Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Warren Dew]

Why, for example, explicitly added oil(s), salt, and sugar/honey in muesli, bread, or frozen potato products, for example? Added sugar in potatoes? Added fat in muesli? Come on!

Salt is added to bread to help coagulate the proteins, and there's actually less added now than 30 years ago.

Sugar is another story. Check out apple sauce, for example - typically half its calories are from added sugar now. No added fat, though. Why does something that's already sweet need more sugar? The reason is simple: sugar, or more specifically corn syrup, is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government through grain subsidies. It's cheap, so manufacturers add it to more products to give the consumer more calories for less dollars.

The ultimate reason is the food pyramid recommendations, based on faulty science. The obesity epidemic started right when the food pyramid was promulgated.

[Warren Dew]

The fact that some of their meals fail because of caloric content - such as the milk and apple slices example Coito gives - doesn't change the fact that they have to cut the fat, too.

I'm not sure how the happy meal "fails" because of caloric content.

I meant it fails the law's guidelines. I agree 630 kcal is not necessarily unreasonable for a children's meal.

[Coito ergo sum]

The fact that some of their meals fail because of caloric content - such as the milk and apple slices example Coito gives - doesn't change the fact that they have to cut the fat, too.

I'm not sure how the happy meal "fails" because of caloric content.

I meant it fails the law's guidelines. I agree 630 kcal is not necessarily unreasonable for a children's meal.

O.k., gotcha.

The measure allows toy giveaways for meals that have less than 600 calories, less than 640 milligrams of sodium and less than 35 percent of the calories derived from fat, according to The Chronicle. Meals with toys must have at least a half-cup of fruit and three-quarters of a cup of vegetables.

What a fucking joke.

"This is a tremendous victory for our children's health," said the measure's chief sponsor, Supervisor Eric Mar, according to The Chronicle.

Oh, it is? On what basis do you say that Mr. Mar? The smell of your own farts? Where is the evidence?

Children's health will not be improved one iota by this puerile tripe. Fuck off, Eric Mar. Go earn your pay.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why, for example, explicitly added oil(s), salt, and sugar/honey in muesli, bread, or frozen potato products, for example? Added sugar in potatoes? Added fat in muesli? Come on!

Salt is added to bread to help coagulate the proteins, and there's actually less added now than 30 years ago.

Sugar is another story. Check out apple sauce, for example - typically half its calories are from added sugar now. No added fat, though. Why does something that's already sweet need more sugar? The reason is simple: sugar, or more specifically corn syrup, is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government through grain subsidies. It's cheap, so manufacturers add it to more products to give the consumer more calories for less dollars.

The ultimate reason is the food pyramid recommendations, based on faulty science. The obesity epidemic started right when the food pyramid was promulgated.

Yes, but nobody follows the food pyramid, and it's impossible to understand.

5 "servings" of this" and 3 "servings" of that? But, there is no telling what a "serving" is, and the food pyramid's use of the term "serving" has little to do with the word "serving" found on the can or packaging of food at the supermarket.

Yes, the obesity epidemic started at the time of the food pyramid, but it's coincidence, not causation.

The causal factor is increased calorie consumption, and decreased calorie burning.

The stats are clear - over the last 40 years there has been a marked increase in the daily calorie intake of the average American and a marked decrease in the number of calories burned per day due to our increasingly sedentary lifestyle. That accounts for the weight gain.

People are fat because they eat too much and are not active enough.

[maiforpeace]

In support of Ronald McDonald I am going to eat the greasiest meal possible at McD, it will be the first time in 5 years that i've been there.

Yum!

Beef patties made with fatty factory farmed ground beef, mixed with other meat 'stuff' that is scraped off bones, chemically washed with ammonia and other chemicals, then recolored to make it palatable before it's added back to the ground beef. That's just the beef patty.

Same processing and the end result raw material used to make chicken mcnuggets - it's called "advanced meat recovery".

I have worked in the meat processing industry and just have to call bullshit here. Not because of your facts, they may be true, but because you present it as horrible.

