Is Junk Food Really Cheaper Analysis

In Bittman’s New York Times article Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? he writes of America’s established idea that fast food is cheaper than fresh food. Bittman believes that fresh food isn’t always the more expensive option, and if you have the time to go to McDonald’s you have time to go to the grocery store. Bittman presents his ideas in somewhat of a critical way at first, but mellows out towards the end sympathizing with the audience. Despite Bittman’s headstrong opinion, he asks a fascinating question that keeps those wondering about the way they’re eating and how they can change it.

As Bittman starts off his article, he gives an in your face approach to it. He explains, that after doing his own homework, it costs about $23-28 to feed a family of four at McDonalds. He then goes on to say, “You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14.” Bittman shows a logos approach to this, by going out and seeing for himself just how much this food costs. It also seems that Bittman is trying to provoke the reader in a sense when he says “…and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!” Depending on whether

the reader is a McDonald’s fanatic or not, could spark some anger or humor in this comment.
On first look, it’s surprising that Bittman writes this article for the New York Times.

Demographics from New York Times online show that the majority of people who subscribe to and read the newspaper are upper class citizens. So why would Bittman write an article about impoverished families choosing fast food over fresh produce for a newspaper that is read by those who don’t have to worry about the price of their food? As this is thought over, it seems that Bittman is more informing his audience rather than addressing a situation they have. The more I think about it the more I realize that choosing fast food over healthy food isn’t something just lower class citizens do, but all citizens. He is making a point that everyone should be looking at what they’re eating, not just those in financially tight

situations.
It seems as though Bittman lacks a pathos feel to his article despite the comment about the apple slices and fries. Since the majority of readers don’t struggle with food insecurity, comments like that might come off humorous. Reading the article doesn’t necessarily give off a need to help incentive. Rather he gives readers a logical and practical approach to the ideas versus a sympathetic emotion.
Disregarding the ending paragraphs, Bittman’s attitude gives off a “no excuses” kind of attitude towards his readers. Despite sympathizing for those living off government assistance programs, he still says that the $5 per person is not optimal, but can still be spent on groceries rather than fast food. “Even the nearly 50 million Americans who are enrolled in the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program receive about $5 per person per day, which is far from ideal but enough to survive.” (Bittman) Although he makes a valid claim, this might be unsettling to someone who is in a government assisted program. Perhaps if Bittman wasn’t writing to such an upper middle class audience he wouldn’t be so inclined to use such a “no excuses” kind of voice.
Bittman’s overall voice and presentation of the information has an ethos and logos approach to it. His arguments are valid and present interesting questions to the reader. He evens use a couple sources including “David A. Kessler, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and “Marion Nestle, a professor of food studies at New York University.” Both sources back up Bittman’s argument to say that some good food is better than none, but the question still remains, is junk food really cheaper? Bittman even asks, “[h]ow do you change a culture?” Him asking this question changes the perspective of this article entirely. Not only is the thought of changing what we decide to eat, but how big corporations, media outlets, and fast food chains present the products.
Bittman compares this to the cultural change of smoking cigarettes, when tobacco companies were forced to put out anti-making ads to warn users of the health risks. In his article he says “[p]olitical action would mean agitating to limit the marketing of junk; forcing its makers to pay the true cost of production.” This comparison is great and really sets the tone for Bittman’s closing paragraphs. He really lets the readers know that our unhealthy lifestyles aren’t a lost cause. In concluding, despite Bittman’s headstrong opinion, he asks a fascinating question that keeps those wondering about the way they’re eating and how they can change it.