McBlog Post

There’s this one burger joint that I really love. Its décor daringly juxtaposes Picasso-esque art against neoclassical architectural backdrops. Its service is on the pulse of the industry’s latest technological achievements. And the bold simplicity of their menu holds its ground in this brave new world of culinary complexity. I, of course, am talking about McDonalds.

But when I heard of these outrageous claims suggesting that their foods, especially their beloved fries, were artificially flavored, I was shocked and appalled. So naturally, in order to calm my nerves, I decided to read and reflect philosophically on an excerpt from Eric Schlosser’s book, Fast Food Nation.

Here, Mr. Schlosser, using the central issue of how McDonalds now flavors its fries using some type of artificial flavoring in favor of the beef tallow cottonseed oil that it traditionally used, introduces us to the idea that we are constantly being deceived by the very foods that we eat – that in today’s world of super-efficiency and mass commercialization, foods barely hold onto any of their original forms or tastes and are instead enlivened via the heavy use of natural and artificial flavors. Walking around these flavoring companies’ enormous production and research facilities truly gives you a scope of just how great this seemingly-niche industry has become.

Mr. Schlosser makes several points about this topic of food flavoring. First, he makes it clear just how serious the food industry takes this (as they very well should; if they didn’t, their foods would probably be dull and tasteless, or worse… natural and healthy). Many food companies are known to train and hire hordes of food scientists meant to determine whether or not a particular chemical found in a common women’s perfume could be slightly changed and rebottled to give packaged noodles deep aromas of seafood and the ocean.

Mr. Schlosser also touches upon the fallacy of distinguishing “natural” flavors from “artificial” flavors, citing how many natural flavors share the same chemical compositions as artificial flavors (the only difference being that natural flavors embraced less-technological and more conservative methods of extraction).

Finally, Mr. Schlosser makes the very interesting point that taste was very much an evolutionary tool meant to help us choose safe things to eat, and that like our other senses, it can definitely be influenced by psychological factors and expectations. And while we can of course examine taste from a biological or chemical point of view (such as investigating how various foods interact with taste buds, or how great a factor smell is in determining taste), we should also look at it from a cognitive and perceptive point of view. Now, one of Mr. Schlosser’s most interesting stories on this topic was as follows:

“Grainger had brought a dozen small glass bottles from the lab. After he opened each bottle, I dipped a fragrance-testing filter into it -- a long white strip of paper designed to absorb aroma chemicals without producing off notes. Before placing each strip of paper in front of my nose, I closed my eyes. Then I inhaled deeply, and one food after another was conjured from the glass bottles. I smelled fresh cherries, black olives, sautéed onions, and shrimp. Grainger's most remarkable creation took me by surprise. After closing my eyes, I suddenly smelled a grilled hamburger. The aroma was uncanny, almost miraculous -- as if someone in the room were flipping burgers on a hot grill. But when I opened my eyes, I saw just a narrow strip of white paper and a flavorist with a grin.”

Had the flavorist chosen to act in a more clandestine manner, it would have been almost impossible for Schlosser to know whether or not he had experienced the “legitimate” scents of fresh cherries and a grilled hamburger. When relying on a limited number of senses (in this case, taste and smell), this becomes increasingly difficult. We have the knowledge problem of knowing whether or not something we sensed was merely an illusion or the genuine thing (and in this case, “illusion” could very much refer to all flavors added to foods that would traditionally not be there). Looking more broadly, there is then the very fundamental knowledge issue of corroborating the reliability of our very own sensory perceptions.

What Constitutes True Science?

This summer I had the privilege of taking an internship at the National Institutes of Health. At risk of sounding cliché, it was truly a fascinating experience that redefined my opinions of scientific research. In the few weeks that I spent there, I collected many memorable experiences that I could share today. But of course, we simply do not have enough time to analyze each adventure. So I will leave you with one.

I think many young Americans have the illusion that their government is so vast and so powerful that it can simply operate on an unlimited budget. And while it sometimes seems that the government believes it has an unlimited budget, the reality is far less impressive. So before I took my first steps onto the NIH campus, I held lofty expectations at what this Garden of Eden would be like. I expected paved streets lined with gleaming research building in a celestial paradise of scientific breakthroughs.

I didn’t quite expect bare sheetrock tiles. Nonetheless, the place was far from horrible and at any time could still be transformed into the world’s largest Starbucks with little renovation. In the labs, however, was a slightly different story.

Here, the environment was much more fiscally conservative. Yes, the laboratory had enough to get by, but lab technicians could not experiment indiscriminately without any consideration of cost. There was a finite budget and they had to work with it. Like a true financial microcosm, distribution of funds vested in the power of an individual – the research director. And on one humorous occasion when he heard that other laboratories were borrowing his equipment, he severed foreign aid programs to proclaim, “There is no socialism in the lab.” Unfortunately, my idea for a poster with a crossed-out Chairman Mao armed with a micropipette fell through.

Anyway, I digress. I was curious as to how funds were distributed among various labs, so I asked the research director. He explained that a central agency at the NIH reviews the scientific investigations from a laboratory to determine how valuable their contributions are and how worthy they are of the money they request.

With this comes the problem of what makes certain scientific developments more valuable than others.

If we assume that all human decisions are made with at least some element of bias, we must examine the mental maps of those who make the judgments. These people undoubtedly already have pictures of reality that includes ideas of truth and untruth, reasonable and unreasonable, right and wrong, etc. So in this case, agency workers in all likelihood, perhaps even without consciously realizing, will side with the scientific developments that fit their ideologies the best. And once this occurs, something like confirmation bias becomes rampant – they only notice evidence that supports their belief that a particular investigation is valuable or not valuable. Unconditional objectivity is thrown out the window.

But let’s say that somehow the reviewers were able to unconditional absolute objectivity. I then question if the scientists themselves can this. I say no. That there even exists an agency review admits that not all scientific investigations present pure and absolute science. Instead, most if not all paint a picture that is a blend of prior dogmatic belief, subjective primary observation, imperfect second-hand information, and inadequate justification. We are no longer left with a scientific report. We are left with an incomplete deliberation of what’s important and what’s not. And in all likelihood, how a particular scientific report is packaged using convincing or unconvincing language is bound to significantly affect those reviewing it.

And from this, we are left with the overarching knowledge issue. This is whether or not true and absolute objective science actually exists, or whether it is all influenced to some extent by the subjectivity of humans.