Here's a progressive fast food for you: pick an apple off a tree. Eat. Repeat. (got one on my corner, right here in Brooklyn)

Here's another one. Go sit in the middle of a blueberry patch. Grasp berries. Insert into mouth. Very fast. Watch out for stains, esp. on your butt.

Even in NYC, find a mulberry tree. Catch the mulberries before they all fall to the ground and stain the sidewalk.

You want protein? OK, so not quite as fast (say, than sucking a raw egg removed from beneath a chicken): With a smoker or food dehydrator, make jerky, beef or fish, for instance. Store it. When you want fast food, open storage container. Insert into mouth. Fast.

You are definitely right about the fast food here in Chicago. I just got back from Gene and Jude's hot dog joint near O'hare and love the taste and price. I still may buy me a Whopper or order pizza from a chain, but some of the local "junk" is mighty tasty:).

Superdawg, Booby's, Kaufmann's and Manny's when I am downtown.

Oh God Chicago is such a great city to get fat in lol. I used to order from a falafal (sp?) and Vietnamese restaurant that were locally owned near me that served locally gathered meat. Probably the most heart-clogging, calorie laden food possible...but omg it was so good!

I think one way cities could rebuild themselves is to start a home-grown initiative when it comes to food. Give local businesses, farmers, and ranchers huge tax credits and/or subsidies to grow food locally and sell it locally. From the farmer to your grocery store, that kind've thing. Is it fast food? Well it could be if chains would jump on board. Regardless I think you could rebuild a lot of communities following that pattern. The goal should be to find ways of making every major area self-sustainable on locally grown/raised foods, as opposed to nationally (or even internationally) dependent. Ugh there was a scientist that was on TCR (his name escapes me, hence the ugh) talking about different ways that big cities, like Chicago, could grow fruits and vegetables indoors by building up as opposed to out and farming using a combination of both natural and artificial light. If possible to do so in large enough quantities you could hire people to tend to these giant gardens or even run them as co-opts. It could really change the way we do food and that would be especially good because it would help fight the odd food disparity problems we're facing, as well as provide nutritionally superior food.

Should a national fast food chain set up shop in my town, I could be more inclined to patronize it if I knew they were at least making the attempt to source what they could locally, such as the lettuce, tomatoes, onions, etc. But then even that option disappears outside of the growing season.

How about paying their employees a living wage and offering decent benefits? That's out for all the major fast food chains.

I conclude that Hudock's and Carol's Dairy Bar will continue to enjoy my business, instead of Mickey Dee's or Wendy's. Think I'll go have a burger with the works.

The move to regulate content of fast food is justified on the basis that it is better for children. This is the same rationale used for a lot of government laws and regulations that touch on every part of our life. Parents have abdicated their responsibilities to their children so the "do gooders" step in to regulate not just for children, but for everyone. This mentality is amplified with the abortion issue when legislators come in and regulate a medical procedure and those regulations have no rational basis other than to ban abortions.

i think the problem lies in the balance of having corporate and the mom and pop shops.

corporate has consumed up huge markets - and yes we have benefited for a short span of modern americana - but corporate injected into every facet of production. corporations have supersized in mergers beyond our limited understanding.

corporations have merged so much, that what we think is local, what we think is regional or even national, is really international.

we have mom and pop shops within corporations within mega-corporations....called franchise.

we have in a matter of 50 years sold what little soul we had left of supporting our selves, by making ourselves, to huge mega international giants.

the whole anti-corporate movement is to keep needing the dough, instead of letting the market sit on the big guys. the economy needs to keep the market pliable for it to work.

new ingenuity and fresh growth comes from the mom and pop shops that grow. but from what i see is that people place it all on one to top what ever giant that needs to be topped, in which we end up building an ever bigger...and bigger...and bigger..until we end up building mega corps that block growth.

i just find it sad that corporation has overtook our farming.

