Criticism on Super Size Me
May 9, 2012
[originally as freshman-English class composition homework, topic free-chosen]
Last week, the freshman English instructor Ms. Hsu played in class for us a documentary film, “Super Size Me”.
The film records a month in which Morgan Spurlock, the director and here also as protagonist, decided to eat at McDonald's three times every day, every item on the menu at least once. Eventually, he gained considerable weight, his cholesterol level increased, and he was diagnosed to have fatty liver and several other disorders.The film seeks to shock the audience by revealing how fast food may harm our health, and at that time had indeed raised awareness of the potential hazard of too much intake of fast food.
Of course, we are quite informed of the danger if one takes too much, say, fat and sodium, and it is reasonable to claim McDonald’s responsibility for encouraging and advertising the general public to eat too much fast food.
But, it seems, Mr. Spurlock just want to scare the audience by exaggeration, instead of to convince them by a balanced research. For instance, he deliberately vomited in front of the camera, and constantly declared how nauseating the food is. I disapprove the way information is presented in this film.
In addition, there are several obvious flaws. First, Mr. Spurlock did not eat anything other than McDonald’s food; consequently he was likely to suffer from malnutrition. But there is a huge difference between conditions where one has little, but just enough, nutrition, and where one totally lacks them. The disorder Mr. Spurlock suffered from may simply due to lack of, say, essential vitamins. But virtually no one exclusively eats fast food every day, without having any vegetables or fruits.
Moreover, the hazard of any kind of food depends on not only quality, but also quantity. For example, if one suddenly drinks several liters of water — for the sake of argument — and later dies from imbalance of osmosis, should we conclude water is toxic? (The word “osmosis” means, when two solutions of different concentration are in contact, net flow of solvent through a half-permeating membrane) We can’t tell, then, whether Mr. Spurlock’s decline in health condition is due to what he was eating — i.e. McDonald’s — or simply how much he was eating — i.e. eating too much.
The difference between case study and mass quantity of statistics can’t be overemphasized. There are so many parameters that may affect one’s health, so before several rigorous, double-blind experiments are made, it cannot concluded that McDonald’s food, or any food in question, is hazardous.
Several interviews featured in the film is also of doubtful credibility. An interviewee claimed cheese encourages the brain to release endorphin. Another thus concluded cheese causes addiction. But our brains naturally release endorphin whenever we are happy. If indeed there is a hazard of addiction to cheese, and because of too much endorphin as claimed there, this assertion must be made on the basis of more detailed research.
In conclusion, I don’t think it is righteous to distort information at any cost, just to make sure the Americans eat less fast food, even though he might have been well-meant. Mr. Spurlock’s research is biased from the very start. I strongly disapprove the biased documentary film directed, and perhaps performed, by Mr. Spurlock. In a way, he was not too different from McDonald’s brainwashing advertisements — exactly what he was criticizing.
留言列表
