The True Cost of a Big Mac

1. Working Hypothesis 1

The consumer price of fast food should reflect its real social cost.

1a. Working Hypothesis 2

Costs should never change in accordance with social costs due to common sense and free will.

2. Five Academic Sources

1. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.rowan.edu/doi/10.1002/jcaf.21955

Social cost is a cost that is a separate piece from its main body. However, the main body is responsible for this particular piece. In terms of economics, a social cost is a negative externality. The concept of social cost has only seen the light of day after a long period of time. These costs aren’t really anything new but never have been taken into consideration due to their vast time span and cost. If you look back, the social cost comes forward when asbestos and tobacco industries accumulate substantial evidence that their companies brought along life-threatening health concerns like irreversible lung damage. These side effects are not connected to the buyer’s original cost of a cigarette or asbestos insulation. The costs for medicine, therapy, or chemo to treat these resulting effects would count as their social costs. These examples are simple examples professor George Nogler introduced to explain how impactful social costs are. His article, “The Auditor, the Entity, and Social Cost: How Will Auditing Change?” goes into the nitty gritty process that goes into social costs being carried out through auditors. Auditors have long studied social costs, even looking past just the risks that affect a client like our environment. Take pollution as an example. The costs needed for cleanup and health problems are entirely separate from the polluters. Such that, the pollution producers aren’t held responsible unless they are able to clean up their mess. Even then the government gets involved. Turning the additional costs into our taxation. Projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars are carried out by a combination of government and responsible industries. For example, Hooker Chemical was responsible for polluting Love Canal, a neighborhood in Niagra Falls, New York. To fix this tremendous blunder, it cost $350 million to help to clean up and relocate the people in this neighborhood. Also, to add more to the pile, nearly half of the money came from taxpayers’ pockets. So social costs are looked down upon for their grand stature. Now account for social costs at fast food restaurants. The numbers would be astronomical. With that in mind, the fast food industry could take into account these numbers and up the price on the menu. In turn, you would be paying for both the meal and the social costs. 

2. https://web-s-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.rowan.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=1840f95f-7901-4bb0-93ca-0445c4bcff90%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=60975236&db=a9h 

Title: Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications

Food is very similar to addicting drugs. Its ingredients alone make a connection in our brain that resembles drugs. Most of the responsibility falls upon the user or consumer. The same way tobacco works. Tobacco companies don’t take fault because everyone knows it’s not healthy. Food being addicting does not help the overwhelming obesity in America, and it is all about free will. The addicting quality of foods might not act the same as tobacco which results in the customer coming back for the same thing every time. Emotional eating, cravings, and constantly eating high-calorie foods are widespread. Healthcare obesity-related costs are expected to exceed 850 billion dollars annually by 2030. If this is expected to be glanced over as insignificant then public health is in no way considered. These foods should be approached like tobacco. Limiting advertisement along with taxing cheap addictive foods like corn and sugar. Increasing the price of food should be increased to decrease the social cost of obesity among customers. As the price increases, the industries should use this as money to take responsibility for the addictive foods being sold left and right. 

3. https://ijsser.org/2020files/ijsser_05__53.pdf

Seems like India has been experiencing some increase in the influence of western cultures. Especially the U.S. fast food industry and its consumption of food. India has found this increase to be a health concern. This growth in India was fueled by urbanization and the industry’s global economic development. Its convenience comes second to none and grew exponentially. Fast food restaurants are great. They provide jobs, are cost-effective, time convenient, and taste good. However, fast food items are rich in all the ingredients that blossom into hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, type two diabetes, and more. Along with these, India has associated frequent fast food consumption to inhibit physical activity and learning among children. With this frosting on top, India has come to the realization that a public health crisis in the midst. Social costs are rising as the aftermaths of fast food consumption are shining through. As the annual fast food transactions increase from an average of 26.61 to 32.76 per person, the trends of obesity are growing. The growth has put more pressure on governments to take action against this health crisis. A Pigovian tax is looked towards when approaching this situation. It is a tax intended to account for the social costs of negative externalities like diabetes and hypertension. A fat tax is an example of this, a tax on fattening foods and beverages. This tax discourages unhealthy habits and helps the social costs of obesity. Japan has taken strides toward this fat tax, and they are doing more than well when it comes to obesity rates. Relating back to India, the government of the south Indian state of Kerala introduced a fat tax on junk food like pizza. Due to the recent introduction of this tax, it’s hard to gather evidence from such a prolonged study. Nevertheless, they believe this tax has great potential to help curb consumption rates.

4. https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/sphhs_policy_facpubs/212/?source=post_page—–1e68e3f61113———————- –

It seems counterintuitive that cheaper food will cost more in the long run. The fast food restaurants that are cheap and have tasty food deceive the eye. Though they present good bargains, they are secretly increasing your chances of obesity. According to “A Heavy Burden: The Individual Costs of Being Overweight and Obese in the United States,” more than sixty percent of the U.S. is overweight, and within the next decade, the entire world’s obesity will reach fifty. Along with this article, the three authors discuss the specifics of obesity’s overlying costs. With being obese in America, come decreases in productivity, a decrease in life span, and increased health risks. These effects can both result in a loss of income and an increase in spending. Any years lost in lifespan represent a year of lost income. Though it doesn’t seem like much at first, all the little things can add up and annually cost a couple of thousand dollars more than an average person. You can take into consideration the increase in life insurance, disability insurance, or prescription drugs. With all these in mind, the social cost of obesity is very deceiving to the cheap meals that result in it. 

