In Praise Of Fast Food Summary

In her article, “In Praise of Fast Food”, Rachel Laudan was raised in old-school fashion but she tries to justify a more modern day fast-food culture. Being a historian, Rachel brings some good examples of food wars to the table. as far back as the ancient Greeks. Also, it is apparent that even though history runs through her veins she has opened her table up to new ideas in food culture. Binging up Culinary Luddism is quite arguably the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to being an open-minded food critique. Being a food critique you must keep a neutral position and open to the ideas of different food types and cultures. Looking up the definition of “Culinary Luddites” on Wikipedia, these were people that refused to open their eyes and grow with the times. This movement went as far as protesting and damaging equipment to try to stop the growth in the food industry to help preserve their ideals. Although, being raised old-school I would not compare myself to the likes of this group of defiant rebels.
Contrary to Rachel’s article, I find it hard to believe our ancestors found fresh natural food quite nasty and bad tasting.
She even commented on fresh fruit was incredibly sour and fresh vegetables being bitter. I feel this statement is undeniably false, unless of course, your fruit and vegetables are unripe or you are biting into a fresh lemon or a lime. That sweet oranges and apples were created, not grown the natural way of our ancestors. Cooking our food to death and adding spices just to make it edible. I tend to believe status played a big role in our early cultures on how food was prepared. Referring back to Rachel’s article, she said “only the uncivilized, the poor and the starving resorted to it” and the Greeks claimed it was a sign of bad times if a person resorted to eating greens or root style vegetables. If this is the case, how do you explain olives, grapes and Greek salads that were fed to the
kings? Laudan goes on to talk about the advantages of fast food with the city dwellers over slow food for the country folk. This point really hits home as growing up on a small farm in North Dakota we raised or planted almost everything we needed to survive. I get the feeling that Rachel would prefer a value meal speeding through the drive-thru, than four course meal with farm raised beef and fresh vegetables out of the garden. Rachel claims that farmers were so burdened down and taxed, they barely get by on leftovers, gruels and gritty flatbreads. Contrary to this claim, I felt that country folk like us ate more like the kings, as we saved enough money raising our own food we could eat as well as we chose. There is much controversy to how much healthier our diets were better back in the day, and how pesticides and toxins affect our foods today. Rachel claims that our ancestors were worse off than we are today, but I do believe her article would have made a bigger impact with statistics to back up these beliefs. Also, I believe modern medicine and education plays a bigger part on height and life expectancy than modern food. Furthermore, it has been proven that chemicals in our modern food can cause negative repercussions in humans. In an article found on” LiveStrong.com” August McLaughlin states growth hormones and chemicals can cause early puberty in girls, increase chances for breast cancer and also increases your chance of prostate cancer. My question is, were old foods healthier than ours? Critiques can probably go back and forth on this battle until the end of time. Unfortunately I do not agree with many of Laudan’s article I do respect her ability as a writer. Her article was well written and clearly stated her position on the subject. But, I personally believe that when it comes down to “Fast-Food” versus “Slow Food”, it all comes down to a person’s individual beliefs and culture, not science that will drive our eating habits.