Well I will give you that's a little obscene, saying that Sara Lee can't advertise because of too high sodium. I do think people need to make their own dietary choices, however I also don't think it's wrong for governments to abstain from subsidies or other things if the government doesn't feel it's getting an equal return back. In fact I'd say that's the whole point of a subsidy and whether or not it's justified. If my government is giving money to your company and your company is making people sick then I really have no incentive to give you any more money. However what usually happens is we continue subsidies to businesses that are destructive and then "balance it out" so-to-speak with over-regulation. It becomes a big pile of stupidity that usually has more to do with the inability of congressional leaders to compromise on what they see as immediate gains via free riders and pork.

I don't buy from national chains unless I have to. Some national chains I understand the existence of- like my cell phone company. But this does not mean that I need to purchase from them for my cable or for my internet or for my food. There's a difference. Giant corporations should be avoided any time they aren't necessary. Some areas, like with cars, it makes sense why you need a national and even international company. But you don't need those types of companies for everything and that seems to be what we push for politically and *le sighs* by our consumer habits (because usually this means the product will be provided at a cheaper cost). The problem is national chains often pay low wages, may or may not include benefits, if they do include benefits they usually aren't that great, and national chains discourage competition within the market. See when you talk about market forces here national and especially international corporations actually violate the "free hand of the market" principle, this is even more so when they are subsidized by the government. If mom and pop stores were allowed to compete more you'd have more market force, not let less, and you'd have more consumer choice. This I am in favor of whenever it's applicable. Again obviously that's not 100% of the time, but it certainly is more applicable than we seem to be pushing for currently.

Good points Mouzer, but I still think any regulations that are of the "baby-sitting" type (I will tell you what to eat, etc) or ones that favor one brand or type of business over another (size or product) just doesn't set well with me. I tend to have libertarian leanings and I think the government is in too many aspects of life that government should not be in.

As for the national and international corporations, I do not think they are as evil as many people think. There will always be unscrupulous or overly - competitive businesses, but I do not subscribe to the notion that most large companies are heartless and are out to make a buck at all costs. National and international companies that are successful are that way mainly because of thier product. If McDonalds was not appealing, then they would not be doing so well in places like China. No one is forced to buy their product. I do think that tariffs and subsidies put up by some countries are not good for open market capitalism, but many US companies still somehow flourish in those countries.

I too like the mom and pop joints, but as I stated earlier, I do not have any problems with the big boys either. I find it ironic that when the usual anti-globalization protests erupt during those big multinational economic summits (like the one that will be here in Chicago next spring), a lot of the protesters are not local - they are from all over the world who usually travel to the summit mostly on international airlines and proably tweet each other on the latest smart phones made by large corporations :). Now, if they rowed over the ocean on small boats and started a "flash mob" by using smoke signals or flags, then maybe I would listen to their "no globalization" rant :)

But-- if you don't like government favoring one over another, then check out things like tax agreements-- they favor large businesses and mega-stores, and give them huge tax breaks that they don't offer to smaller businesses. As well, because large businesses tend to hire large numbers of people, they also tend to maximize profit when they keep huge shares of the profit (earned on the backs of their workers' efforts), pay very low wages (in many respects), and tend to encourage governments to support "right to work" or other overtly anti-union efforts.

While it's ok to say you like the products made by some of these big businesses (though I'd argue strenuously for my personal view that a Big Mac is not necessarily my vision of "quality product"), there's a lot more that goes into that formula than just selling products effectively. Governments get involved not just in telling us what we SHOULD (not can) eat (many people CAN eat five Big Macs in one sitting, if they really want to). They also give breaks that favor big businesses over small ones.

And, by the way, while I would agree that most businesses do not intentionally try to harm the public in order to make a buck, numerous celebrated cases of problems like lead-based paint on toys, poor refrigeration or quality control at meat plants, and lack of inspection for infectious disease on plants have all recently been seen in the mass media (last few years recently)... so for me personally, I like the idea of some government regulation to prevent those occasional violators from harming the public health.

