[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Right. Does anyone have a reputable cite that McD’s patties are not 100% beef?
[/QUOTE]
Someone may object that this would be an attempt to prove a negative.
I would like to see someone cite that McDonald’s patties are made up of anything but various forms of bovine soft tissue.
[QUOTE=Askance]
The OP’s entire point is that they don’t claim that. They claim their burgers contain 100% beef, which is potentially a different thing:… well yes, but that’s not the same as saying “our beef patties are 100% beef”. By definition all beef is 100% beef, it’s a meaningless claim. Suspicion is aroused when they could make the stronger claim but don’t. Granted they could just be exceedingly clumsy at expressing what they mean, but they do pay marketers an awful lot of money every year and it would seem odd to let this one by year after year.
[/QUOTE]
Did you go to a company site and check that claim?
For that matter, did you read post #13?
They are saying, exactly, that their beef patties are 100% beef.
If you can’t be bothered to check on the facts or even to read the facts when they are fetched for you and shoved under your nose, then your commentary on the facts is beyond worthless.
I already challenged people once in this thread, which you obviously haven’t bothered to read, to find me one single site where a company makes the claim you say. Nobody has done so. Including you.
What a dictionary definition of conspiracy thinker logic at work.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
I never said I disagreed the patties were beef. Someone referred to your cites as “good”, and I disagreed with that. Hence the “nitpick” part of my post, oh observant one…
[/QUOTE]
Oh, bullshit. You are either just being deliberately obtuse, or you are genuinely stupid. What would you have me link to?
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
However, you did not include any of this in your first post. You simply repeated McDonalds claim as to the contents of their food without comment. Some one said “good cite” to that, I disagreed.
[/QUOTE]
So including a link to an FDA website would have been better? As you said here:
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
An assertion is not proof of itself, which is what makes that a bad cite in that instance. Now if brickbacon had referred to the relevant USDA and/or FTC regulations in conjunction with McDonalds claims, we might have a decent cite on our hands for the discussion. Analysis from an objective third party, if available, would be even better to establish the veracity of McDonalds claim.
[/QUOTE]
First, linking to a statute would not prove McDonald’s does or does not follow the statute. It’s completely illogical and it would make no sense to do so. I would expect a teacher of all people to be vaguely aquainted with the rules of logic.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
I know I don’t have to point this out to someone with the sort of advanced perceptive abilities I conceded to earlier, but there are people who might be confused by this portion of your post so:
You do realize that your second link does not lead to Morgan Spurlock’s site, right? It leads to a site put up by a strong critic of his, Fox News journalist and former Cato Institute policy analyst, Radley Balko. Right in my link there it says, “The general purpose of this site is to counter the silly hysteria perpetuated by Morgan Spurlock.”
[/QUOTE]
The relevant portion is the quote by Spurlock. If you are implying that the quotes are fabricated, please state your proof.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
So your second cite about McDonalds beef content come from a writer who has dedicated his little portion of the internet to making a filmmaker look bad. His link to his Cato institute bio leads to a blank page as he no longer works there. Why this makes him the “go to guy” on hamburger content isn’t clear.
[/QUOTE]
The “go to guy” in this case would be Spurlock, not the author of the website. Either way, there is no “go to guy” in this case. Unless you think I should have linked to the Hamburgular, or a mythical Hamburger God.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
His only reference as to the content of the beef is the same page as your third link, which merely repeats the claim under discussion again.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, in the same way that a definition in various dictionaries will be the same. It is a factual claim, which nobody has challenged. How exactly would you have them rewrite such a trivial piece of info?
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
His other links are to old articles about how McDonalds sources the beef they use, which isn’t really relevant to the discussion at hand.
[/QUOTE]
Too old. Now you are reaching. So what is the cut off date? Must they be less than a year old? What if McDonald’s changes their recipe tommorow?
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
No one is wondering if McD’s uses beef at all, only whether it’s all they use. So your second link isn’t very helpful to that at all.
[/QUOTE]
Really? I thought the initial question was this:
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
So doea anyone know what animal parts actually go into the beef patties/ hambuger ones gets when one goes to a fast food restaurant?
[/QUOTE]
The answers according to all 3 cites are, 100% beef, 100% beef, 100% beef and no kangaroo meat, coweyeballs, additives, worms, etc. Was the question not answered?
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
There is no indication whatsoever of the bias or lack thereof with respect to McDonalds or their opponents among the anonymous authors of the Wikipedia article. The title, “McDonald’s Urban Legends”, suggests a pro-McDonalds bias in the absence of any other info.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. It’s calling people on their ridiculous claims that McDonald’s is doing bad things with no proof. The only bias there is a bias for truth. They have an up to date, accurate (as of now), cited article. The MickeyD conspiracy thoerists have their delusions. It’s not even a debate.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
There is also no indication of the anonymous authors’ expertise on beef or the practices of the fast food industry.
