To what extent does the book consider opposing arguments?

Schlosser's work does not really consider opposing arguments in the proliferation and impact of the fast food industry.  In some respects, the "other side" of this debate is the mainstream that everyone accepts in the American social dynamic.  Schlosser is calling for a reexamination in dietary practices in fast food consumption.  The other side to this is the Status Quo, or the high level of fast food popularity.  This is depicted with the endless barage of advertisements, product placement, and psychological focus groups that help determine what type of fast food products flood the marketplace. In Schlosser's mind, he does not need to consider opposing arguments because the primary argument against his work is the status quo, the present system.  Consider that Schlosser is seeking to raise consciousness about consumer participation in the fast food industry and its practices.  In his mind, there is no other argument other than this:  For reasons of both health and autonomy, individuals must examine their dependence on fast food.

If there is one element that Schlosser might have been able to address in a more substantive manner, it would be how the fast food industry is pliable and malleable in accordance with socially accepted norms.  For example, when public outcry, in part due to Schlosser's work, demanded change, the industry assumed a more "health friendly" demeanor with smaller portions, more health based variety, and a de-emphasis on the "super sized" notion of the good.  This was enhanced with an advertising campaign that underscored as much.  However, this is not the change that Schlosser articulates and certainly would represent a step and not an end.  Many incorrectly believe that opposite, and it would have been interesting to see how Schlosser would address the modern "reimaging" of fast food in this light.