When slaughtering pigs at the plant in Red Deer, they saved everything but the asshole and the squeal (and actually, the former went into the 'protein pit'). They made efficient use of everything. We would, for instance, box up and ship pig uterus's. Pallets of boxes of pig uterus's.

ALL of the meat is used. Would you rather take the 'stuff that was scraped off bones' and toss it out? Would you waste that meat, after slaughtering an animal to get it?

Even if you don't eat meat, you wouldn't look very sensible arguing against efficient use of ALL of the animal.

When I worked at a hot-dog/sausage/donair meat plant it got even better. They take all the undesireable cuts of meat and much 'offal', and grind it up with spices, cheeses, flavouring and love, stuff it into animal intestines and convince meat-eaters to eat it.

Again, would you prefer it be tossed out?

It's easy to drum up disgust among people who are mostly far separated from the source of their meat, but after slaughtering a few animals, one develops a respect for those methods of using more of the animal.

I for one don't like wasting what had to die to pretty up my plate.

I posted that in response to Rob's post that he's going to eat a McDonald's burger - assuming Rob was making a conscious choice about what to eat.

I agree with you, it should not be wasted. And, unfortunately many people don't have a choice but to eat that.

Also, unlike many other cultures, the average American will turn away in disgust at a plate of brain (I don't think you can even buy that in a butcher shop anymore), heart muscle, mountain oysters, tongue...yet they happily eat this pink stuff???

I have learned, through personal experience (I have given away about 12 lbs of grass fed beef to interested people so far) that when people do learn the truth about the meat they normally eat and how it is processed (from a factory farm) and learn there are alternatives (pastured and grass fed) that a great many of them will choose to change their eating habits to accomodate the much more expensive product, because it is produced through more humane methods, is better for your health and is just plain tastier.

[Coito ergo sum]

I posted that in response to Rob's post that he's going to eat a McDonald's burger - assuming Rob was making a conscious choice about what to eat.

I agree with you, it should not be wasted. And, unfortunately many people don't have a choice but to eat that.

Another myth. Those that eat at McDonalds do have a choice. They can go there, or they can buy less expensive foods at the supermarket, especially Wal-Mart and the like. Overall, eating all one's meals at McDonalds is more expensive than eating at home.

I made dinner last night for me and She Who Must Be Obeyed. I made what amounts to 4 meals for the 2 of us for $10. Literally. I did the math, and all the ingredients accounted for amounted to less than $10. That's 8 meals worth. Average price of meals at McDonalds is about $6, times 8 is $48.

[maiforpeace]

I posted that in response to Rob's post that he's going to eat a McDonald's burger - assuming Rob was making a conscious choice about what to eat.

I agree with you, it should not be wasted. And, unfortunately many people don't have a choice but to eat that.

Another myth. Those that eat at McDonalds do have a choice. They can go there, or they can buy less expensive foods at the supermarket, especially Wal-Mart and the like. Overall, eating all one's meals at McDonalds is more expensive than eating at home.

I made dinner last night for me and She Who Must Be Obeyed. I made what amounts to 4 meals for the 2 of us for $10. Literally. I did the math, and all the ingredients accounted for amounted to less than $10. That's 8 meals worth. Average price of meals at McDonalds is about $6, times 8 is $48.

"She who must be obeyed?"

The dollar menu is hugely popular with the poor - for those prices you can feed four people for half the price you quoted above. McDonald's does price their food accordingly - it is cheaper in lower income communities. Also, in those types of communities the only access they may have to the food they can prepare themselves is a tiny corner market that probably doesn't offer a large, healthy, or cheap selection of groceries. So you need to take a trip on the bus, or own a car to get to Walmart.

Then you need the time to cook it. If you are getting off your third shift of work, stopping off at McDonald's probably looks pretty good.

[Cunt]

need the time to cook it. If you are getting off your third shift of work, stopping off at McDonald's probably looks pretty good.

that grass-fed expensive beef is priced for the elite, I guess.

[Coito ergo sum]

I posted that in response to Rob's post that he's going to eat a McDonald's burger - assuming Rob was making a conscious choice about what to eat.

I agree with you, it should not be wasted. And, unfortunately many people don't have a choice but to eat that.

