New McDonalds Idea example essay topic

Introduction's of new ideas into different cultures happens all the time. Some examples are in Africa people trying to introduce new technologies to the people there to improve the lives of the people there. Another example is how the McDonalds company is sprouting new franchises in countries all over the world. The idea of new technologies being introduced to people who need them is a wonderful idea, although the idea of a new restaurants may not be. In this paper I will discuss how the introduction of new ideas into other parts of the world is not for the good of all. This new "thing" can change the cultures of the people who live there, the way they lived may be drastically altered or disrupted.

What ultimately should be done, is a vote for majority to determine whether the people in these areas being affected by the new ideas, want them. Using the Frye model, Angell proposes in her essay, and using it to determine how and whether new ideas should enter existing cultures. If the situation arises where cultures are being changed by new ideas, such as fast food restaurants in foreign countries and biotechnology where organic farmers live, there should be a certain amount of respect to the existing ways of live. The way people lived before the new technology or new cultures was there first, so there is a level of respect to the way it used to be. Although, the new ways may help or improve the old ones. These new ideas should be agreed upon by the people effected by the new ideas.

This is where Angell and her Frye model fit in. The idea of a consensus upon the idea presented is the better way to go for determining an idea that will affect a large group of people. In Schlosser, McDonalds' are popping up everywhere on the planet, a consensus should be taken to determine whether or not the people in the area where McDonalds is thinking of locating, wants them. Also in Pollan's essay biotechnology is the big culprit, the Monsanto company is producing and taking over the potato growing industry and people who buy the potatoes are not given a choice of if they want organic or enhanced.

The people in the problem areas are not given a choice of what they want, because they are forced to take what is given, we must find ways to determine the fate or these people. Angell brings forth two models for which to help solve problems; the Daubert and Frye models. The Daubert model says the decision is the given by one person with supreme power. Angell discusses these people as "gatekeepers" who decide upon a solution. This person holds sole responsibility for the entire population under his power. This idea can not work with the problems demonstrated, the rights or opinions of all can not be relied upon by just one person.

This one person could not possibly make a worthy decision for all the people he speaks for, everyone would have a different view, opinion, idea or criticism. Although the Frye model suggested does make more sense in the cases of Pollan and Schlosser. The Frye model proposes a consensus of all being affected. An excerpt from Angell "the court refused to admit it, on the grounds that there was not yet a scientific consensus" about it, helps demonstrate the effect a consensus can have.

This example talks of a jury in a court case not allowing a lie detector test to be admitted because it was not well known yet, so the majority voted on the idea to not allow it to enter the court. This is the better model to use for both Schlosser and Pollan's problems. Schlosser announces a problem with McDonald restaurants effecting local cultures. He says McDonalds restaurants are stationing themselves all over the globe. So much so that he states "Ernst Doerfter, a prominent member of the doomed East Germen parliament, who called for an official ban on 'McDonalds and similar abnormal garbage-makers' " (Schlosser 480). The quote shows just how much McDonalds is trying to associate themselves with every country.

East Germany was bothered so much by fast food places that they called for a ban on them. Schlosser allows the reader to understand this more by his statement of "the traditional German restaurant serving schnitzel, bratwurst, knockwurst, sauerbraten, and large quantities of beer is rapidly disappearing in Germany" (Schlosser 483). Schlosser depicts the new McDonalds idea has put the traditional ideas of Germany out the window by this quote. This is where the Frye model can be used to help the community. The people in the areas being "taken over" by McDonalds could meet in a common place and vote on the decision to allow them to build or not. In doing this, everyone is heard and has a chance to voice their opinion, no one is left in the dark and has their very own chance to stop or allow what they wish.

The Daubert model would not work as well because one individual would be the determingin factor of whether or not McDonalds was allowed to build. How could one single person speak for the whole and give equal representation? Also, influences from the outside may help the "gatekeeper" to make his decisions more easily, example could be the McDonalds or another restaurant paying the "gatekeeper" to allow them to do what they want. Why should an American idea such as McDonalds be forced upon groups of people in other countries who might not want them? I know if I were from another country I would rather eat my native food than eating the food of another country.

One answer man be the owners of the McDonalds are trying to set new buildings all over to increase their flow of money much greater. They do not care about the people they harm or the cultures changed by their ways, this is evident because it is still happening all over the world. Schlosser is saying that McDonalds and other restaurants like it are intruding onto foreign grounds trying to make a foot hold in countries which they are non-existent. By intruding onto these foreign grounds, McDonalds is altering the cultures that existed before it.

When new ways are forced upon people, they should be able to determine themselves whether or not they it to survive. People should not have things forced upon them if they do not want them. Pollan is affected by the influence of new ways by biotechnology creating new crops for farmers to grow. For example he cites the toxin produced by the New Leafs and the potential effect of the new crops to help insects become resistant, in return removing one of the farmers most crucial tools. Pollan states "the widespread use of Bt in biotech crops is likely to lead to insect resistance, thus robbing organic growers of one of their most critical tools" (Pollan 511). The biotech companies are introducing so much of the insecticide that evolution will take control and help the insects to survive what is killing them.

A solution to this is to allow the farmers of both crops, organic and biotech, to meet and vote on whether biotechnology should be used, and if so how can it maintain or improve the situation under the gun. A common consensus is really the only real solution to the problem, if a panel of people were to vote on the topic they would be farmers who do not like the members of the panel and would disagree with them. The same problem would arise if a single person were to decide the fate of biotech, people would not agree with his decision, and would probably do what they believed was better behind the laws back. The same problems and solutions would be in this example as the McDonalds in Germany example; people would be unhappy with a decision they felt they did not take part in.

If I were an organic farmer, and understood the problem that could arise I would like to put my two cents in and show others what may happen with resistance in insects. That is why the Frye model works better, everyone is allowed to make their own decision and take part in saving or improving their way of living. Another problems that arises from biotechnology is the failure to indicate on labels of the foods we eat. We as a consumer, have the right to know what we put into our bodies. As Pollan points out: The label on a bag of biotech potatoes in the supermarket will tell a consumer all about the nutrients they contain, even the trace amounts of copper.

Yet it is silent about the fact that those potatoes are the products of genetics engineering but also about their containing an insecticide (Pollan 516) This just goes to show how the consumer is left in the dark about what they eat. This is a major problem, not knowing exactly what you are eating. Again, why should people be forced to adjust to something they might not wish to take part in. If I personally had a choice of eating a biotech product or an organic one, I would most defiantly go with the organic one. No public information has been emitted from the biotech companies to prove they are safe or what is exactly inside them. No consensus has been determined of whether people want to eat biotech plants or not, it is implied by the companies producing them, that everyone will want it.

A common solution to this is show what is in the foods we eat, let people know exactly what they are eating. Don't let people be in a locked closet, all can be solved if some simple reasoning were put to use. All three examples shown show how people are forced to come to terms with what is influencing their lives. Using a common consensus or the Frye model proposed by Angell can help save cultures or ways of living.

People shouldn't be forced to subdue to what is overpowering them, voice and opinion is needed for the success of all.