New Passed Law McDonalds Goin Down

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure if this is going to come out properly, but one vote (me) + freedom of speech = I *demand* a Table of Nutritional Contents for everything that purports to be food.

It is ridiculous to expect me to figure it out when the information is kept secret.

Yes, I expect the government to do the work for me, in the same way that they measure the purity of lakes and publish the results.

Here's an example - I was making dog treats with sliced hot dogs. The recipe said to nuke for 20 minutes. I tried Schneider's and it made great treats. I tried Maple Leaf Foods and got about 2 dozen specks of meat in a cup of grease.

There is already a law about Honesty In Advertising. We have a right to know what we're eating, without having to create a PhD thesis on the topic. It's the manufacturers that must provide the info on a label. It's all very nice to have it on line but that doesn't work very well when you're in the store.

Um, do you do the food shopping for your family?

Or are we talking only about fast-food joints, where young men & women can squander their health because they've got so much to spare? Would it be so terrible to let us old fogies stagger out for a "legal" hamburger from time to time?

I was thinking exactly the same. I rarely eat this kind of junk. I admit it tastes good, but it is so bad for you.

Claradoon wrote:

Yes, the legislation in the US Congress pertains only to fast food establishments. That's what my argument is against and will continue to be against for the reasons already stated.

I don't know the differences between legal and illegal burgers are that you refer to but, as of now, there are no bans against any kind of hamburgers in effect in the United States.
I can't speak for your country, though..........

BTW, Burger King has a fairly new burger called the Steakhouse XT thats worth a try. I had one last week and it wasn't half bad considering the source.

Steakhouse XT

re: no government 'meddling' in food standards topic

Thursday January 22, 2009
Two men face execution in China over the baby milk scandal which has led to the deaths of six babies and made some 300,000 ill.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... e_Jailed__

Sometime later this year a documentary called "Food Inc." is coming out.
In the meantime here is a real eye opener.....


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY&playnext_from=TL&videos=QJHvT0mha2o[/youtube]

I don't eat out at McDonalds that much. I normally have Noodle Canteen where they cook it right in front of you and they even have the ingredients set out so you can see them. The food tastes good but it is more fun watching them cook it.

The state of Washington has had such legislation in place for at least a year now - two, I think, but I didn't notice it more than a year ago. So far, it hasn't made even the tiniest dent in sales; evidently, nobody ever thought they were eating healthy foods at those places anyway, so it doesn't bother them to be made aware that it's fatty and high in calories, so long as it tastes good. Admittedly, that's highly individualized (the only thing on McD's menu I really like is the angus burger with mushrooms), but unless a customer has health concerns, flavor and convenience are going to be far more vital factors than caloric value in their personal calculations.

It will not do a thing to Mcdonalds at all. People who eat at fast food places a lot don't care about being healthy, they will still eat it and be overweight. I don't eat at fast food places a lot, but when I do I choose healthier choices.

This point keeps being raised in this thread but it's nonesense. It is simply not true that everyone that cares about their health never eats as McDonalds.

I think we have this in here in NZ. Also we have "healthy options" such as exchanging fries for apple slices or soft drinks for water bottles, or salad-like meals and meals less harmful than their common meals.

However, these meals are more expensive, and statistically presenting "healthy options" in a fast food restaurant means customers are more likely to buy the unhealthy ones. So it's in fast-food chain's interests to present healthy options, for their profits.

You're misrepresenting the situation. Smoking isn't "banned". What's banned is allowing some fool to blow his disgusting smoke in my face. Smoke all you want ... just don't do it near me. And drinking ... again, what's banned is allowing kids to drink, not drinking in general.

And going from simply providing calorie information to making it a crime to eat Big Macs is a rather curious logical leap.

Last edited by Stone_Man on 07 Apr 2010, 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Starbucks recently stated that since listing their calories, people will still drink the syrupy gooey caramel lattes because they have less calories than their customers thought, but are dismayed and pass on that bagel and cream cheese because they have more than their customers thought!

Sometimes I wonder who this nebulous 'they' are whose actions to preserve the autonomy of the individual from those who would force their right to insult anyone they wanted ( anti- Politically Correct) and those who would blow their cigarette smoke in others faces (and consider the world their personal ashtray) aren't just some paranoid's dream of a conspiracy against them. Certainly starting with the idea of revealing calories in prepared food at the beginning of a short paragraph and ending with it all being a conspiracy to turn (some nebulous) population into mindless drones indicates a mind set where everything turns into pet theories.

Merle

Food labelling is a matter of consumer safety, and most assuredly the province of government. A consumer's right to know is not well served by some passive diplay"

--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

While satirical, the exchange demonstrates the principal that a corporation need do nothing to protect the consumer, except in so far as an agent with more bargaining power contracts with it to do so, or a government imposes the obligation upon it. And in either of the latter cases, it need only do the minimum.

Ah, but there are healthy choices, no? Well given that almost every "low-fat" option involves replacing the fat with sugar or HFCS, and a variety of food additives to replace the chemical properties of fat, it quickly becomes apparent that your sub with only 6g of fat is still a nutritional disaster area.

Consumers retain the freedom to choose. Food labelling has not ruined the sales of Cap'n Crunch, and they are unlikely to hurt the sales of Big Macs. But for the consumer who wants to make an informed choice, the provision of labelling will call attention to just how much sugar there is in Big Mac. (9g in Canada, just in case you were wondering).

But consumers right to choose is no reason to exempt retailers from disclosure. Informed choice is, perforce, better choice. Better choice leads to more efficient purchasing, which in turn leads to a healthier economy.

I went on a diet for two days and gave it up today by going to McDonald's

No regrets...I was in a serious mood for Mickey D's

Sorry about the double post.

My internet is being so screwy it wont even let me delete it.

Oh, speaking of Super-Size Me, I wonder how many here are aware that there was a followup done?

The second person also ate exclusively at McDonald's for a month - but she didn't restrict herself, as the gent in Super-Size Me did, to the fattiest burgers and fries on the menu. Rather, she ate a variety of offerings, including the salad, and sometimes had tea or water rather than soda or milkshakes.

She ended the month having lost weight.

Sometimes, it's about those hidden assumptions...