 at Red’s Giant Hamburg in Springfield, Missouri. Located on the famous Route 66, the restaurant served customers as a connivence while traveling and was more efficient. At the same time, the McDonald brothers opened their redesigned restaurant, and several fast-food chains that exist today opened soon after. Burger King and Taco Bell got their start in the 1950’s, and Wendy’s opened in 1969. (Schlosser 49) These chains now are accredited with our nation’s issue of a tripled rate of obesity. Martin Schmidt, a professor of economics at the College of William & Mary, suggests that if a tax of ten percent is placed on the usage of the drive-thru at fast food restaurants consumers would be more likely to “exercise” by walking inside.  He also suggests that this tax could be used in the fight of obesity, by creating heath awareness programs.

Thesis:

A tax on drive-thru usage at fast food restaurants will not fight our nations’ concern of a rise in obesity.

Argument:

It is unavoidable, it is convenient and cheap, it consumes our world, whether one is driving, walking in the mall or downtown, or adds suffocating magazines for advertisement.  It is an issue our society is having to confront head on at this time, due to epidemic proportion of our nation it affects.  It is the rise of obesity. More than one-third of the adult population is overweight, and an estimated nineteen million Americans are morbidly obese.  Morbidly obese means their BMI is forty or greater, when twenty-four is the highest healthy number on the scale. (Wiedower 2)  Obesity is defined by the WMC Bariatric Program as a progressive disease, that causes and contributes to the development of numerous life threatening conditions.  These conditions include but are not limited to, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory disorders, such as sleep apnea, asthma, stroke, and gastrointestinal defects.  The risk for cervical, ovarian, breast, and gallbladder cancer increases for morbidly obese women and for men prostate and colon cancer increases. (Wiedower 3)  So who is to blame?  How do we utilize our resources to begin a recovery plan?  The obvious answer and what should be the sole answer is the consumer.  They should be educated enough to know that good health comes by a combination of eating right and exercising, or the child’s parents should know.  The consequence, the government either state or federal would punish them by implementing a ten percent tax on using the drive-thru at fast food restaurants.  But what if upon research and medical studies there was a middleman?  The fast food industry itself, misleading with false nutritional claims and sociological affects; so how would a tax be beneficial?

A survey completed by market firm Claritas states seventy-eight percent of all fast-food restaurants have inquired the use of the drive-thru, and numerous family-style restaurant chains now have special parking spaces for take-out.  He feels with such a significant amount a ten percent tax would raise a large revenue which could be used to fight obesity.  However, there are several issues with this concept already.  Americans are busy.  We see more families where both parents are working and delegating who has “soccer mom duty,” the drive-thru is a connivence, quicker then unloading the van full of kids to go inside and order.  The point is American’s like connivence and efficiency, so why not pay a little bit extra if it saves them time when in a pinch.  Many restaurants already have incorporated a service charge when someone orders pizza for a delivery, yet this extra charge does not stop them from having the pizza delivered, why? Because of its connivence.

So if Americans do not object paying the extra fee then the revenue of the ten percent tax would generate, but now another issue arises.  Who will be in charge of seeing this tax goes to proper organizations?  And which organizations will be selected?  Schmidt discusses the tax could be used to decrease taxes going to Medicare and Medicaid programs, but only 27.9% of the nation uses one of these programs reports the U.S. Census Bureau.  So how is this tax benefitting everyone who is paying it? Obesity would not be such a demanding issue if only 27.9% of the nation was consuming fast food.  This appears to be in the federal government’s territory, but as Schmidt gets into splitting the revenue would this be a nation wide standard? Or up to the state government to choose which programs benefit?  There are too many holes and unanswered questions of how this would assemble and where the money would actually go.

Schmidt, as mentioned, also discusses splitting the revenue from the tax to different organizations. He talks about environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife or Keep America Beautiful, starting health awareness programs, or diet programs.  The problem with this is the tax is only ten percent, a wise quote said always give a 100% to everything you do.  If the tax was to be split among three organizations, would there be enough profit to even benefit them?  Creating an organization or educating our country is not a cheap task.  The revenue needs to go to one organization, preferably one dealing with nutritional education.  Which takes me to my next point Schmidt never mentions in his article about the actual food being served, he is focused on the drive-thru aspect.  But what about what the customer is ordering and consuming whether inside or via drive-thru?  The actual food they eat is a major contribution in causing the obesity epidemic.