[/QUOTE]
And do you think the authors of Brittanica article are all experts on the subjects and practices of the entire industry in which they write? You don’t need to be and “expert” on beef to determine what is in a hamburger.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
There are six footnote references in the section of the article dealing with the hamburger meat. The first three would appear to reference supporting material on the cost and nutritional value of worm meat. The fourth refers to a Snopes article about the worm controversy (an article which the Wiki article incorrectly cites in at least one place), most of whose sources are other UL gathering references, although Newsweek’s 1978 article on the matter is referenced, separating the Wiki article from its purported source material by two degrees.
[/QUOTE]
Separated by 2 degrees. You sir, are off the reservation. This is not a term paper. It’s a forum to answer factual questions. The standard of a good cite is whether they answer the question, and if they are realiable. The 3 links I posted, in aggragate, are sufficient for those purposes. Of course, Wiki would not be acceptable in a thesis, but it is perfectly fine, in conjuction with other cites, to answer a factual question, on the internet. Either your “standards” are out of wack, or you think we are still in your classroom, and that you can waste everyone’s time with nitpicking and nonsense like you do to your students. Sorry buddy, get a grip on reality.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
So in answer to the question, How can I be sure that McDonalds’ hamburger meat is all beef and nothing else nasty added intentionally?
[/QUOTE]
How can you be sure of anything? How do you know that our air is roughly 78% nitrogen. If a student made such a claim in your class, would you have him go out and actually test the air? Sure, I suppose a the definiative cite would have been a “beef expert” who picks through fast food hamburgers on a weekly basis to test their claims. He must be a scientist, have an expertise in slaughterhouse practices and the beef industry, and must be impartial. And he has to repeat this work every week, and must update his website to reflects the results of the new test. Sorry, but often, such people don’t exist. The only people who really know are the peolple at McDonald’s. You don’t have to trust them though, you can trust Morgan Spurlock, the anti-Spurlock Cato Guy, and the numerous authors of the Wiki article, and the cites they link to, and your own COMMON SENSE.
[QUOTE=bordelond]
I would like to see someone cite that McDonald’s patties are made up of anything but various forms of bovine soft tissue.
[/QUOTE]
Not exactly what you are asking for but here is the USDA says about ground beef
Do lips and anuses count as an extender? Do organ meats count as an extender? My guess is that McDonalds only has beef and beef fat in their patties along with the salt and pepper that was mentioned earlier.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
The standard of a good cite is whether they answer the question, and if they are realiable. The 3 links I posted, in aggragate, are sufficient for those purposes. Of course, Wiki would not be acceptable in a thesis, but it is perfectly fine, in conjuction with other cites, to answer a factual question, on the internet.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, I agree with you. I thought the cites, taken together as a whole, were fine.
[QUOTE=adam yax]
Not exactly what you are asking for but here is the USDA says about ground beef
[/quote]
More totally irrelevant than not exactly.
No.
No.
Yep.
I know the argument has digressed but perhaps a better choice could be made in the examples for class for critical analysis.
One that I always note: “There is no drug stronger for your headache than XXX”.
Sure, but there’s a dozen that are just as strong.
“Part of this complete breakfast”.
Yup - just like the napkin is part of that complete breakfast. In fact, if you discarded the sugar-coated frosty bombs, the rest of that breakfast is really pretty much complete - and probably healthier.
There’s bunches and bunches of things that are said in advertising that are true - but still irrelevant or just hype.
Beef patties seem like a miss, though.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
McDonalds uses 100% beef in their patties. Here’s why you should believe it when I say it:
This journalist and self-described Libertarian policy wonk says Morgan Spurlock is a doodyhead and the reason McD’s hamburgers don’t taste good anymore is that they use leaner beef than they used to, although the article he claims backs him up on this actually merely says that McD’s started getting their already lean beef (which is then mixed with fat cuttings from the processor) from overseas due to American shortages.
Cuz McDonalds says so, that’s why!
.
[/QUOTE]
The FDA sez so.
No one here has found a reputable cite that sez elsewise.
Burgerking, Wendy’s, Jack would all love to find out that Mc’D’s uses any amount of filler at ll, and we’d see endless ads abiut it if there was even a sepck of truth to it. Note the current Wendy’s ads touting that they use fresh not frozen beef. There isn’t a lot of difference but Wendy’s is happy to tout what small difference there is. And if you don’t think that the competition sends food spies in to buy ther dudes products and also checks on what they are buying from the jobbers, you’re so naive.
[QUOTE=bordelond]
Someone may object that this would be an attempt to prove a negative.
[/QUOTE]
Just the opposite. The patties are put forth as 100% beef, and no Government body, competing company, org, or private person has brought forth any evidence they are not. Thus, it behooves the person making the extraordinary claim “that McD’s patties contain fillers or other non-beef substances” to support their argument with facts and cites.
So far, they have nuthin.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
More totally irrelevant than not exactly.
[/QUOTE]
How do you figure the cite to be totally irrelevant? The question has to do with what is in fast food hamburgers. The linked site has to do with how the USDA looks at ground beef and hamburger. Seems pretty relevant to me.
[QUOTE=Belrix]
I know the argument has digressed but perhaps a better choice could be made in the examples for class for critical analysis.
