Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post Reply

Should Ronald McDonald be banned?

Yes, ban him.
25
43%
No, don't ban him.
30
52%
Maybe/Not sure
3
5%
 
Total votes: 58

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by maiforpeace » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:37 am

And another reason why McDonald's is bad for you...

Newly Discovered Reason to Avoid Fast Food
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.

Perfluoroalkyls are a hazardous class of stable, synthetic chemicals that repel oil, grease and water.

As reported by University of Toronto researchers, the chemicals studied in human blood, urine and feces were polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs), which are the breakdown products of the perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) used in coating the food wrappers. Scientists said the exposure to humans through this means "should be considered as a significant indirect source of PFCA."

That means you now have a new reason to avoid fast foods.

You may not realize it, but you and your family are continually exposed to perfluoroalkyls, which include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS). And these chemicals can be detected in nearly everyone in the U.S.!

Besides food packaging and fast food wrappers, everyday sources of this exposure include: drinking water, dust, air, carpet and fabric protectors, flame retardants, non-stick pots and pans, stain-proof clothing, and even cord blood and breast milk.

But it's not just PFOA and PFOS that show up. The CDC's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals 2009 (considered the most comprehensive assessment of the exposure of the U.S. population to chemicals in our environment), detected a total of 12 different types of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in Americans tested.

I've written many articles about non-stick cookware, highlighting the fact that they are one of the most common sources of PFCs. But this study shows fast food wrappers are yet another pervasive source!

Three years ago, environmental chemists Scott Mabury and Jessica D'eon established that perfluorinated chemicals, specifically polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, known as PAPs, can and do transfer from the wrappers into food. PAPS are byproducts of PFCAs and PFOA.

According to Madbury, regulators who approved these chemicals for use with food and other products made three assumptions, which have now been proven wrong:

1. The chemicals won't migrate from paper into food.
2. The chemicals won't become available to your body.
3. Your body won't process these chemicals.

Contrary to the regulators' findings, we now know PFCs have many health dangers, including being part of a group of chemicals referred to as"gender-bending," because they can disrupt your endocrine system and sex hormones.

In animal studies, PFOA has also been associated with other health dangers such as:
"Significant increases in treatment related deaths" in rat offspring at doses that did not affect the mothers.

Serious changes in the weight of various organs, including brain, prostate, liver, thymus and kidneys.

Deaths of a significant number of rat pups of mothers exposed to PFOA.

Damage to the pituitary at all doses in female rat offspring (The pituitary secretes hormones that regulate growth, reproduction, and many metabolic processes. Change in pituitary size is associated with toxicity.)

Tumor development after prolonged exposure.
Other studies have linked PFC's to:
Infertility: A study published in the journal Human Reproduction last year found that both PFOA and PFOS dramatically increased the odds of infertility from 70 to 134 percent; PFOA was linked to a 60 to 154 percent increase in the chance of infertility.
Thyroid disease: A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that PFOA can damage your thyroid function. Individuals with the highest PFOA concentrations were more than twice as likely to report current thyroid disease. Your thyroid contains thyroglobulin protein, which binds to iodine to form hormones, which in turn influence essentially every organ, tissue and cell in your body. Thyroid hormones are also required for growth and development in children. Left untreated, thyroid disease can lead to heart disease, infertility, muscle weakness, and osteoporosis.
Cancer: PFOA has been associated with tumors in at least four different organs in animal tests (liver, pancreas, testicles and mammary glands in rats), and has been associated with increases in prostate cancer in PFOA plant workers. The EPA has ruled PFCs as "likely carcinogens," and has stated that PFOA "poses developmental and reproductive risks to humans."
Immune system problems: Several studies indicate that PFCs have an adverse effect on your immune system. As described in a report on PFCs by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), PFOA was found to decrease all immune cell sub-populations studied in the thymus and spleen, and caused immuno-suppression.

Increased LDL cholesterol levels: A study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine showed that children and teens with higher PFOA levels had higher levels of total cholesterol and LDL or "bad" cholesterol, while PFOs was associated with increased total cholesterol, including both LDL cholesterol and HDL or "good" cholesterol.
For more information on these studies, please review the Environmental Working Groups extensive report.

So what can you do to protect your health? I strongly recommend avoiding any product that contains these toxic compounds, particularly foods sold in grease-proof packaging, such as fast food and popcorn. Besides the toxic burden of the wrappers, I think it's also important to realize that you are not getting proper nutrition from the food that comes in them.

Most important, however, is ditching your non-stick cookware, because most brands are a MAJOR source of PFC's, particularly PFOA. The moment you heat them, they start to liberate fluoride vapors that are so toxic they will kill small birds!

Every time you cook with them, you inhale these chemicals, and the food in the pan absorbs them too, turning every home-cooked meal toxic.

To identify other products to avoid, the EWG has compiled a list of common products containing PFC's for you here.