How many times has McDonalds or Taco Bell had a misguided impact on its consumers to what they are actually eating?  Fast food does not taste “good” because it is prepared by gourmet chefs, it is due to the dyes, additives, and artificial flavors added. (Schlosser 97)  For example, french fries were until 1990, fried in 7% cottonseed oil and 93% beef tallow, when it became public that these two put together produced more saturated fat then actually eating a hamburger, they were mandated to find an alternative.  McDonalds for example has misguided vegetarians, when asked what products were vegetarian friendly, french fries were listed. (Schlosser 105)  The public needs to be guided away from their additive and article ingredients, learning the truth.  This tax only focuses on the drive-thru encouraging customers to exercise more by walking inside, the minute it takes to walk inside is not enough to count for the thirty minute minimum of exercise doctors recommend for everyone daily.

This obesity epidemic needs to be fought with a balance of healthy eating education and exercise programs.  Consumers need to be taught what they put into their bodies is important and the fast food industry does not particularly care as long as they are make money.  This ten percent tax is like a tiny slap on the wrist, which the public cannot even feel because they are already morbidly overweight and burying themselves alive.  What our nation needs is a major wake up call, something a tax will not accomplish.

Works Cited:

Leach, Susan M. Before & After: Living and Eating Well After Weight-Loss Surgery. New York City: Harper Collins, 2004. Print.

Schimdt, Martin B. “Supertax Me.” New York Times. N.p., 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 1 Feb.

Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side to an All American Meal. New York City: Harper Perenniel, 2005. Print.

Wiedower, Jim, and Troy Glembot. “Understanding Obesity .” Valley Health Winchester Medical Center Bariatric Program. Ed. Troy Glembot. US Department of Health, – 2001. Web. 25 Jan. 2011.

Wilson, Tracy V. “How Fast Food Works.” How Stuff Works . N.p., 22 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.

Turning Their Incentive Into THEIR OWN Incentive

History:

In August 2010 Eric Mar proposed the idea of banning Happy Meal toys from any meal with 600 or more calories and did not meet the fruit and vegetable nutrition requirements.  In early November, the “Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance” passed by a 8-3 vote with San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.  However, shortly after Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, but was overrided.  McDonalds now has till December 1, 2011, to meet the new guidelines or Happy Meal toys will become a nostalgia.

Thesis: Happy Meal toys should be removed until healthy changes are made to McDonalds’ meals.

Argument:

It is unavoidable, it consumes our world, whether one is driving their child to an appointment or school, walking in the mall or downtown, or plastered on the school walls for advertisement.  It lures them in, they think it is a treat or for some a daily habit, but what is a child’s big fuss over a Happy Meal? The toy.

Obesity.  It is an issue our society is having to confront head on at this time, due to epidemic proportion of our nation it affects.  More than one-third of the adult population is overweight, and an estimated nineteen million Americans are morbidly obese.  Morbidly obese means their BMI is forty or greater, when twenty-four is the highest healthy number on the scale. (Wiedower 2)  Obesity is defined by the WMC Bariatric Program as a progressive disease, that causes and contributes to the development of numerous life threatening conditions.  These conditions include but are not limited to, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory disorders, such as sleep apnea, asthma, stroke, and gastrointestinal defects.  The risk for cervical, ovarian, breast, and gallbladder cancer increases for morbidly obese women and for men prostate and colon cancer increases. (Wiedower 3)  So who is to blame?  The obvious answer and what should be the sole answer is the consumer.  They should be educated enough to know that good health comes by a combination of eating right and exercising, or the child’s parents should know.  But what if upon a closer inspection there was a middleman?  The fast food industry itself, misleading with false nutritional claims and sociological affects, which they lurer in the youngest generation with a toy.

The greatest concern and cause of this ordinance to be passed was the children, “Their health is important,” Mar said, “when 30% of our fifth graders are overweight something needs to be done.” (McKinley 1)  Many feel, including Mayor Newsom that this is the wrong approach to fighting childhood obesity.  Mar stated, “We as a community have to have a starting point, a form of action needs to be taken.”  The concept of this just fighting childhood obesity, brings about an excellent point that should be discussed as well.  Children nag their parents, grandparents, or their baby-sitter they want to go to McDonalds, more than likely it is convenient, they are going to eat there too.  So, if McDonalds is forced to change the sodium, and fat in Happy Meals it will be applied to all the french fries, burgers, and chicken nuggets they are cooking.  So, in the big picture banning the toys can change everyone’s meal there for the better.

