AMERICA'S ROYALTY: BURGER KING &
DAIRY QUEEN

by Alanna Donahoe

graphic from George Ritzer's The McDonaldization of Society

The Sustenance of Alienation:
The "I'm too busy to cook" syndrome

If people are more apt to think of themselves as consumers rather than producers, if gratification is associated with consumption rather than working, doing, and making, we have only to bear in mind that this is a society where work is either unattainable or alienating. (Willis, A Primer For Daily Life, "Learning From the Banana," page 59)

We are alienated from the land which gives us food, and from the actual production of our food. Do we know whose hands our food has passed through before we see it stacked neatly on shelves, or handed to us in a bun at Burger King, ready for us to consume at leisure? Contrary to McDonald's "educational literature" passed out to young children in schools, hamburgers don't "grow in hamburger patches."

It is interesting to explore the effects which resonate down through the food products we as Americans demand, and into the land or lives of people who contributed to its production. The result of this tracing usually leads to accounts of people who are either exploited in their ignorance or exploited by force (or forces beyond their control). This is reflective of America's overall arrogance (coupled with societal ignorance of the situation), not merely in placing so much dependence upon the never-ending demand for increased production and increased sales, but with justifying our wanton destruction, demolition, disregard, and extinction of anything that gets in the way of increased profit.

If something has "market value," such as the Neem Tree in India for its medicinal effects, or the rainforest in South America for its potential cattle-grazing space, it surely meets the American criteria which will lead to its exploitation and destined extinction. Such market variables" invariably seem to take precedence over non-market considerations such as the sacred meanings of the land to native peoples. Neither are reasons not directly revolving around benefitting mankind. Stubbornly, even reasons that do benefit, yet cannot be recognized in immediate financial gain, are scoffed at. The rainforest, for example, may contain a plethora of medical secrets, or may possess an oxygen-producing quality, both of which most people consider beneficial to mankind, yet "in the last forty years, two-thirds of the Central American rainforest has been cleared," namely for raising cattle. This is a telling indicator of America's inability to assign worth to anything in figures that have nothing to do with markets and their expansion.
Yet even playing by the rules of the system, if we continue our production methods as we have so far we may be heading for an economic disaster. How will we pay for the increasing social problems which our destructive habits are bound to exacerbate? What if the cure for A.I.D.S., or cancer, is clear-cut along with the land, all for the mere sale of beef (raised to appease the demanding appetite created by over-population), when finding the cures for these ailments would greatly lessen the financial load now provided by medical care? We are already ridiculously in debt, and what will we do when there is nothing else to exploit? Is American policy even unable to see past immediate profit to future profit and savings?

"The marketplace is a dismal failure at telling us what the earth is worth. You can start with a simple question: What's a tree worth?...The marketplace tells us what a tree is worth as pulp or two-by-fours; it doesn't say anything about the impact of the forest as a bank of carbon dioxide, or its role in freeing oxygen--which we humans use, don't we? It doesn't tell us how trees keep soil in place--soil isn't much use otherwise--or how they provide habitats for millions of species. It doesn't tell us anything about their beauty. The marketplace is giving us 5 percent of the picture instead of 100 percent.

"So what's a tree worth? What's a bird worth? What's clean air worth? If we asked these questions, we'd get some startling answers--and if we had those answers we'd be careful to defend things that are so hard, so expensive, to replace" (David Brower, "We Need to Learn What the Earth is Worth," Utne Reader, March-April '96, page 67).

"The contradictions of consumption are the contradictions of production. Because the lived experience of capitalism in the First World state prioritizes consumption over production, we can begin to think critically about our relationship to capitalism by scrutinizing our relationship to commodities" (Willis, A Primer For Daily Life, "Learning From the Banana," pg 60-61).

"...even meals from the store have become relatively inefficient with the advent of microwavable meals that can be stored on the shelves of one's pantry. Still another recent competitor for the most efficient meal is the fully cooked meal consumers may now buy at the supermarket. People can merely stop at the market on the way home and purchase all the courses of a meal, which they "prepare" by unwrapping the packages, no cooking required" (Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society, page 52).

Advertisers play upon this unfortunate trend...

Advertising: Industrial Propaganda

Women often try to prevent, or reverse the effects of, this devastating disease by consuming large amounts of milk, which is just what the industry would like you to do. We are all probably familiar with the Milk Board's catchy jingle, "Milk, It Does A Body Good." Does milk counter, or prevent, osteoporosis? Does milk do a body good? If you are a baby cow, yes. But a fully-grown human being? The answer is no.

Time and time again, in scientific studies, the answer to preventing osteoporosis, or lessening its effects, lies not with consuming more calcium, but with consuming less protein. This is a consistent pattern emerging throughout the world. Consider the following examples, taken from Diet for a New America by John Robbins:

"In any given population, the greater the intake of protein, the more common and more severe will be the osteoporosis. In fact, world health statistics show that osteoporosis is the most common in exactly those countries where dairy products are consumed in the largest quantities -- the United States, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

'African Bantu women take in only 350 mg. of calcium per day. They bear nine children during their lifetime and breast feed them for two years. They never have calcium deficiency, seldom break a bone, rarely lose a tooth. Their children grow up nice and strong. How can they do that on 350 mg. of calcium a day when the (National Dairy Council) recommendation is 1200 mg." It's very simple. They're on a low-protein diet that doesn't kick the calcium out of the body . . . In our country, those who can afford it are eating 20% of their total calories in protein, which guarantees negative mineral balance, not only of calcium, but of magnesium, zinc, and iron. It's all directly related to the amount of protein you eat.'