Keep in mind that avoiding these products is especially crucial for pregnant women or couples who want to have children, since PFC's can have a serious impact on fertility, and on a baby's delicate hormonal system.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by sandinista » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:15 am

Hey thanks for the link, can't believe people still eat that garbage..disgusting.

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Warren Dew » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:26 am

maiforpeace wrote:And another reason why McDonald's is bad for you...

Newly Discovered Reason to Avoid Fast Food
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.
Of course if you're worried about perfluoroalkyls, you'd better not use nonstick cookware either:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17593716

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Trolldor » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:40 am

The article already mentions that Mountain Dew.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by maiforpeace » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:55 am

Warren Dew wrote:
maiforpeace wrote:And another reason why McDonald's is bad for you...

Newly Discovered Reason to Avoid Fast Food
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.
Of course if you're worried about perfluoroalkyls, you'd better not use nonstick cookware either:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17593716
As a former professional chef, I wouldn't be caught dead using nonstick cookware.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:38 pm

maiforpeace wrote: Which means you have to go through the exhausting task of having the conversation when a child is hungry. Not all the time of course, but, how often do children get hungry? :lol:
Or, parents can say - "No - we don't eat at McDonalds. I'm making dinner at home, and you will eat what I serve." If the child throws a tantrum, time-out him in his room and let him cry it out of his system. Once he knows he can't bargain with you and batter down defenses, he will not pursue it.

I had cousins who weren't allowed to eat pizza or any fast food at all, except on a rare occasion as a "snack" or "treat" (rare meaning like - once a year). My aunt and uncle managed to enforce that rule without much trouble.

I think there's a problem with the way many folks deal with their kids about meals these days. It seems to me - and this isn't statistical - that there is a tendency these days to do too much discussing, bargaining and negotiating with kids over food. It's a lot of "what do you want for dinner?" and having kids pick what they want (and, of course, go through a series of changing desires - no I want this - no that - no, the other thing), and then there are deals made like "if you eat this, I'll reward you with that treat..." and then caving in to a child's manipulations, where they test the parents. If parents start early, and it becomes natural that "mom and/or dad decides what is for dinner, and I politely eat it or I am disciplined" the pestering problem won't be as huge over time. Plus, "pestering" itself should be a no-no - I mean - it should be even worse if kids try to pester - a kid pestering and nagging should result in time outs and going to one's room and denial of privileges/toys. IMHO.
Last edited by Coito ergo sum on Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:57 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
maiforpeace wrote:And another reason why McDonald's is bad for you...

Newly Discovered Reason to Avoid Fast Food
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.
Of course if you're worried about perfluoroalkyls, you'd better not use nonstick cookware either:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17593716
It's not just used in fast food wrappers. It's used in carpet and clothing treatments and as a coating for paper and cardboard packaging. Other applications include textiles (stain repellency and oil resistance), coatings (aids to flow and spread, resistance to stains and deposits), and as lubricants and release agents. They are used in, as noted, teflon pans, and also in microwave popcorn bags. drinking water, stain proof clothing, and carpet and rug protectants.

The article provided no evidence of the alleged harmful effects, and no indication that the amount a human receives from fast food wrappers (if any - perhaps the time food spends in the fast food wrapper is generally too short to result in measurable leaching, and the amount we're finding in people's bodies are from the clothing, drinking water, popcorn bags, teflon pans and carpeting...) is sufficient to account for the measured amounts in blood.

There seems to be a number of unanswered questions, and a good deal of alarm over fast food wrappers and comparatively little alarm over its otherwise pervasive use throughout our daily lives.

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Tigger » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:45 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
maiforpeace wrote: Which means you have to go through the exhausting task of having the conversation when a child is hungry. Not all the time of course, but, how often do children get hungry? :lol:
Or, parents can say - "No - we don't eat at McDonalds. I'm making dinner at home, and you will eat what I serve." If the child throws a tantrum, time-out him in his room and let him cry it out of his system. Once he knows he can't bargain with you and batter down defenses, he will not pursue it.

I had cousins who weren't allowed to eat pizza or any fast food at all, except on a rare occasion as a "snack" or "treat" (rare meaning like - once a year). My aunt and uncle managed to enforce that rule without much trouble.

