Super Size Me!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Liberal

I saw it, and what bothered me about it was that he made no effort to order available foods that were more nutritional. He could have ordered the salads, the chicken, the fish, or even the burgers but without all the mayo and whatnot. Maybe it wasn’t a direct slam against McDonald’s, but if all he wanted to prove was that eating burgers is unhealthy, then he could have fried them up at home and plastered them with mayo and ketchup.

He did order all that stuff. He made it a point to order everything on the menu.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Gah…Apparently, I’m like the 5th person to make the point about Spurlock rotating through the menu. Never mind.

@Barbarian

Very often in the movie Spurlock is sitting around with a bottle of water. You ask me, most of his weight gain comes from his sedentary behaviour. He went from being your average, walk several miles a day New Yorker to sitting on his spreading ass and doubling or tripling his caloric intake.

He deliberately chose to limit himself to doing no more exercise than the average American.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Renob

If folks are interested in Spurlock, you may want to check this site out: www.spurlockwatch.typepad.com/
It’s mainly concerned with his new book, but it has some interesting information debunking many of his assertions.

I didn’t see much in the way of factual debunking on that website, just a lot of whining and nitpicking from someone who seems to have some sort of hard on for Morgan Spurlock.

[Renob]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I didn’t see much in the way of factual debunking on that website, just a lot of whining and nitpicking from someone who seems to have some sort of hard on for Morgan Spurlock.

Perhaps you missed this:

While discussing how McDonalds’ suppliers raise their cattle, Spurlock writes in Don’t Eat This Book:

“Leftover bits and pieces [of dead cows] are scooped up, ground together and fed back to the cows. And then those cows are ground up and fed to you.” (p. 102)

Actually, this process is called “ruminant feeding,” and it has been banned by the FDA since 1997. Spurlock is accusing McDonalds of breaking federal law, and of continuing to break federal law for eight years.

This is a serious accusation, and one for which Spurlock provides no source. Either Spurlock or Putnam, his publisher, should provide an explanation as to how and why this accusation made it into the book.

Or maybe this:

One of my favorite passages from Don’t Eat This Book concerns accusations Spurlock casts against artificial sweeteners. Nearly all of them are based on Internet rumors, urban legends, and one solitary study that has long been discredited.

Spurlock, for example, writes the following:

“The FDA has said aspartame may be linked to some uncommon but troubling side effects, including headaches, hallucinations, panic attacks, dizziness, and mood swings.” (p. 98)

Spurlock’s source for this is a 1999 edition of an FDA newsletter called the FDA Consumer. Here’s what that the article actually says:

FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.
This message would not necessarily be apparent to consumers surfing the Internet, especially those who use Web-based search engines to find information about sugar substitutes or artificial sweeteners. Websites with screaming headlines and well-written text attempt to link aspartame consumption to systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, vision problems, headaches, fatigue, and even Alzheimer’s disease. One report distributed nationally over e-mail systems claims that aspartame-sweetened soft drinks delivered to military personnel during the Persian Gulf War may have prompted Gulf War syndrome.

No way, says FDA, along with many other health organizations such as the American Medical Association.

In other words, Spurlock’s own source makes the exact opposite conclusion he attributes to it. The article goes on to debunk each of these hysterical claims, one by one.

Or this:

Spurlock writes:

“…sucralose [marketed as Splenda] has been linked in animal studies to shrinkage of the thymus glands and enlargement of the liver and kidneys. But as with NutraSweet, Splenda made it to the market before any large-scale, long-term population studies could prove or disprove those results.” (p. 98)

Sucralose was invented in 1976. It underwent more than 20 years of testing before getting FDA approval as Splenda in 1998. The “animal studies” Spurlock mentions involve animals fed enormous amounts of the stuff, amounts no sane person would approach in the course of a regular diet. That’s why the FDA reviewed the studies Spurlock mentioned, and found no reason to keep the drug from the market. Here’s what the FDA said upon approving the sweetener:

In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic, reproductive and neurological effects.

No such effects were found, and FDA’s approval is based on its finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption.

Splenda’s been on the market in Canada for 14 years now, with no ill health effects

Or this:

Spurlock writes:

The USDA reports that the cost of vegetables and fruit rose 120 percent between 1985 and 2000, while the price of junk like sodas and sweets went up less than 50 percent on average (p. 12)

This may be true, I’m not sure. Spurlock’s source is a 2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencier article, and the reporter gives no specific source for the claim, other than the tag “according to the USDA.”

