Name: 为什么麦当劳这么便宜？（Why is McDonald's so cheap?）
Uploaded: 2021-07-03T11:54:08.000Z
Duration: 12 min 34 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

基礎被動語態

This video is sponsored by Brilliant. If you stick around until the end I'll give you

a link for 20% off an annual premium membership.

A hamburger and fries. The quintessential fast food meal. And nowhere else in the world

is this combo more readily available, and more iconic, than at McDonald's. The fast-food

chain has essentially conquered every part of the world with its golden arches. Second

only to Subway in terms of numbers of locations, the McDonald's brand spans over 100 countries

with a total of 38,000 stores. From Guantanamo Bay to Kansas City, Mcdonald's seems to

have grown exponentially since its inception in 1948, a success which many attribute to

their low-prices and iconic menu items. With the rise of this global franchise has also

come staunch critiques of McDonald's business practices revealing the brand's exploitation

of workers and shattering of local food systems with highly machined food. Today, however,

I want to focus on the hidden environmental costs of McDonald's, in order to understand

just one aspect of how McDonald's is able to simultaneously keep their prices so low

Loaded with two beef patties, shredded lettuce, secret sauce, and even a bun in the middle

for extra support, the Big Mac is the iconic McDonald's burger. It's not only the epitome

of McDonald's offerings; it is also a perfect example of how McDonald's and its suppliers

use and abuse the environment to make their food. So let's briefly follow the Big Mac

from calf to mouth to understand just how much Mcdonald's is impacting the environment.

The typical McDonald's beef patty starts as a calf raised on one of over 700,000 cattle

ranches in the United States. For 8 to 12 months these cows are set to graze on grasslands,

hay, or other available feed. And for the calf to grow it needs space. It's estimated

that grazing operations require 26% percent of the earth's habitable areas. After the

cow reaches 600 pounds in weight it's then shipped off to one of the 20,382 Concentrated

Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs for short, in the United States to fatten it up before

slaughter. I did a deep dive into the terrible environmental and physical conditions of CAFOs

in my video about plant-based meats, but here's a quick summary: feedlots pack thousands of

cattle into confined spaces and then pump them full of corn, soybeans, and antibiotics

all so cows can gain 600-900 pounds in 90-100 days. More like a factory than a farm, these

CAFOs pollute the air and water with particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and high levels

of nitrates. And the cow manure build-up from CAFOs is extensive, releasing nitrous oxide

which has 300 times the global warming effect of C02. In all, livestock is estimated to

cause between 14.5 to 18% of the world's annual greenhouse gas emissions, consume ⅓

of the world's yearly grain production, and drink 16% of the global freshwater supply.

So, even before the beef is minced, packed, and frozen into its circular shape, hamburger

patties destined for a Big Mac have devastating consequences on the environment. And McDonald's

has been at the frontlines of this shift in animal agriculture from quality to quantity.

In 2010, McDonald's senior director of U.S. food and packaging, John Hayes said that they

use 1 billion pounds of beef every year just in the U.S. And as McDonald's continues

to grow, so too does that number. But to keep the cost of that much meat low enough to serve

their burgers at fast-food prices, McDonald's needs exploitative farming practices like

CAFOs. By dumping the environmental cost onto its surroundings, these feedlots can churn

through cows and satisfy the massive demand from McDonald's for cheap.

If beef, the staple in McDonald's burger heavy menu, is such a burden on the environment,

why don't they offer some sort of the plant-based alternative? That's a great question, and

honestly, McDonald's has given some pretty unsatisfactory answers. In a wave of conversions,

Burger King, A&W, and White Castle all have added some form of plant-based burger to their

menu, but McDonald's has been slow to act and has yet to do the same in the U.S. which

hosts the majority of their stores. The CEO of McDonald's, Steve Easterbrook, says that

they're hesitant about adding a plant-based burger to their menu because it creates complexity:

“We know there's complexity. The question is will the demands make it worth absorbing

the complexity because it will drive the business.” So like almost all for-profit companies, McDonald's

will only consider the environmental consequences of their food if it's good for their bottom

line. We can see this mindset in their collaboration with Ford to divert the 62 million pounds

of coffee chaff that would usually go to the landfill into durable, lightweight car parts.

A move that will definitely eliminate a large amount of food waste, which is awesome. But

it also might bring McDonald's more business from coffee drinkers looking for a sustainable

option. Mcdonald's have also worked to transition their packaging from styrofoam and plastic

towards biodegradable and recyclable products. But of course, these transitions are not without

faults. McDonald's switch from plastic straws drew sharp backlash from the disabled community

for being ableist, as well as from some of the environmental community who claimed that

the new paper straws weren't even recyclable. And in some cases, like in the European Union

where single-use plastics will be banned in 2021, this is less of an act of goodwill,

than a response to regulation. So, while McDonald's has instituted some effective environmental

initiatives, we should also note that McDonald's has the power and ability to do so much more.

They have the opportunity to be a sustainability trailblazer, and yet they seem to simply be

following in the footsteps of others. Yes, they have announced some emissions reduction

targets but they are conservative and lack actionable steps. On their website, the company

asserts that they “will partner with Franchisees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related

to McDonald's restaurants and offices by 36% by 2030” and also “through collaboration

and partnership with our suppliers and producers, the Company also commits to a 31% reduction

in emissions intensity… across [their] supply chain by 2030.” This is a great first step,

and their waste-diversion of coffee chaff demonstrates some amount of effort to reach

these goals, but a few sentences about how they're going to work across their supply

chain and franchises to implement low-carbon solutions seems more like marketing fluff

than substantial plans. McDonald's can definitely be more aggressive in its climate action.

There are companies its size like IKEA pursuing much more drastic targets. But instead, it

seems as if McDonald's has to be dragged kicking and screaming towards a better environmental

stance. Indeed, a group of investors worth $6.5 trillion recently called on McDonald's

and five other fast-food chains to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and water usage

of their meat and dairy suppliers. One of the investors, Jeremy Coller, notes that “other

high-emitting industries are beginning to set clear yet ambitious climate targets, making

animal agriculture one of the world's highest-emitting sectors without a low-carbon plan.” It's

this type of pressure then, not necessarily environmental damage or climate change that

seems to get McDonald's to make sustainable changes.

At the end of the day, McDonald's exists within, and in many ways has co-created, an

industrial food system that externalizes all sorts of environmental, social and physical

costs onto its communities. Refusing to eat at McDonald's is certainly a way to use

individual action to influence change, but for many, McDonald's offers a cheap and

convenient way to consume food. As professor of food and nutrition policy at Virginia Tech,

Vivica Kraak, argues, “It's not people's fault… The environments they live in foster

overconsumption and unsustainable choices." So, we must also address the food system that

has been forged on the griddles of fast food companies through a dual-pronged structural

approach. We need to be supplying people with healthy, delicious, ethical, and sustainable

food options by supporting smaller farmers and ethical food operations--something that

McDonalds just isn't doing, all the while simultaneously working through regulatory

channels--in much the same way the European Union did by banning single-use plastic--to

shape McDonald's into a more ethical and sustainable food source. But the fact of the

matter is that for over 50 years, McDonald's, alongside its fast-food competitors, has fostered

a supply chain and food system hell-bent on creating food that casts aside the environment,