Eating Animals.....What Are We Eating?

One of the main ideas from Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer is focusing on what people eat and having them to think about what they eat. I believe that most Americans even people in general consume all types of food on a daily basis not knowing what they’re really eating. If people knew about the food they were eating, would they choose different food choices? Maybe/maybe not, different feelings would arise and maybe some people would even want to educate themselves on the foods their eating.

Do we really know the foods were consuming? How can we identify the foods that are edible or not, and who’s to say what is. Majority of people around the world eat meat, whether it be chicken, beef, or pork, we indulge in the “practice” of eating meat on a daily basis. But what if what were really eating isn’t what we think its is, or can we eat something that people would think twice about eating it. In Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, he speaks about eating dogs, one might say how immoral that is but truth is in 44 states it’s perfectly legal and normal (Foer, 24).

Yeah it sounds weird when hearing and speaking about people eating their dogs, because it’s out of the norm for most people, they’re animals for goodness sake. “Don’t eat animals with significant mental capacities” (Foer, 25) Is A dog the only animal with such significance, might as well include the pig, cow, chicken and sea animals, because properly cooked dog meat poses no greater health risks than the meat were already eating (Foer, 26). For all we know we could be eating dog meat as we speak, would people stop eating meat if it was true, I say no. For the simple fact if they were eating it for this long and haven’t gotten sick, what’s the point of stopping now, it’s obviously good. Point of it all people should pay a little more attention to what they eat, and if eating a dog is so bad, think about the steak, chicken cutlet, and bacon at your dinner tables.

Food Inc.

Today, in the United States obesity seems to be at an all time high in recent years. Diabetes, which is now considered a common factor of obesity, has taken a toll on the young adolescent and more so people in urban societies. In the movie Food Inc., Eric Schlosser says the “biggest predictor of obesity is income level” and a person’s income level justifies not only what he/she can afford but also the size of that individual.

How a person lives (survives) and maintains their lively hood is based on their income, they rely solely on just their income alone. Capital is everything in todays world and you need lots of it to live comfortably, but when your level of income starts to affect your health in ways you have no control over, its upsetting.  In the movie Food Inc. the Gonzalez family faces a tough time when having to deal with buying junk food as oppose to buying food more nutritious like fruits or vegetables, which is more expensive then that of junk food which is cheaper. The father has diabetes and has to take two different types of medication both costing over $100 each, causing the family to resort to foods that contain nothing but sugar, salt, and fat. The parents ultimately feel guilty for not having enough money to buy groceries and taking their kids to go eat fast food. For Maria Gonzalez (mother) it’s either pay for her husbands medicine to be healthy or buy vegetables for the family to be healthy, knowing dad is the sole proprietor it’s kind of a lose lose situation.

When I look at obesity I see it as somewhat of a plague on us, something that has skyrocketed in low-income communities. The fast food industry blames obesity on one’s personal responsibility but as Eric Schlosser says, the industry that engineers the food is mainly causing it, and I would have to agree.  Taking a glance at people who live in low-income communities and people with low-income aren’t offered a variety of nutrients.  There’s a fast food restaurant maybe every 5-10 blocks away from each other, the supermarkets don’t offer as much of those in high-income communities, and there is not one fruit or vegetable stand around. People with low-income levels get the short end of the stick because they have to work much harder to make it to that level of people at a higher income level. While there working they don’t have time to cook, so there buying or ordering out food, and even if they found the time, guess what? they can’t afford to buy the healthier food. So in part from food Inc. it is said that 1 in 3 Americans born after 2000 will contract diabetes and among minorities the rate will be 1 in 2 and that’s for the low-income working class.

"Brand Loyalty" and "Brand Essence"

Eric Schlosser comments on two significant terms from Fast Food Nation, “brand loyalty” (pg.43) and “brand essence” (pg.49). Brand loyalty and brand essence plays a major role in profiting from their consumers and in the long run creating a bigger market for their franchises and wider margin for income flow. These companies fool consumers into thinking there a trusted brand because of the image it portrays to be. Though brand loyalty and brand essence differ in meaning they both carry the same similarities in name relating to one another, almost feeding off each other, they go hand and hand.

A brand, which is a representation of oneself or its products for a company or corporation, ties into the loyalty and essence because that’s what it’s built off of. Sequentially brand loyalty is what we recognize as something being familiar with or what we can relate to, and may begin as early as the age of two (Schlosser 43). Ray Kroc and Walt Disney adopted the “cradle-to-grave” method hoping childhood memories of a brand will lead to a lifetime of purchases.