Spurlock uses this same S-I article a number of times, but never bothers to doublecheck its assertions. He could have at least cheked with the USDA to verify.
If he had, he’d know that the USDA did commission a highly-publicized study on how much it would cost for the average person to get his full daily requirement of fruits and vegetables.

The answer? Sixty-four cents. Or, about twelve percent of the average American’s food budget. There are “127 different ways to eat a serving of fruits and vegetables for less than the price of a 3-ounce candy bar,” the study says. The notion that processed food is cheaper than fresh food was dismissed by the study, too: “Researchers found that nearly two-thirds of the fruits and vegetables studied were cheapest in their fresh form.”

In fact, according to the USDA, per capita fresh fruit and vegetable consumption has gone up by 20% since the 1970s!

I know what you’re thinking. “Doesn’t the government count the potato as a vegetable? Isn’t most of that increase probably due to french fries and potato chips?”

Actually, no. Check out this table from the USDA (from this report). Potato consumption is included in the “frozen” statisitics, not the fresh (as you might imagine, it is up, by about 21 pounds per year).

This makes sense. Revolutionary improvements in agriculture, shipping, and preserving fresh foods, together with a rapidly growing economy (there’s all that awful “consumption” again), have created a market for diverse, fresh produce, and a means of satisfying it.

I could go on:

Continuing his assault on artificial sweeteners, Spurlock writes:
“There were far more troubling studies possibly linking aspartame to birth defects and brain tumors, one conducted by the FDA itself as early as 1981, but they were overlooked in the rush to get NutraSweet approved and marketed.” (p. 98)
Spurlock again seems to have fallen for an urban legend.

Let’s go back to one of Spurlock’s own sources: the FDA Consumer newsletter. The issue Spurlock himself cites for another claim says the following:
FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.

Of course, Spurlock writes that the FDA “rushed” the sweetener to market, implying that the agency bowed to political pressure, in which case – I guess – we shouldn’t believe what it writes.

Okay. Then how 'bout the British medical journal The Lancet? The American Council on Science and Health? MIT? Time magazine?

All of have considered the claims Spurlock publishes as fact, and thoroughly rebuked them as hysterical Internet scaremongering.

The most cursory of Internet research turned these articles up. In fact, a visit to Snopes would have sufficed to find them all. Instead, Spurlock cites the very sorts of quackish, alarmist websites the FDA, respected medical journals, academics, and other journalists caution anyone with a lick of sense from taking seriously.
He’s that eager to demonize Big Food.

So what of that study that perported to link aspartame to brain tumors? It was conducted by a couple of Washington University researchers who apparently saw a 10% rise in incidence in brain tumors shortly after the sweetener was put on the U.S. market in the early 1980s. They didn’t even check to see if the people who got brain tumors after 1983 had actually consumed any aspartame. Pure, speculative correlation. Bizarrely, they overlooked the fact that that rise was merely the tail end of a decade-long rise in brain cancer that began in the early 1970s – well before aspartame hit the market. Beginning in the mid-1980s incidents of brain cancer began a decade-long leveling off – with aspartame use on the rise all the while.

Spurlock, again, bites on an urban legend and Internet hoax. And one that, again, could have been disproven with as little effort as a Google search.

[JohnT]

@MGibson

Because McDonald’s is an icon and something like 90% of the population in the lower 48 are within 15 minutes of one. They are the most successful fast food franchise…
Marc

Just a minor nitpick… Subway is the most successful fast-food franchise with 18,280 US restaurants (23,054 worldwide, including the US), whereas McDonalds has 11,632 US restaurants (22,413 worldwide, including the US.)

Cite: http://www.entrepreneur.com/franzone/rank/0,6584,12-12-F5-2005-0,00.html

[Lochdale]

I very much enjoyed the movie and while not surprised at his condition I was astonished with how he looked at the end.

One issue he didn’t touch on as much as I would have liked is the cost of food. I work in the Loop in Chicago and lunch prices are out of control. If I go to a Cosi or a Corner Bakery I’ll spend anywhere between $7-9 on lunch. A meal at McDonalds will cost me $3-4. My assistant usually goes for the fast food option because of the price. She has 4 kids and when she doesn’t bring her lunch she wants to spend as little as possible on lunch. Buying a sandwich and a drink for $8 isn’t really an option for her.

It strikes me as a vicious cycle. Those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale may not have the time or the resources to eat healthier foods. A fast food place offers a lot of food for a very low price. Give their economic situation they probably have little access to preventative care so they don’t heed (or they aren’t told) of the warning signs.