Another myth. Those that eat at McDonalds do have a choice. They can go there, or they can buy less expensive foods at the supermarket, especially Wal-Mart and the like. Overall, eating all one's meals at McDonalds is more expensive than eating at home.

I made dinner last night for me and She Who Must Be Obeyed. I made what amounts to 4 meals for the 2 of us for $10. Literally. I did the math, and all the ingredients accounted for amounted to less than $10. That's 8 meals worth. Average price of meals at McDonalds is about $6, times 8 is $48.

"She who must be obeyed?"

The dollar menu is hugely popular with the poor - for those prices you can feed four people for half the price you quoted above.

Negative. It is a marketing ploy. Yes, there are some items on the menu for $1. But, when you combine the items together, it works out to a higher amount, once you order a drink which costs $1.80.

EDIT: She Who Must Be Obeyed is what Horace Rumpole of the great John Mortimer series "Rumpole of the Bailey" would call his beloved wife. I stole the nickname and lovingly refer to my better half as such (when She is not around).

McDonald's does price their food accordingly - it is cheaper in lower income communities.

Not much. I've seen them in Detroit and in wealthy neighborhoods. The prices are about the same.

Also, in those types of communities the only access they may have to the food they can prepare themselves is a tiny corner market that probably doesn't offer a large, healthy, or cheap selection of groceries. So you need to take a trip on the bus, or own a car to get to Walmart.

Then you need the time to cook it. If you are getting off your third shift of work, stopping off at McDonald's probably looks pretty good.

A shift in my book is 8 hours. You know people who work 3 shifts in a day regularly? I've pulled a lot of all-nighters at work in my time, but eventually I need to sleep.

If a person is working two full shifts, or 16 hours in a day, then they're likely not so poor they can't afford food. They also likely have transportation to get to work, which would allow them to also stop at a grocery store (or a McDonalds).

My only point though was to take issue with the notion that poor people don't have a "choice" to get to McDonalds. They do. Financially, there are better options than McDonalds. Pasta dishes are quick and easy, and dirt cheap, for example.

I'm not saying they aren't poor, and that life isn't hard, and that they don't have difficulties in life. It's just not correct to say that McDonalds (and other fast food) is cheaper than food you prepare at home. It isn't.

[Warren Dew]

I made dinner last night for me and She Who Must Be Obeyed. I made what amounts to 4 meals for the 2 of us for $10. Literally. I did the math, and all the ingredients accounted for amounted to less than $10. That's 8 meals worth. Average price of meals at McDonalds is about $6, times 8 is $48.

I think the arithmetic might change when you consider how much time you spent on food preparation, even ignoring utilities, the cost of cooking equipment, etc. A lot also depends on whether you enjoy cooking - in which case you'll count the time spent cooking less - or you hate cooking, in which case you may consider its cost to be higher.

I have learned, through personal experience (I have given away about 12 lbs of grass fed beef to interested people so far) that when people do learn the truth about the meat they normally eat and how it is processed (from a factory farm) and learn there are alternatives (pastured and grass fed) that a great many of them will choose to change their eating habits to accomodate the much more expensive product, because it is produced through more humane methods, is better for your health and is just plain tastier.

Unless you live near a ranch, the cost may be prohibitive, though. We can afford maybe half of our beef to be grass fed. A lot of people could probably not afford it at all.

The same goes for buying a second happy meal and throwing away everything except the toy.

[Warren Dew]

Yes, but nobody follows the food pyramid, and it's impossible to understand.

Individuals may not follow the pyramid, but it influences policy and advertising. It has strengthened the misleading "fat is bad" mantra. It has encouraged carbohydrate consumption, including corn syrup in soft drinks, because the "base" of the pyramid has resulted in policies encouraging grain production. Food that has lots of grains are advertised as being part of that pyramid base - by quoting the large number of servings, citing the pyramid can send the message "you should eat a lot of this food".

Since carbohydrates result in insulin peaks and fats don't, and since insulin stimulates the storage of calories in fat cells and another round of hunger, the emphasis on high carb, low fat food is ultimately the cause of the increase in daily calorie intake.