Brand essence is that little element about that brand that keeps us coming back, an emotional connection that we draw to like a magnet to a refrigerator. McDonalds exulted themselves into the brand essence launching campaigns and advertisements. A marketing executive named Ray Bergold said in one of the campaigns “to make customers believe that McDonalds is their “Trusted Friend” which intentions were to create positive feelings about McDonalds making consumers associate one thing they liked with another (Schlosser 50).

Companies such as McDonalds and Disney, just to name a few took pleasure in drinking from the fountain of brand loyalty and brand essence, they owned it. It amplified people’s perceptions of such brands making business easier and admissible to us. Brand loyalty and essence if combined would create the word brand image. Brand image because they both played a substantial role in representing a brand along with what products and services they’re putting out to uphold a good and positive image.

Say I start a clothing business; I advertise on trains, buses, etc. and market my business so people become aware of it. I need a major following if I want my business to boom, I may get customers but I need them to always come back, even tell a friend to tell a friend, so I need to acquire that brand loyalty and brand essence in order to flourish. I have to allow people to be complacent with my company and brand, so I know for sure I’ll stay in business, because I give them a place to call home figuratively speaking.

Uniformity

According to Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation “uniformity” (pg.5) is the key to a successful franchise. Uniformity is having the overall sameness of a product or service and coming together (as to uniform) with different businesses and pitching that idea to numerous locations. Uniformity has an interchangeable approach with a deficiency in variation; it is easily executed throughout many franchises and smaller businesses.

Having distinguished products and services at a cluster of businesses is an advantage for both consumers and franchisors. An advantage for consumers because they’re at a comfort ability level where they can spend their money at different companies in different locations knowing they purchased the exact same product without any regrets. They trust the brand being sold and serviced everywhere because it’s the same product. It is said “customers are drawn to familiar brands by instinct to avoid the unknown”, “a brand offers a feeling of reassurance when its products are always and everywhere the same” (Schlosser.5) And it’s an advantage for businesses because their bringing in clientele and making money, at the same time taking advantage of consumers by having an alluring and amiable deposition hoarding on the naïve minds of impulsive shopping.

Ray Kroc stated that he cannot trust people who are nonconformists, and will make conformists out of them in a hurry, “the organization cannot trust the individual; the individual must trust the organization” (pg.5). By being a nonconformist one is not being obedient and isn’t complying with the standards of business making it detrimental for businesses alike. In turn it’ll lead to the enhancement of similar businesses thriving or plummeting one another. In order for uniformity to remain successful people must conform and businesses must perpetuate this method into every brand.

An example of uniformity is the brand Gucci; although they have multiple locations by them expanding their brand with selling and servicing their products in various locations including stores such as boutiques and major department stores such as Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue, etc. they’ve maintained a sense of stability and accuracy, they're uniforming as a brand. They're making their numbers larger and customers wider in the aspect of creating more business for the company.

Encroachment

In Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser he writes about the concept of encroachment (pg.99). The term “encroachment” meaning to forcefully enter upon another’s property without any regards to their rights, in “layman’s” terms it means to take something i.e. businesses belonging to a chain of operations and putting it in the same area as other businesses for competition.

Eric Schlosser exemplifies encroachment in his success chapter when he talks about the conflicts between franchisees and franchisors and how their restaurants belonging to the same chain are frequently being put closer to one another. Franchisees call the practice “encroachment” and oppose it; their businesses become stagnant as their sales go down drawing away more and more customers due to the infringement. On the other hand franchisors benefit from this practice receiving revenue from royalties based on their total sales.

As a result of the more restaurants that “trespass” the more sales and business they drive up for themselves (franchisors), and the more business that go down for franchisees. Although it creates jobs for new workers mostly immigrants at the same time it tears down the integrity of these small businessmen trying to make a living that have no rights and rules are surely unfair.

One example of encroachment is the food trucks, especially around LaGuardia Community College. In total there are about 5 or 6 trucks on a three-block radius. There are 3 trucks alone on 1 block and they serve the same exact thing, though they may have certain customers, it brings conflict for business. If 1 food truck has a long line, I might go to the next one because I don’t feel like waiting, or one might not have what I wanted, then its on to the next, and so on. Yes they probably all make profits but I just don’t see for how long or how long will that truck be around without knocking the other one out of business due to encroachment.