retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The New Yorker has a detailed piece questioning whether the nation's fast food chains will successfully be able to shift to healthier food.

An excerpt:

"Ten years ago, no American would have regarded a bowl of vegetable scraps dressed with lime-cilantro or spicy pesto vinaigrette as fast food. Many people wouldn’t have considered it food at all. But millions of diners, fuelled by concerns about their health and the state of the environment - and propelled by a general distaste for industrially produced and highly processed food - have begun to shun the ubiquitous chains that have long shaped the American culinary character."

The story goes on:

"Speed and convenience matter as much as ever to American diners. But increasingly people also demand the information that places like Sweetgreen offer. They want to know what they are eating and how it was made; they prefer to watch as their food is prepared, see the ingredients, and have a sense of where it all came from. And they are willing to pay more for what they perceive to be healthier fare. Most of these restaurants, where meals generally cost between eight and fifteen dollars, rely on a few ingredients, stress the quality of their food, and often treat the farms that supply their vegetables with the kind of reverence once reserved for fine wineries."

The premise of the story is that it will be extremely difficult for healthier fare to replace traditional fast food fare, in part because what it takes to produce healthy food works against the basic tenets that go into the fast food business.

It is a thoughtful piece of writing, as New Yorker articles always are, and you can read it in its entirety here.
KC's View: