The FDA issues an “Approved Standard Balanced-Nutrition Meal”. It will cost 2 dollars, be ready for consumtion and every person will only be entitled to buying 3 servings/day. That will clearly take the responsibility of their own health out of the people’s hands, since they clearly can’t handle it.
But wait a minute… then we’ll have the French Mafia trying to sell Pate in the black market. The Italian Mafia will try to smuggle Spaghetti and the dangerous Mexican Mafia will be selling Burritos to little school children. This may not be a good idea.
I have no idea what the price of McDonalds is elsewhere in the world. A standard Happy Meal here costs about $4 our money (about $2US). I’m going the route of convenience tonight and not cooking - my daughter is eating for dinner tonight a frozen lasagne which cost me about $2.50. McDonalds is NOT a cheap option here - I could purchase in the supermarket a frozen meal with meat and vegetables, pasta and sauce, or rice and a main meal for exactly about the same price.
I’m also intrigued by this talk of salads. Very occasionally, McDonalds here sells salads as part of their ever-rotating “new taste” menu. They charge an extremely large amount of money for a cup full of salad - again, you could buy a tub of salad at the supermkarket for much less.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my bacon and egg McMuffins and my 40 cent cones - and their sundaes rock - but I’d be lucky to eat McD’s 6 times a year. There’s nothing so good about their food that I’d want it once a month, let alone every day.
BTW, if you’re waiting 5 minutes for your food at McD’s, then the particular store from which you’re purchasing is in violation of their franchise agreement. If you have to wait more than 90 seconds here, they always give you something for free (usually a hash brown or free drink) for the inconvenience of having to wait. At one time, McDonalds here ran an advertising campaign - if they coudn’t give you your meal in less than 60 seconds, then it was free.
reprise, McDonald’s has three salads as part of their “core menu” here: McSalad Shaker Chef Salad, McSalad Shaker Garden Salad, and McSalad Shaker Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad.
Sorry to hijack, but these two statements seem to imply that cereal and avocado are bad for you? Did I miss something - I thought wholegrain cereals helped fight heart disease, and avocados helped to lower cholesterol?
The Shaker salads are the ones which show up here from time to time on the “new tastes” menu (as do toasted cheese and tomato sandwiches, occasionally) - they aren’t part of the standard menu, but rather a “special” which is only available intermittently.
I am fat. I really resent these cases because they make people think I eat this shit. I don’t, I got fat the old fashioned way of my ancestors. Rich food. Good food. Lots and lots of good rich food.
Ironically, with the violent effect it has on me eating at maccas would leave me emaciated and starving in no time.
Time to return fatness to where it belongs, fine dining! Ban maccas, the poor joining in so easily these days make fat look bad instead of the status symbol of wealth, class and privilege it was always meant to be!
Poison will kill you immediately (depending on the type of poison). A diet full of high-fat hamburgers may cut short your life span significantly. It’s just a matter of degree.
Straw man yourself. Who said that McDonalds claimed a diet of solely fast food is healthy? I merely said that they claimed it could be regularly eaten (more then once a week) as part of a healthy diet.
You got me. I should have clarified that nutritionally, there is no logical reason. (I disagree with you about the hamburgers tasting better then tofu, but that’s just personal preference).
It’s amusing that half the people who are supporting McDonalds says that advertising has nothing to do with their success; McDonalds is cheap, convenient and tasty. The other half says that McDonalds is not especially cheap, convenient, or tasty, so parents should have no reason to take their children there.
I rather think the point is that there’s no yes/no answer to whether something is “healthy”. Any such judgement is going to be based entirely on subjective measures, and depends entirely on how much you eat, as has been repeatedly stated. I certainly can not find any reputable health source which has categorised every foodstuff as either “healthy” or “unhealthy”. Perhaps you would like to provide such a source, or suggest some criteria.
Oh, but on preview I see you have:
This is just silly. You’re saying everything that is perceived as unhealthy should be classified as unhealthy and its producers sued on the grounds that people didn’t know it’s unhealthy!? Wow. Why did they think it was called junk food? It’s not exactly a new term…
A diet full of mars bars may indeed shorten your lifespan, as may a diet full of coke, a diet full of cheese, a diet full of full-cream milk. Are we proposing to sue the providers of all these products? Where, in your opinion, does personal responsibility to stop eating things which are fucking blatantly unhealthy come in to the picture? Are you seriously contending that no products which in any circumstances could be used in an unhealthy manner should ever be brought to market? Or are you singling out McDonalds on the basis of that one rather uncontroversial statement disagreeing with one doctor?
I don’t recall advocating banning anything, or suing anybody.
Yes, this has been repeatedly stated, I’ve repeatedly said that it is misleading. No, things are not just black and white. But that doesn’t mean certain things are blacker or whiter than others. McDonalds is not healthy, no matter how you scratch it. You can say “well it could be part of a healthy diet if you don’t eat it very often”, but that just proves my point. Healthy things you can, and should, eat often.
I think people have some responsibility, but not 100%. Everyone is influenced by urges they have no control over. We think we are in control, but that is to some extent an illusion. We are not logical creatures. I think companies have some ethical responsibilty not to take advantage of us, and that includes pandering to our illogical urges.