[Coito ergo sum]

I made dinner last night for me and She Who Must Be Obeyed. I made what amounts to 4 meals for the 2 of us for $10. Literally. I did the math, and all the ingredients accounted for amounted to less than $10. That's 8 meals worth. Average price of meals at McDonalds is about $6, times 8 is $48.

I think the arithmetic might change when you consider how much time you spent on food preparation, even ignoring utilities, the cost of cooking equipment, etc. A lot also depends on whether you enjoy cooking - in which case you'll count the time spent cooking less - or you hate cooking, in which case you may consider its cost to be higher.

Well, there has been more than one time in my life when I was counting out coins from a jar I kept in the closet to buy food and gasoline. I know what it's like. I tended to weigh "enjoyment" a little less when I was really "poor."

As for the cost of appliances. Of course that is factored into total costs, but in the US unless one is homeless, they have a cooking oven in their apartment or house. If a person is counting the change out of a jar for food, they are wasting their money going to McDonalds. That's not cheaper than hitting the pasta aisle of the supermarket.

I think the utilities of baking something in the oven for 30 minutes vs. the gas and tire wear of driving to a McDonalds probably, generally speaking, result in it being cheaper to cook at home.

[

[Ronja]

Before I attempt to strengthen my argument, I would need answers, especially from Cunt and Coito, but the more answer, the better.

I hope the questions are worded unambiguously enough:

Speaking of western, affluent democracies: Do you believe that the government (federal, national, regional, or local) has
1) a right to influence the health of the population it governs and/or
2) a duty to influence the health of the population it governs?
3) Where do you draw the limits of such right and/or duty, if you believe either exists?
4) How does it influence your answer if we are talking about children or the mentally disabled?

I just want to know where we all stand on these, because it has started to seem to me as if we have quite a variety of assumptions behind the arguments.

Thanks for an interesting discussion thus far!

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, but nobody follows the food pyramid, and it's impossible to understand.

Individuals may not follow the pyramid, but it influences policy and advertising. It has strengthened the misleading "fat is bad" mantra. It has encouraged carbohydrate consumption, including corn syrup in soft drinks, because the "base" of the pyramid has resulted in policies encouraging grain production. Food that has lots of grains are advertised as being part of that pyramid base - by quoting the large number of servings, citing the pyramid can send the message "you should eat a lot of this food".

Since carbohydrates result in insulin peaks and fats don't, and since insulin stimulates the storage of calories in fat cells and another round of hunger, the emphasis on high carb, low fat food is ultimately the cause of the increase in daily calorie intake.

But, the consumption of corn syrup and carbs isn't what has "made us fat." The cause of the increase in calorie intake isn't caused by insulin, it's caused by people moving a fork with food on it up to their mouths. Food has a certain number of calories in it, and the insulin in one's body does not increase that number.

If the average Americans' calorie consumption was the same, and we saw weight gain associated with an increase in percentage of corn syrup and carbs per person, then I'd think you'd have something there. However, the average calorie consumption per day has gone up In the last 40 years about 25%. We eat 25% more now than we did in 1971.

Couple this with the increase in television watching per day - 4 hours a day ON AVERAGE for each American and 4-6 hours a day for the average american child. Add to that the 9.5 hours per week that the average child spends playing video games.

It's quite a simple formula. I think we all agree that there is one reason people gain more body mass. The body has to take in more calories than it burns. It MUST. There is no way possible for a person to gain weight unless they eat more calories than their body burns off or shits/pisses/sweats out. Right?

So, why are Americans fat? It might have something to do with the the 25% increase in calories since 1970 and the fact that we burn fewer calories per day than we did in 1970, on average.

Just 300 extra calories in a day more than your body needs will make you gain about 31 pounds in a year. It doesn't matter if those calories are fats or carbohydrates. If you eat 300 extra calories more than you need (burn, shit, sweat, cry, spit or fart), then you will gain 31 pounds or thereabouts.

[Svartalf]

CES? what's that source you quoted for "She Who Must Be Obeyed"?

Mine says that it comes from H Ridder Haggards SHE, the title applying to the title character Queen Ayesha... unless your source is older, I have to assume it picked up the nickname there.