Iconic emblems recognizable from any part of the world on every corner, local street vendors in every cranny and a question on everyone’s mind; Where to eat? One individual would be drawn too the McDonald’s because the food is reliable while another would want to experience the culture and try the food at an intriguing food stall. The effect of globalized food is both highly supported and heavily rejected. Advocates emphasize sanitation, reliability, and amenities while opponents point out the unhealthiness, expensive price range and the destruction of culture. The positive side that has been brought forward pertains to the new ideas about food preparation and the support it can give a society. Globalized food can provide an answer to a
…show more content…
As Visser (1999) stated “It can be a painless but deadly insertion of a knife into the heart of society”, illustrating that the globalization of food may seem harmless but it mutilates the host culture, while economically benefiting the country of origin (p.130). The globalization of food either replaces cultural food or waters it down. Many of these globalized foods are very unhealthy like Pepsi and other American snacks in Mexico that cause malnourishment (Pilcher,2005, p.241). Pilcher (2000) describes how poor Mexicans now buy snack foods instead of vegetable proteins which are the only proteins they can afford (p.236). Food choices like these cause “serious nutritional consequences for the lower classes” (Pilcher, 2005, and 241). Food from globalized food chains like McDonalds besides competing with local foods often has too high of a price for local consumers. Kay (2014) elaborated more stating that “Nigerians live on less than $1.25 a day” and a meal from KFC costs almost $11”. In many countries the globalization of food doesn’t make sense because they cannot even cater to the general population due to an unreasonable price. The negative perspective on the effect of the globalization of food indicates that it harms people nutritionally and changes cultural foods so that they are
As Visser (1999) stated “It can be a painless but deadly insertion of a knife into the heart of society”, illustrating that the globalization of food may seem harmless but it mutilates the host culture, while economically benefiting the country of origin (p.130). The globalization of food either replaces cultural food or waters it down. Many of these globalized foods are very unhealthy like Pepsi and other American snacks in Mexico that cause malnourishment (Pilcher,2005, p.241). Pilcher (2000) describes how poor Mexicans now buy snack foods instead of vegetable proteins which are the only proteins they can afford (p.236). Food choices like these cause “serious nutritional consequences for the lower classes” (Pilcher, 2005, and 241). Food from globalized food chains like McDonalds besides competing with local foods often has too high of a price for local consumers. Kay (2014) elaborated more stating that “Nigerians live on less than $1.25 a day” and a meal from KFC costs almost $11”. In many countries the globalization of food doesn’t make sense because they cannot even cater to the general population due to an unreasonable price. The negative perspective on the effect of the globalization of food indicates that it harms people nutritionally and changes cultural foods so that they are