Avumede…its just your attitude that is destroying this counrty. let me make myself completly clear YES YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE 100% and not 1% less for your urges illogical ,logical or any other adjetive you choose to attach to it. alocholics are the ones that try to say its not thier fault they cant control thier urges tro drink.Thats complete bull and everyone knows it.Even if you cant control your own urges your STILL responsible for the ramifications of your actions 100%.Period. And if your an adult its 100% your responsibility to moniter your childrens food intake.100%.Period.
If you go by that reasoning and think that the deadly sins of sloth and gluttony have such an uncontrollable hold on people, then the ultimate solution to the problem would be close to the one Mighty_Girl suggests: have the government take over every stage of food production and control the diet of each person (with the assistance of each person’s physcian). That might work–although Mighty_Girl mentioned there may be some enforcement problems–but is the overall monetary cost and intervention with an individual’s freedom of choice worth it?
Or, we could just simply teach our children the importance of moderation in things like diet.
They can both be quite good for you. The point I believe Mr.2001 was making in the first case was that if you ate nothing but cereal, your health would deteriorate because, while it has many good effects, it doesn’t provide all the nutrients you need to stay healthy. You would still need to supplement it with other things for a nutritionally complete diet.
In the second case, he was referring to Avumede’s claim that it’s unethical to sell something when you could sell something “better”. Avacadoes were just chosen as an example of something that has a lot of benefits, but still wouldn’t be ethical by this reasoning because it may not be as “good” as something else.
Honestly, if McDonald’s is being sued for selling burgers, why aren’t Sony, Magnavox and Toshiba being sued for selling TVs? I can eat 4000 calories a day and not get fat if I stay active enough, but even the healthiest diet won’t keep me in shape if I just sit in front of the tube all day. Besides, isn’t it unethical for them to be selling TVs when they could be selling exercise equipment?
I really, really, wasn’t going to post in this thread – but I have to say something about this statement. Basically it’s tosh, I’m not going to draw the comparision I first thought of because it’s unnecessarily inflamatory so we’ll stick with this.
I have a strong urge to stay in bed some mornings when I have to go to work. I get up anyway and go to work, because I’m 100% responsible for keeping my job and earning money to live. We are 100% responsible for our actions unless we’re being actively forced into doing something. The argument that companies should be sued for taking advantage of us is silly, they should be sued if can be proved they lied. Plain and simple, if they fed us false information therefore removing the ability to make an informed choice then they there is a case for suing them.
By your logic I can claim that I have no control over my ‘urges’ and then use that both as a weapon to sue the big nasty companies and as a defence when I have the urge to stay in bed – or drink – or whatever. That’s not a route we should go down, or at least not any further down, IMHO.
I understand why you’re describing McDonalds as unhealthy, but in reality there is no law against them selling the food as long as it’s not dangerous (in an unsanitary sense). Just the same way as there’s no law against some of my local takeaways serving deep fried Mars Bars.
And briefly to jonpluc, I agree but I’d make a distinction for things that are physically addictive such as drink, cigarettes and drugs. Of course you’re still 100% responsible for getting addicted in the first place.
Wow, what a response. Well, now that I know people are 100% responsible for their actions, I have a plan. I’m going to go to my nearest grade school and convince the kids to smoke crack. I think I’ll give them a few weeks of free samples to get them started. Hey, don’t you dare criticize my actions. People are 100% responsible for their actions. They chose to smoke it. Sure, I helped convinced them, but ultimately it’s their choice. In fact, if you criticize me, I’ll say “Fuck you. It’s your attidude that is destroying the country.” I know. jonpluc told me so. My actions are completely ethical, since the burden lies completely on the consumer. Look out heaven, here I come!
Responses I don’t want to hear:
Your example is invalid since you are going after children. Sorry, if you say this you have to admit that only adults are 100% responsible for their choices, so children are different. But if you say this, you’d basically be OK with me doing similar things to adults, right?
But McDonalds is completely different! But if you agree that people are not 100% responsible, then this does effect the argument. Basically, if you disagree that I’d be anything other then a paragon of ethical behavior in the above scenario, you’re already away from 100%.
But you’re not telling the children it is addictive. OK, what if I did? Then somehow it’s all OK?
And what the fuck is this, straw man theatre? How many times do I have to say I have no opinion on the lawsuit, and am not proposing any regulations?
Are the following items “healthy” or “unhealthy”? How frequently should I eat them?
Liver - chock full o’ vitamins and iron. Also loaded with cholesterol.
Whole milk - has 4% fat. A wonderful source of calcium and (if fortitfied) vitamin D.
Celery - contains fiber and water, but very little else. A "nutritionally empty’ food item.
Spinach - a good source of several vitamins, also fiber. Loaded with oxalic acid (very hard on the kidneys).
Tuna - plenty of protein and omega 3 fatty acids. Also high levels of mercury.
Peanuts - loaded with protein. Also loaded with fat, highly allergenic, and may be contaminated with aflatoxin (an extremely potent carcinogen).
Foods are not “healthy” or “unhealthy” - DIETS are. And what constitutes a “healthy” diet varies with the age and the health of the particular person. Whole milk, for example, which many people think is “bad for you”, is RECOMENDED for infants and toddlers - while feeding them only “good” 2% and skim milk will leave them malnourished. And a person with iron deficiency and normal blood cholesterol might benefit from eating liver several times a week; with my cholesterol levels, though, it’s a food I should stay away from. People need to educate themselves about what constitutes a healthy diet FOR THEM, and make appropriate food choices; if they don’t, it’s not McDonalds that’s at fault for their subsequent health problems (nor the grocery store, for that matter).