[Skywatcher]

@Lochdale

One issue he didn’t touch on as much as I would have liked is the cost of food. I work in the Loop in Chicago and lunch prices are out of control. If I go to a Cosi or a Corner Bakery I’ll spend anywhere between $7-9 on lunch. A meal at McDonalds will cost me $3-4. My assistant usually goes for the fast food option because of the price. She has 4 kids and when she doesn’t bring her lunch she wants to spend as little as possible on lunch. Buying a sandwich and a drink for $8 isn’t really an option for her.

It strikes me as a vicious cycle. Those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale may not have the time or the resources to eat healthier foods. A fast food place offers a lot of food for a very low price. Give their economic situation they probably have little access to preventative care so they don’t heed (or they aren’t told) of the warning signs.

Damn right. I’ve always said that Spurlock should have focused on those whose income–or lack thereof–doesn’t allow for much of a choice.

[Odesio]

@JohnT

Just a minor nitpick… Subway is the most successful fast-food franchise with 18,280 US restaurants (23,054 worldwide, including the US), whereas McDonalds has 11,632 US restaurants (22,413 worldwide, including the US.)

I suppose that depends on how success is measured. It’s true that I see a subway show just about everywhere I travel but how do their profits measure up compared to McDonald’s?

Marc

[Merijeek]

@Lute Skywatcher

Damn right. I’ve always said that Spurlock should have focused on those whose income–or lack thereof–doesn’t allow for much of a choice.

And some of us can afford to still have a choice.

But really, when I end up spending $10-$12 on a better-than-fast-food lunch I find myself thinking, “Man, for $5 I could have gotten just as much food at Wendy’s…and at the end of the week I’d have spent $35 less on lunch.”

-Joe

[Shalmanese]

@Dr_Paprika

Mr. Spurlock ate ninety or so meals at McDonald’s. McDonald’s only has a few different sandwiches, and did not (before the movie) have an extensive variety of salads. It does not take a genius to realize that Spurlock could eat one salad over the month and still be eating burgers at most meals. In the long run, there is no indication Spurlock rotated through the menu more than once; and every indication he had an agenda to eat fatty foods and gain weight for the purposes of marketing the movie.

As I said, I liked the movie. I would like to see a break-down on what Spurlock actually ate. And I agree most of the choices at McDonald’s are, on balance, unhealthy. There is a reason most nutritionists recommend eating at fast food only very occasionally (some do say “never” and some are more realistic). But the movie was sold on the “super size me” premise, and it’s worth repeating this was offered (to my surprise) on fewer than 3% of the meals. I bet Spurlock was surprised too. “Fast Food Nation” is far more interesting and objective than this movie.

Except that he presented statistics which show that Americans clearly are doing exactly what he did in the movie. I forgot the exact numbers but a very significant proportion of America are “heavy” users of fast-food which means they are living the lifestyle he depicted in the movie.

Notice that he also showed that an all fast-food diet has the potential to leave you healthy as well. By both showing himself and the burger-a-day guy, he essentially states that this is the worst and best case scenario respectively. How you choose to take it from there is up to you.

[Skywatcher]

@Merijeek

And some of us can afford to still have a choice.

But really, when I end up spending $10-$12 on a better-than-fast-food lunch I find myself thinking, “Man, for $5 I could have gotten just as much food at Wendy’s…and at the end of the week I’d have spent $35 less on lunch.”

Quite right, but that wasn’t really my point. I think if Spurlock’s intentions were to have a negative effect on the high prices of non-processed food, he went about it the wrong way.

[Jinx]

a) No one has answered why he wasn’t sued. One reply is that what he said was factual, but let’s back up. Would McD agree it’s factual or slanderous? How much is caffeine and sugar soft drinks to blame for the symptoms he was feeling?
Also, I am amazed the stores allowed him to come waltzing in with a video
camera and have the McD staff even make comments about the food. (There was one scene in particular, but I cannot recall now what was said.)

Maybe McD’s felt it was best to ignore him? Not sure. Counterintuitively, his movie did kill the super-sizing (although McD’s denies it). Still, I cannot believe he was only asked to super-size 9/60 lunches and dinners (assuming it is not offered at breakfast.) Those McManagers didn’t do a good job training their McStaff…

b) The Big Mac dude may appear skinny as a rail, but he could be a prime candiate for a massive heart attack. Weight isn’t everything, and that’s the scariest part - we’re all playing with fire until the symptoms kick in. (Remind his wife at his funeral how skinny he was.) The only good thing he does is skip the fries. Maybe he drinks diet drinks, too. We also don’t know what else he’s doing when not at McD’s. Maybe he likes swimming or biking which helps, unlike Spurlock who (apparently) quit exercising. Maybe he even takes an aspirin a day.

c) From an objective view, I agree with what most responses above are pointing out. Spurlock tries to cover too much material and strays from his hypothesis - trying to tackle off-topic issues of school lunches, advertising and marketing, etc. (Hey, maybe there are no Wendy’s in that part of MA where the 1st graders were, and do you start Sunday School at that age? When do children get exposed to pictures (not statues) of a Jesus off the cross?