5. https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.rowan.edu/abicomplete/docview/204498299/F1A9573AFA4445EFPQ/1?accountid=13605 

Name of article: The McLawsuit: The fast-food industry and legal accountability for obesity

Children eating at McDonald’s. That’s all it’ll take for a lawsuit to start. When it comes to fast food litigation, McDonald’s takes the cake. The lawsuit Pelman v McDonald’s, brought on by children who ate at McDonald’s and became overweight developing some health effects, became the most publicized lawsuit to date. The reason why McDonald’s was receiving the cold shoulder from the plaintiffs was that McDonald’s deceived their customers in their commercials. Failing to inform their customers of the dangers the food contained. These dangers included nothing that will cause pain upon digestion or anything along those lines. The dangers the plaintiffs were concerned about were that eating all that food causes obesity. This lawsuit was in 2002, so the information was out there. It was no mystery that fast food is not very healthy. The parents probably assumed the double bacon cheeseburger from McDonald’s was healthy. The Pelman lawsuit was dismissed for failing to state a claim. This lawsuit promoted other lawsuits against fast food places, which gave frowns to the food industry.  If these lawsuits could work, then this industry would be at great risk. So many states now have a commonsense law that prevents fast food from lawsuits on claims of obesity. For its a matter of free will if the customer has the common knowledge to understand that the food isn’t really healthy. However, instead of suing the fast food restaurants, couldn’t they just help pay money for obese people? As in helping for extra costs that go with being obese. Of course, they couldn’t, they don’t have extra millions sitting around for new charities. Though if the cost of their meals takes into account the possible side effects like diabetes then there might be less debate about the subject.

6. “The Hidden Dangers of Fast and Processed Food”

The main cause that is identified to correlate with the most commonly afflicting chronic diseases is lifestyle. Obesity has become a norm in America where 71% of Americans are overweight or obese. And this article states that “Eating processed foods and fast foods may kill more people prematurely than cigarette smoking.”Continuing from this bold statement is the breakdown of the many foods that contribute to obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and cancer. How people who don’t have great access to fresh fruits and vegetables end up having seven times the risk of early life stroke due to the unhealthy lifestyle produced by junk foods. Americans love their unhealthy foods to the extent they are willing to die for them. The excess amount of calories that are currently met in today’s society spells disaster for future generations. Just 50 excess calories a day over a ten-year period would add up to around 50 pounds of extra body weight. Which in turn increases all the risks of being overweight. The article is all about adequate nutrition. The average American exceeds certain nutritional requirements which brings up the question of solutions. Plant protein while lacking compared to regular protein actually would make requirements like IGF-1 less exceedable. 

7. “Pesticides, Environmental Pollution, and Health”

Pesticides, while very effective for their original purpose, become threatening to our lives. Pesticides are chemicals and just like all chemicals they are dangerous to live organisms including people. Caution must be taken because pesticides are harmful enough to cause cancers like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, and solid tumors. There are Public health concerns with the use of pesticides and some international organizations have put limits on usage for food. The limits protect us more than the food. Pesticides have been commonly used since the middle of the nineteenth century. And every year increases the risk of contamination of the environment’s wildlife and water resources. The Food industry is the main cause of increasing the use of pesticides because of the increased yield that comes with the use of pesticides. Pesticide poisoning had been affecting fish, birds, and humans. These three victims can tell that pesticides affect our waters, the air, and our health.

8.“Is Lab-Grown Meat Healthy and Safe to Consume?”

Lab Grown meat becoming a viable option to replace regular meat creates this unknown alternative that people can turn towards. The research, cost, advantages, and disadvantages right now are presented in the article. Lab-grown meat has some hype to the consumers looking down on the meat production industry for the cruelty of animals, production of animal waste, methane emissions, and overall pollution coming with the high-speed production of meat. Seeing as Lab-grown meat cuts down all of these externalities would certainly sound appealing. So as Lab-grown meat is reviewed to be a thing of the future as of right now, brings the supporters back to today’s issue. The article reveals that lab-grown meat, while still not cost-effective, is very advanced, and its production process can have its faults. These faults possibly result in cancerous cells. Something as big as cancer cells can easily destroy the argument that lab-grown meat can fix our problems today. And that, as of now, lab-grown meat is a longshot.

9. Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet?

