the chutry experiment

I'm afraid this is one thing I agree with conservatives on: it's not McDonald's fault and it's not the government's fault that kids grow up to be gigantic unhealthy fat asses. Responsibility lies with lazy or over-busy parents who don't monitor what their kids watch on television. Kids see Ronald McDonald during commercial breaks hundreds of times pushing the good life via fries and burgers, and most of the time no one bothers to explain to the kids why this is deceitful. So at that point, when kids have spent three or four years being brainwashed by those ads, it's futile for the parent to try to fight off the kids' requests for Happy Meals. And so the cycle continues...

You should check out Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" if you haven't read it yet.

I read "Fast Food Nation" a couple of years ago. It's pretty disturbing.

I'd agree that parental responsibility is an issue here, but I think it is complicated by the fact that parents can't control some of this stuff. When Spurlock speculates on how he'll raise his children not to like McD's, he jokes that every time he passes one while driving, he'll punch his kid in the face. I think it's almost impossible to prevent children not only from having familiarity with but also positive associations with McDonalds (with the clowns and happy meals and all).

I'd also blame decisions to allow fast food into school cafeterias (especially junior high school, where kids are less adept at regulating their diet). And, as I mention in the review, the lack of nutritional information on site at the restaurants is a real problem. Certainly there are some lawyers who stand to benefit disproportionately from these lawsuits, but I think that to some extent, the plaintiffs have a case similar to the big tobacco settlements. Fast fod companies are selling products they know are unhealthy. Until recently, MCD's "Super Size" promotion encouraged more unhealthy habits.

Again, I realize that parents have the ability to cut through some of the commercial messages, but I do think that fast food companies are culpable for at least some of the problem.

A couple of things here: 1) My kid is four and has never eaten at a McD's and never will. If parents have the will, it's not that hard. 2) The problem for me that R notes but passes over is "over-busy" parents. We live in a culture that almost makes mandatory the need for two incomes. Parents are too busy to cook, too tired to care. This is one of the clear class aspects to fast food culture. In other words, it's tough for parents to have the will.

Yes, there's definitely a social class problem that Spurlock himself only fleetingly addresses.

One example: There's one sequence where Spurlock attends a Jared Vogel (sp?--the Subway diet guy) seminar, and one teenage girl, who clearly admires Jared, explains that she can't follow the Subway diet b/c it's too expensive. On the one hand, I'm troubled by the glorification of Subway, but on the other, I'm aware that it's usally cheaper to eat unhealthy food. It's a fascinating moment in the film.

Spurlock does address the "over-busy" culture a little further when he notes that people eat something like one third of their meals out, a shockingly high percentage. Admittedly, fast food companies are an easy target for a film like this (many people who see documentaries already love to hate McD's), but putting pressure on them to offer healthier meals through these lawsuits doesn't seem like a bad thing to me (note that they've already stopped the Super Size promotion).

That moment with the teenage girl was so sad. She seemed to be wholly unaware of how to lose weight except through a "program." I kept thinking, "Doesn't she know that exercise and reduced calorie diet is the only thing that will help her to lose?" But I guess she doesn't. That's what was upsetting to me-- that we always have to have a "program" for weight loss.

But I grew up in a very fast food friendly house. Both parents worked, but they also just really enjoy junk food. I had to choose a better diet for myself as a teen (went vegetarian) b/c my parents couldn't do it. It wasn't easy. I guess this is what makes me very suspicious of the "just don't do it" argument. It's very, very hard for teens to overcome their parents' eating habits.

Plus, I just can't fall back on this logic when I scoffed so much at the anti-drug "just say no" campaign. We know the drug thing is complicated. This food *is* drug like. It's addictive. To say "just don't do it" is to fall back into Nancy Reagan's logic. . . and that's just stooopid.

Jenny, I had a similar experience w/fast food. My mom didn't work, but we were fast food friendly. In fact, my parents couldn't really imagine a meal without meat (except *maybe* breakfast), and I've worked to change my habits. I'm not a vegetarian, but I rarely eat fast food.

I think you're right about that scene w/the teenage girl. The marketing of diet products (most recently the Atkins cult) really contributes to that perception, which is awful.

I was troubled by the way Spurlock glosses over gender issues. The film seems to suggest that losing weight is easy for everyone--stop eating fast food. But that's not the way weight loss works, especially for women whose bodies are often resistant to weight loss. That moment with the young girl at the high school where Jared spoke was certainly about class, but also about gender.

I was especially bothered by the editor (?) of Rational Thinking (or some such magazine) who suggested that chastising fat people is similar to chastising smokers because both are harmful to one's health. Spurlock may or may not agree with this, but there was no comment on this editor's argument. Again, there are many physical reasons women, in particular (though this may not be solely a gender issue), have difficulty losing weight and it is not analogous to quitting smoking.

Overall, I agree that the film is enjoyable and makes some interesting points about social responsibility. I just wish that gender (and more about class) were taken into account.

Yes, I didn't really understand why Spurlock chose to include the interview with that guy from Reason Magazine or Rational Thinking or whatever. In fact, I remember thinking that it undercut his argument.

I'd agree that he does gloss the gender issue, but that scene with the teenage girl indicated to me just how difficult it can be to lose weight, not that it's particularly easy. Spurlock himself mentions that it took him 14 months to lose the weight he gained in one month. Still, because he focuses only on his own bodily experience, the film ignores other people's experiences, most specifically women's.