Still, I give him a lot of credit for saying what needed to be brought to the forefront, IMHO.

Hope the thread won’t get bumped…

• Jinx

[Dung_Beetle]

@Jinx

Those McManagers didn’t do a good job training their McStaff…

Why should they? They never did before…

Seriously, when I worked there, you could be hired one day and trying to cope with lunch rush the next. We did have some pretty little training videos which must have been filmed in Mr. Roger’s Land of Make-Believe, but those were basically viewed for laughs during your lunch break, assuming you were lucky enough to get one.

[Jinx]

@Dung Beetle

Why should they? They never did before…

Seriously, when I worked there, you could be hired one day and trying to cope with lunch rush the next. We did have some pretty little training videos which must have been filmed in Mr. Roger’s Land of Make-Believe, but those were basically viewed for laughs during your lunch break, assuming you were lucky enough to get one.

Hmm, in this little corner of the galaxy, old McDonald insists on it. I wonder how many times he was asked “will this be for here, or to go?”

You want fries with that?

• Jinx

[Lochdale]

I guess I would have liked him to focus on the cost differential (most people do not have the time or the money to go all vegan) but I would not have wanted him to focus solely on that issue.

I went to Subway today for lunch. In Chicago, it cost me $5.28 for a 6 inch chicken breast sandwich and a bag of chips (no drink). I walked past McDonalds and a meal deal there was less than $3.50 for a meal with drink.

[MadderMitch]

@Dr_Paprika

There is a reason most nutritionists recommend eating at fast food only very occasionally (some do say “never” and some are more realistic). But the movie was sold on the “super size me” premise, and it’s worth repeating this was offered (to my surprise) on fewer than 3% of the meals. I bet Spurlock was surprised too. “Fast Food Nation” is far more interesting and objective than this movie.

EM.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a nutritionist who recommended I eat fast food.

Yeah I realize you think it’s unrealistic to say “never”, but “unrealistic” is a very different concept to “recommended”

[rjung]

@Jinx

Maybe McD’s felt it was best to ignore him?

Given McDonalds’ past history of overzealous litigation, I doubt it.

Let’s just remember that Super Size Me was never meant to be (a) objective, (b) fair, nor (c) a scientific experiment. Spurlock had a point he wanted to make, and then picked an attention-grabbing way of making it. Documentaries from any filmmaker have always been about presenting a particular POV.

[CaveMike]

@JohnT

Just a minor nitpick… Subway is the most successful fast-food franchise with 18,280 US restaurants (23,054 worldwide, including the US), whereas McDonalds has 11,632 US restaurants (22,413 worldwide, including the US.)

Cite: http://www.entrepreneur.com/franzone/rank/0,6584,12-12-F5-2005-0,00.html

A clarification on your stats… Subway has 641 more franchise restaurants than McDonalds, but McDonalds still has 7455 more total restaurants.

[Dr_Paprika]

I agree most people who eat at McDonald’s eat the unhealthier fare – big burgers, large fries. I have no problem with that, not Spurlock showing that. But saying you had every item on the menu at least once isn’t the same as rotating through the menu many times. It’s a small nit to pick, but I find it likely the marginally more nutritious meals were eaten less often for the sake of making a point. I don’t him recall implying the burger a dat guy was exceedingly healthy, but it has been a long time since I saw the film.

I work in the medical field and have talked to a number of nutritionists. Some of them realize people have busy schedules and intelligently discuss with their patients which menu options people can choose at fast food outlets and restaurants. Some nutritionists patronize these restaurants themselves, once in a while. The idea involves “harm reduction” and the realization it is still safer to smoke crack than to inject it. In medicine, you cannot always control people’s actions and if some people are going to continue to eat fast food, it is better if they can make intelligent choices about it than to prohibit fast food to someone who will nevertheless ignore this advice and continue to eat it.

[TheOnlySaneOne]

@DiosaBellissima

We watched half the DVD, paused it, ran to McDonalds, came back, ate our burgers and fries and watched the second half.

Oh, thank goodness! I thought I was the only one who craved Chicken McNuggets while watching this movie. And Big Macs. Plural.