When McDonalds was asked to comment on the decision, they felt the bill was misguided. (McKinnley 1)  However, how many times has McDonalds had a misguided impact on its consumers to what they are actually eating?  McDonalds’ food does not taste “good” because it is prepared by gourmet chefs, it is due to the dyes, additives, and artificial flavors added. (Schlosser 97)  For example, french fries were until 1990, fried in 7% cottonseed oil and 93% beef tallow, when it became public that these two put together produced more saturated fat then actually eating a hamburger, they were mandated to find an alternative.  McDonalds also misguided vegetarians, when asked what products were vegetarian friendly, french fries were listed. (Schlosser 105)  McDonalds has no room to complain about this bill being misguiding, if anything the public is being guided away from their additive and article ingredients, learning the truth.

Danya Proud a spokesperson for McDonalds suggested the removal is not what customers want. (McKinley 1)  Yes, maybe the only reason a child wants to go is to get the toy of their favorite character from an upcoming movie, but once their parent gives in letting them play with the toy, the food is no longer important.  It simply ends up in the garbage, states Jonathan Bloom author of American Wasteland.  He does not argue in saying that is not where McDonalds’ food belongs, but he says overlooking that fact, we as Americans waste nearly half of what we produce, and yet millions of people go everyday starving.  We need to be conscious of ways to cut back and reduce our waste, there are only so many landfills. (224)

Another concern pressed in the community was why is the board wasting time on such a petty issue? There are other items and agendas this time and effort could be applied.  Mar explained the issue is not in the toy itself,  removing the toy looses sponsors and businesses who support McDonalds, money they will not be making without the partnership.  So, their incentive becomes their own, if they want the toys to stay then they will make the needed changes.  To explain more in depth what mar only touches the surface on, is the Disney Effect.  So how does this cycle begin?  In many cultures children take after and follow their parents’ example, the fast food industry is aware of this concept, and so in the 1960’s the Disney Effect began.  The Disney Effect consists of Disney entering a partnership with McDonalds to produce cheap replicas of their toys to place in children’s meals, and so finally in 1983 the Happy Meal Toy debuted.  To explain in depth what this effect can actually do one must first examine a moral.  A moral is based on values, which are defined as standards by which something is defined desirable or undesirable.  In many societies one moral that is taken seriously is being a good parent.  This is how the Disney Effect is used, Schlosser states from a cited sociology notebook that parents take their children to McDonalds because they “want the kids to love them, it makes them feel like a good parent.”  Purchasing something from Disney was the “ultimate” way to make kids happy. Since Disney products can be expensive McDonalds offers the affordable way to get that daily Disney magic.  The so called easy way to be a good parent. (Schlosser 50)  So, if parents let their children constantly or regularly eat fast food it becomes a norm for material culture.  Children think it is okay, so by the time they are young adults making the choice of what to eat, fast food will be an acceptable choice.

It may be a piece of dyed plastic in the shape of your child’s favorite character, but that toy can be the beginning of a nation wide trend which can benefit everyone from the small child wanting the toy, to the adult taking them.  Banning fast food toys until healthier options are in place is not misguiding, or wrong, it is the complete opposite it is a “healthful” step in the right direction, take away McDonalds’ toys, and their incentive becomes their own.

Works Cited:

Bloom, Jonathan. American Wasteland. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2010. Print.

Hensley, Robin N. Phone interview. 28 Jan. 2011.

Leach, Susan M. Before & After: Living and Eating Well After Weight-Loss Surgery. New York City: Harper Collins, 2004. Print.

McKinnley, Jesse. “You Want a Toy With That?” New York Times 3 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Jan. 2011.

Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side to an All American Meal. New York City: Harper Perenniel, 2005. Print.

Wiedower, Jim, and Troy Glembot. “Understanding Obesity .” Valley Health Winchester Medical Center Bariatric Program. Ed. Troy Glembot. US Department of Health, – 2001. Web. 25 Jan. 2011.