One that I always note: “There is no drug stronger for your headache than XXX”.
Sure, but there’s a dozen that are just as strong.
“Part of this complete breakfast”.
Yup - just like the napkin is part of that complete breakfast. In fact, if you discarded the sugar-coated frosty bombs, the rest of that breakfast is really pretty much complete - and probably healthier.
There’s bunches and bunches of things that are said in advertising that are true - but still irrelevant or just hype.
Beef patties seem like a miss, though.
[/QUOTE]
But we’re not talking about advertising. We’re talking about ingredients lists, which is a separate thing, governed by different laws, and regulated by a different branch of the government.
Just like USDA regulations on foods like ground beef are not the same as ingredients lists which are FDA controlled.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
But we’re not talking about advertising. We’re talking about ingredients lists, which is a separate thing, governed by different laws, and regulated by a different branch of the government.
[/QUOTE]
Just reading the OP, though, and the fact it was Psych 101, it seemed to me the broader lesson was one of critical thinking and how to analyze what’s said to see if it’s intended to tell enough truth to be factual, but still misleading.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
But we’re not talking about advertising. We’re talking about ingredients lists, which is a separate thing, governed by different laws, and regulated by a different branch of the government.
[/quote]
Actually, advertising was part of the discussion. I think the point being made is that there are much better examples one could use in class to illustrate the point: “Don’t believe everything you hear”. Illustrating that point is not contingent on its relation to any particular branch of government.
Okay, it may be 100% beef, but why does it have to taste so damn nasty? I swear, when I was in college McDonald’s cheeseburgers were delicious. Speaking of Psych 101, I used to skip that at least once a week to sit around and eat a couple of cheeseburgers.
Nowadays, though ---- bleeeech!
It can’t possibly just be ME. My tastes have probably evolved a little bit, but I still douse everything in ketchup. We drink Aldi wine, for crying out loud, we’re not talking about a discriminating palate.
Their burgers are awful! Salty, peppery, and some other just weird nasty flavor that can’t possibly be right.
[QUOTE=fessie]
Their burgers are awful! Salty, peppery, and some other just weird nasty flavor that can’t possibly be right.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Maybe my memory is deceiving me, but it seems like McDonald’s meat tasted good in the 1970s, and now it doesn’t. I also notice a “false” taste to it - to me it tastes almost like sausage as opposed to hamburger. It’s not pre-cooked, is it? I sometimes notice them taking the patties out of some sort of storage tray. If they were cooked off-site and then simply re-heated at the restaurant, it might account for the poor taste. I have no idea if they do that, though.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
But the patty may not be all ground beef, unless you consider cartilage, organs, and ligaments beef just because it came from a cow.
[/QUOTE]
No, wrong. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines “beef” as coming only from skeletal muscle. Anything else from the steer is “beef byproducts” and must be so advertised.
How many times does this has to be said: McDonald’s beef patties contain only beef. No fillers, no meat byproducts.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
How many times does this has to be said: McDonald’s beef patties contain only beef. No fillers, no meat byproducts.
[/QUOTE]
How about air? Isn’t a certain amount of air allowed to be mixed in to increase bulk?
[QUOTE=Balthisar]
How about air? Isn’t a certain amount of air allowed to be mixed in to increase bulk?
[/QUOTE]
As air doesn’t really weight anything and beef is sold by the pound, I think this is pretty much insignificant.
Besides, some things don’t “fluff” well.
I can’t speak for McDonalds but I can say from first hand knowlege that Burger King’s whoppers are a 0.25 pounds each and their regular hamburgers are 0.1 pounds each. Not sold by size.
[QUOTE=Balthisar]
How about air? Isn’t a certain amount of air allowed to be mixed in to increase bulk?
[/QUOTE]
Only if you’re making hamburger ice cream.
[QUOTE=Belrix]
As air doesn’t really weight anything and beef is sold by the pound, I think this is pretty much insignificant.
Besides, some things don’t “fluff” well.
I can’t speak for McDonalds but I can say from first hand knowlege that Burger King’s whoppers are a 0.25 pounds each and their regular hamburgers are 0.1 pounds each. Not sold by size.
[/QUOTE]
In Mac speak that’s “4 to 1” and “10 to 1”, respectively.
And also, to clarify, they are 100% real beef patties, they are kept frozen and are cooked from a frozen state to order. By policy, the finished hamburger was tossed after around 10 minutes under a heatlamp if it went unsold. This was back in the mid eighties but I see they use steamtrays nowadays so that is the old model. Back in the day, if you ordered a burger “to order” with any special requests or omissions you could guarantee that the burger would be fresh of the grill… special orders were literally made to order… nowadays the burger might come out of a drawer. In fact if I ever went to a McDonald’s after working there my strategy to guarantee a fresh burger would be to order a burger with say, no onions, or no mustard, because those were integral flavors that could not be scraped off the bun, and you would be guaranteed a freshy burger. Seems like Burger Kings “Have it your way” gambit has changed McDonald’s methodshowever…now they have drawers of meat instead of a call for a full run of 10 to 1’s timed to demand.