Plant-Based Meat takes its place as the savior of human health. Obviously, vegans reading a paper on the externalities of meat production and fast food would easily combat the purpose of a social cost if all they had to do was swap regular meat for plant-based meat. That’s why seeing the sustainability of plant-based food can help vegans shy away from using it as a safer alternative than meat. The article gives a realistic check on both lab-grown meat and plant-based meat. That plant-based foods while long-term affecting the body more positively than red meat can negatively affect our body short-term. Stating “A recent short-term controlled feeding study found that consuming diets high in ultra-processed food causes excess caloric intake and weight gain.” Saying that depending on the way plant-based food is made can bring negative benefits strapped to the so-called healthy plant food. This article also helps identify the lack thereof in plant-based studies by saying, “Without further studies, there is no evidence to substantiate that these nutrient differences alone offer a significant health benefit.” Making these stipulations about plant food chips away the perfect ideals plant-based foods are believed to uphold. And lab-grown meat is attacked similarly by this article as the authors target the unknowns about the meat being a secret kept from society by the creators. One example from the article is, “While these companies don’t disclose much to the public about their processing methods, their public patents reveal the creation of oncogenic, or cancer-causing, cells.”

10. “Transporting Lithium Batteries.”

The lithium batteries that power electric cars that have become the savior for fossil fuel pollution are one of the best ways to target the use of electric cars as a negative alternative. While not being able to take them out of the equation because they really are incredibly eco-friendly compared to regular gas-powered vehicles, attacking lithium batteries might be one of the only viable options. Lithium batteries are marked as hazardous items and are to be handled with care by the U.S. government. Being both chemical and electrical can bring with it severe consequences if anything goes wrong. Even fires produced by lithium batteries are more difficult to handle than fires from gas-powered vehicles. Lithium batteries should be handled with care because even when they are dead the high energy density batteries can pose a threat. Creating a caution around lithium batteries can help an argument against electric-powered cars as people can become more worried about the safety of their well-being.

11. Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future

The use of fertilizers and pesticides is inevitable whether we use red meat or plant-based meat. As long as agreement can be made that no matter the alternative, there will be a matter of pollution or externality that would benefit with a social cost. That, “In addition to the agricultural production process, the transport, processing, packaging, marketing, sales, purchasing, and cooking of food also contribute to GHG emissions.” Though meat production causes animal waste and uses up vast amounts of land compared to vegan food, a lot of greenhouse gas emissions come from farming. This article even states “Approximately half of all food-related GHG emissions are generated during farming.” Large-scale usage of plant foods would still take a large amount of land, fertilizer, and pesticides to grow plants like soy and vegetables.

References

Mello, M. M., Rimm, E. B., & Studdert, D. M. (2003). The McLawsuit: The fast-food industry and legal accountability for obesity. Health Affairs, 22(6), 207-16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.22.6.207

Nogler, G. (2014), The Auditor, the Entity, and Social Cost: How Will Auditing Change?. J. Corp. Acct. Fin., 25: 51-55. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1002/jcaf.21955

Gearhardt, A. N., Grilo, C. M., DiLeone, R. J., Brownell, K. D., & Potenza, M. N. (2011). Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications. Addiction, 106(7), 1208-1212.

Dor, A., Ferguson, C., Langwith, C., & Tan, E. (2010). A heavy burden: The individual costs of being overweight and obese in the United States.

Jain, S. (2020). Analyzing the public health crisis in India fueled by the growth of the fast-food industry. IJSSER, 5(03), 791-8.

Özkara, A., Akyıl, D., & Konuk, M. (2016). Pesticides, Environmental Pollution, and Health. In M. L.  Larramendy, & S. Soloneski (Eds.), Environmental Health Risk – Hazardous Factors to Living Species. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/63094

Hanson, Jaydee, and Julia Ranney. “Is Lab-Grown Meat Healthy and Safe to Consume?” Center for Food Safety, 20 Sept. 2020, https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/6458/is-lab-grown-meat-healthy-and-safe-to-consume

Hu FB, Otis BO, McCarthy G. Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet? JAMA. 2019;322(16):1547–1548. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13187 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2749260 

Joan Sabaté, Sam Soret, Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 100, Issue suppl_1, July 2014, Pages 476S–482S, https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.071522“

Transporting Lithium Batteries.” PHMSA, 16 Nov. 2022, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/lithiumbatteries.

3. Topics for Smaller Papers

-Television promotes unhealthy diets

Fast food advertising is an integral part of turning children into bad eating habits. The commercials are constantly training young minds towards fast food restaurants with their fun and playful advertising.

Counter- any influence by advertising doesn’t force children to go too fast food places and continuously eat there.

cause/effect- kids are always watching television, getting used to the names and food associated with different fast food restaurants.

-Children’s diets are predetermined by parents before they are born.

A child is built upon the lifestyle of the parents and if the parents are unhealthy the child will be too.

Counter- The parents would want the best for their children.

cause /effect- children grow up in the lifestyles of their parents and are programmed to do the same as they grow up. It becomes muscle memory.

4. Current State of My Research

I feel on edge about the progress made so far. Research feels like grasping at straws. Anything relating to social costs is mostly about things like pollution. Looking into the social cost of few hasn’t been done by many. The only way I think about formulating research towards my hypothesis is by establishing the problem with obesity and its effects on costs in health care. Then propose to solve the problem by looking into the social cost and use examples like what they have done with pollution.