Recently, there has been a flurry, or a McFlurry of bad press regarding poor food sanitation at many popular fast food chains. The financial problems this can cause for a business at a national level, for corporate stockholders, the company's bottom line, and reputation are obvious. But what about the small businesspeople who own the various branches of the fast food franchise all over the country? In the New York Times Business Section article entitled "Left Holding the Bag in the Land of Fast Food," by Andrew Martin, Martin looks at the problems suffered by franchise owners. For example, Taco Bell is made up of "a collection of much smaller businesses, franchises owned by individuals" (Martin 2007:1) Even for Taco Bell owners whose businesses had nothing to do with the food poisoning scandal, suddenly what seemed "like a promising investment can turn sour quickly in a crisis" (Martin 2007:1).

A person who buys a franchise does not simply buy a store. He or she buys a corporate name that will hopefully draw customers into the store. Unlike a person who begins a new enterprise, the franchiser has a built-in customer base of people who already like the product. The owner has less work to do in terms of generating name recognition, or designing a product line and series of efficient food assembly processes to generate revenue. But "while the franchise has the marketing clout and financial strength of the parent company to back it up, it is also largely dependent on the parent company's public relations and advertising to lure customers back "(Martin 2007:1). Food-born ailments a perfect example of how the supposedly less risky aspect of owning a franchise, rather than beginning one's own business, has its own public relations risks. A local taco chain in California would not be hurt by the Taco Bell scare in New Jersey, but a Taco Bell franchise is likely to see customers turned away in droves. There is no risk-free enterprise.

Also, the law "holds the server of the food liable for such illnesses," despite the fact that the franchise owners in the offending Taco Bells may have gotten the food from the parent company's suppliers, distributors or farmers (Martin 2007:2). This also seems unfair, and franchise owners have attempted to fight this law, perhaps justly, since their preparation procedures were not at fault, merely Taco Bell headquarters' fault in terms of its food processing and choice of purveyors. However, even if this legal battle is won, it is difficult, as a consumer, not to feel leery of entering a fast food chain affected by a scandal, no matter how unfairly this affects the local franchiser.