I don't think corporations are evil- I think corporations exist to make a profit and the larger anything is (whether it's a business or a government) the more likely it is to be corrupt. I get annoyed with the libertarian philosophy mostly because said philosophy seems to operate under the premise that businesses do absolutely nothing wrong and can't become corrupt which to me is plain insanity. Many companies do things that are inconsiderate to the population at large. Many will poison waters or lower wages or cut benefits or lay off workers, etc. Is the intention "evil"? No- the intention is to save money to maximize profit. I get that. That is why regulations exist, that is why unions exist. To negotiate out a deal where the business can still succeed at a profit, but to where other people can have a voice too. Sometimes the government gets involved in ways that are stupid. Sometimes unions grow too big and make demands that are detrimental to the business and therefore, in my mind, act/make requests that are also stupid. But for the most part these two things exist because businesses and individuals will always come into conflict and when push comes to shove one must decide shall we favor the company or shall we favor the person? My argument is always favor the person. And that is where focusing on local businesses comes in. Local businesses mean money going back into the local economy; it means people getting hired at local jobs. It helps, especially, rural towns or small towns. So focusing one's own effort on these businesses is better- in the long run- for everyone. Now does this mean I discourage people from buying from a national company like Sprint/Nextel or Comcast? No. I think it depends on the product and what one's intentions are regarding that product. I think focusing more on how one buys- especially buying American from a local store- helps strengthen communities and whenever practical it should be done.

I do have a curiosity though it's not entirely related to this subject. Just thinking about the notion of regulation. It crosses me as perplexing that so many complain about regulations as a loss of freedom when almost all the services businesses use are either subsidized by, provided by, or ensured (and sometimes also insured) by the government. Does not the government have the right to, in exchange for what it does for the business, demand that it gains a return?

while i agree with buying local, skipping out on eating out all together also has it's effects. we've become a nation of consumers relying on service jobs.

i've found it bit of a paradox while trying to change my ways into a gentler foot print on this earth.

Tomm: I don't know where you are from, but here in the Tampa Bay area, we have a small chain called Evos that sells "eco-fast food" (organic beef, veggie burgers, French "fries" that are actually baked, etc). The firm is based in Tampa, but also has a few stores in Miami, Atlanta, and Chapel Hill, NC.

The link you provided to the Tallahassee Democrat is hidden behind a paywall. But I already have a nodding acquaintance with the issue. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers has worked hard for years to get an incredibly modest penny-per-pound increase in Florida tomato pickers' wages. The organization's campaign has focused on both growers and large corporate purchasers. Of late, the CIW has focused on Publix, Florida's premier supermarket chain. I have not been following this issue in detail, but here are some relevant links:

Coalition of Immokalee Workers

Publix's response (or search "Publix Put It in the Price"):

Guest op-ed (pro-CIW) published in the Bradenton Herald:

same here, scholar; i have a nodding acquaintance with the work of CIW and their pressure on Taco Bell, McDonald's, etc. i think that as a newb, your links aren't showing up, but you did provide details on finding them otherwise: Publix (pdf), and The Herald. i don't have a problem with paywalls when i come to a newspaper site via Google, but you may also try this link or this one.

i wasn't able to find out what the fast food restaurant was, so i'm going to 'delegate' it to staff at the public library, but Evos sounds really nice; i'll have to try it when i'm down-state or Atlanta again. there's a small, local-only vegetarian restaurant tho i've never tried it -- tho i should. i don't eat out as much anymore tho when i have or do (when it's not a more formal, sit-down meal), i tend to hit up a chain for what vegetarian fare they've offer like Subway, Taco Bell, or Burger King (yes, some BKs have Gardenburger patties), etc.

bk does the morning star vegetarian patty. i like to order it 'make it like a jr.whopper'. :)

i could swear it says Gardenburger on the marquee, but you could be right, or maybe each BK franchise owner can make a determination to which brand, if any -- i know that not each one here has it on the menu.

i get like a Whopper plus cheese, mayo, and extra onions. "and can i get some mustard on the side for my fries? thanks." :)~

could be right, t'omm - sounds good and now i'm hungry :)

i've always wanted to visit oregon. that sounds like a very smart business plan!