I think there's a problem with the way many folks deal with their kids about meals these days. It seems to me - and this isn't statistical - that there is a tendency these days to do too much discussing, bargaining and negotiating with kids over food. It's a lot of "what do you want for dinner?" and having kids pick what they want (and, of course, go through a series of changing desires - no I want this - no that - no, the other thing), and then there are deals made like "if you eat this, I'll reward you with that treat..." and then caving in to a child's manipulations, where they test the parents. If parents start early, and it becomes natural that "mom and/or dad decides what is for dinner, and I politely eat it or I am disciplined" the pestering problem won't be as huge over time. Plus, "pestering" itself should be a no-no - I mean - it should be even worse if kids try to pester - a kid pestering and nagging should result in time outs and going to one's room and denial of privileges/toys. IMHO.
Yes, because parenting is not a democracy, and I know I knew what was best for my daughter more than she did. Plus she never once griped about anything, and I think that was due to our attitude at the start.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Kristie
Elastigirl
Posts: 25108
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:14 pm
About me: From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere!
Location: Probably at Target
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Kristie » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:06 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
maiforpeace wrote: Which means you have to go through the exhausting task of having the conversation when a child is hungry. Not all the time of course, but, how often do children get hungry? :lol:
Or, parents can say - "No - we don't eat at McDonalds. I'm making dinner at home, and you will eat what I serve." If the child throws a tantrum, time-out him in his room and let him cry it out of his system. Once he knows he can't bargain with you and batter down defenses, he will not pursue it.

I had cousins who weren't allowed to eat pizza or any fast food at all, except on a rare occasion as a "snack" or "treat" (rare meaning like - once a year). My aunt and uncle managed to enforce that rule without much trouble.

I think there's a problem with the way many folks deal with their kids about meals these days. It seems to me - and this isn't statistical - that there is a tendency these days to do too much discussing, bargaining and negotiating with kids over food. It's a lot of "what do you want for dinner?" and having kids pick what they want (and, of course, go through a series of changing desires - no I want this - no that - no, the other thing), and then there are deals made like "if you eat this, I'll reward you with that treat..." and then caving in to a child's manipulations, where they test the parents. If parents start early, and it becomes natural that "mom and/or dad decides what is for dinner, and I politely eat it or I am disciplined" the pestering problem won't be as huge over time. Plus, "pestering" itself should be a no-no - I mean - it should be even worse if kids try to pester - a kid pestering and nagging should result in time outs and going to one's room and denial of privileges/toys. IMHO.
What you just suggested really does work. It works in my own home. I make dinner 7 nights a week, unless we are invited somewhere for dinner. We have take-out or go to a restaurant maybe once a month. My kids know it's a treat to get McDonald's or pizza. My daughter sometimes complains for a moment when we sit down to dinner (something else we do 7 nights a week), but she knows that she's not getting anything other than what I cooked, even if she doesn't like it. She knows that she eats what I make, or she goes hungry. A few times she's tried to test us, and she didn't eat her dinner. Hours later she was hungry, so we got her dinner plate out of the fridge and sat her back down at the table. She now knows that food she doesn't like is even worse when it's cold.
We danced.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:36 pm

Illustration of the problem:

Image

Grossly obese child being fed at McDonald's by his parents. One might be prone to blame McDonald's immediately, but take a close look: That soda is at least a 20 ounce cup - I think it's a 24 ounce cup of soda. An 8 ounce serving is sufficient, at most (12 ounce cup, filled 1/4 with ice would do the trick). However, a parent of a child that fat ought not be giving him soda AT ALL - home or at McDonalds. The kid should be given water. Nice cold, clear water tastes great.

And, secondly, look at the size of that container that used to contain French fried pertaters. I mean, Jesus H. Christ. I don't even get that size when I go to McDonald's and I'm an adult. Is the small fries not good enough?

The kid's parents are turning him into the Michelin Man.



User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Warren Dew » Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:40 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:The kid's parents are turning him into the Michelin Man.
The kid's parents are turning his brother into the Michelin Man. With him, they've already succeeded.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Gallstones » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:19 am

Fucking McDonald's forcing me to buy the Caesar salad with the light balsamic vinegar dressing. I am so embarrassed that I can't even leave the house.

And those greedy fuckers care only about profits too just like every other damn capitalist.

McDonald's ought to be shut down I tell ya'.

Those hamburgers are way worse than meatloaf and mashed potatoes and gravy, waaaaayyyy worse. People should know better than to eat their ground beef in the shape of a disk. Only ground beef in the shape of......loaf is acceptably nutritious. Or if not loaf shaped it should only be in crumble shape like for spaghetti and chili and stuff.

And how dare they give people the choice----choice!----between grilled or fried chicken!
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:54 pm

Gallstones wrote:Fucking McDonald's forcing me to buy the Caesar salad with the light balsamic vinegar dressing. I am so embarrassed that I can't even leave the house.

And those greedy fuckers care only about profits too just like every other damn capitalist.

McDonald's ought to be shut down I tell ya'.

Those hamburgers are way worse than meatloaf and mashed potatoes and gravy, waaaaayyyy worse. People should know better than to eat their ground beef in the shape of a disk. Only ground beef in the shape of......loaf is acceptably nutritious. Or if not loaf shaped it should only be in crumble shape like for spaghetti and chili and stuff.

And how dare they give people the choice----choice!----between grilled or fried chicken!
LOL.... many parents forego McDonalds and feed their kids ground up meat parts and byproducts, colored a pinkish brown, extruded into tubes, and eaten on bread with sugar-laced condiments splooged on top....

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests