Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans?

[SteveGrenard]

Re. The OP " Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans? "

Only the ones who choose to eat their food.. They can't kill the ones who don't..

So yes, it looks like they are... But I would say they get some help from Burger King, et al ...

KFC was surveyed and tested as part of the study.

 

[CFLarsen]

Larsen: Why not? It isn't illegal, is it?

Answer: So is editing a post but you object if I do it.

I object to you editing a post to make it look as if you had already answered my question, when in fact you hadn't.

There's a hell of a difference, Steve.

It is not befitting a company of otherwise high publishing standards. But that's their problem and CSICOPs.

It isn't a question of what "befits" a company. Pedophilia is not legal, Steve. How can Prometheus "extoll the virtues of pedophilia", if it is illegal?

Larsen: Are you trying to suppress legal information, based on your own sexual prejudices?

Answer: Now you presume to know my sexual prejudices. I am prejudiced against promoting immoral behavior, the proliferation of which not only leads to deplorable illegal activities such as paeodphilia but to wideranging medical and social problems such as AIDS and unwanted babies.

Whoa. How can publishing a catalogue on X-rated movies lead to pedophilia, AIDS and unwanted babies?

Larsen: And what does X-rated videos have to do with "extolling the virtues of pedophilia"?

Answer: Why don't you purchase the entire video catalogue and then screen some of the tapes they review therein. Also review some of the other books they have. You can make some educated guesses on the subject matter from the titles. Have you even done that? Have you looked at the site?

Steve, you are talking to someone who grew up in a country where porn was legalized. I am not a prude like you are.

Are you really denying the existence of these titles by an otherwise respectable publishing company closely allied with CSICOP?

What titles are you talking about? Be precise!

I have asked repeatedly why they needed to publish such titles. They even could've done them under a different imprint. If Paul Kurtz or someone else on the top has a special interest in this kind of stuff. they could do it under a different name and no one would know. They besmirch the fine skeptical and classical titles by including them under the Prometheus banner.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have such an opinion. But please respect their freedom of speech. You have no right to impose your own prudish morals on them.

Larsen: Let's see these "inconsistencies" that Emily Rosa's experiment was "riddled" with. With direct quotes, please.

Answer: Better than that. Here is an objective review of Emily's (I should say Emily's parents) study from the Rocky Mountain Skeptics. They have hit on many of the problems with this study that others have:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-edit.html

I asked for the quotes from the study you linked to. Do you have them, yes or no?

Larsen: Prove that Emily’s parents got her the space in JAMA for her school science project.

Answer: Because Emily never saw JAMA and wouldn't know how to submit a paper to them on her own. Her father was a co-author. I am rreasonably certain he arranged it down to licking the envelope.

Since when did her parents have the power to make JAMA publish the paper?

Larsen: What does her age have to do with anything?

Nothing since her mother wrote the paper.

If it has nothing to do with it, why do you feel the need to mention her age?

And answer the rest of the questions.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: It isn't a question of what "befits" a company. Pedophilia is not legal, Steve. How can Prometheus "extoll the virtues of pedophilia", if it is illegal?

Answer: Because it is not illegal to talk about it in any light desired.



Larsen: Whoa. How can publishing a catalogue on X-rated movies lead to pedophilia, AIDS and unwanted babies?

Answer: I answered the second part of the above. I will not be tricked into going into detail on the descriptions of their s-autbiographies or human-s titles. I will formally complain to the moderators that you are trying to bait another poster here into violating the rules of the forum if you persist.

Larsen: Steve, you are talking to someone who grew up in a country where porn was legalized. I am not a prude like you are.

Answer: it is not legal on this forum.



Larsen: What titles are you talking about? Be precise!

Answer: See #2 above.



Larsen: That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have such an opinion. But please respect their freedom of speech. You have no right to impose your own prudish morals on them.

Answer: I respect freedom of speech. I also respect the rules of someone's private forum. This is JREF's house, not yours. If you
don't like it you know where the door is.



Larsen: I asked for the quotes from the study you linked to. Do you have them, yes or no?

Answer: Trying searching Emily Rosa and T. Cox. I don't have a link.


Larsen: Since when did her parents have the power to make JAMA publish the paper?

Answer: Since never. If the paper wasn't of interest to the editor they would not have published it.

Larsen: If it has nothing to do with it, why do you feel the need to mention her age?

Answer: Because it is an amazing and wonderful thing for a child this young to conduct a science fair experiment that gets published in JAMA. A first. A oner.

Larsen: And answer the rest of the questions.

Answer: You haven't answered me. How many Danes have lost their lives in Iraq? How much money has Danish taxpayers contributed to the war in Iraq as members of the coalition of the willing? Or is it just "willing" and not actually giving?

[/quote]

 

[Skeptical Greg]

KFC was surveyed and tested as part of the study.

Did the study clear KFC of ' selectively ' killing people ?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I got the answer from a friend in Copenhagen. Denmark lost two soldiers in Iraq. That's a 2,398 fewer than the U.S. One by friendly fire and the other by an IED. I am still waiting to find out how much money if any they invested. She probably won't know until Tuesday.

I am surprised you didn't know this Claus.

 

[Luke T.]

Did the study clear KFC of ' selectively ' killing people ?

Nope.

Here's a much more thorough article than the one in the OP

The findings were reported today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

At a New York City McDonald's, a large fries-and-chicken-nuggets combo was found to contain 10.2 grams of the trans fat, compared with 0.33 grams in Denmark and about 3 grams in Spain, Russia and the Czech Republic.

At KFCs in Poland and Hungary, a large hot-wings-and-fries order had 19 grams of trans fats or more, versus 5.5 grams for wings and fried potato wedges in New York. But in Germany, Russia, Denmark and Aberdeen, Scotland, the same meal had less than a gram.

A large order of French fries at a New York City McDonald's contained 30 percent more trans fat than the same order from an Atlanta McDonald's.

According to the article, only KFC and McDonald's were tested.

The Danish researchers tested products from the chains' outlets in dozens of countries in 2004 and 2005, analyzing McDonald's chicken nuggets, KFC's hot wings and the two chains' fried potatoes.

I see Denmark had the lowest fat content. Maybe by law?

Wonder how they taste.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Don't feed the trolls, people.

So to speak.

 

[Z]

Fact is, every chain has regional, seasonal, and national variations in their nutritional values. And what's reported is only the national average based on standard formulation. And they all tell you that actual values may vary, and to contact your local manager for specific questions.

As it is, since I was ordering a Domino's Pizza today, I did exactly what Steve suggested. The manager told me I'd have to call the Domino's in Lawton, OK (the location I requested additional info for) for specific nutritional info from them, but that he suspected there wouldn't be too great a difference - considering it's fast food, cheese-covered junk, why worry about the grams of trans fat, after all? We chatted a bit, and we both agree - if trans fats are a major concern for you, you have ABSOLUTELY no business even eating at a fast food joint, whatsoever.

This is the same kind of attitude my wife gives me sometimes... she'll whine about being overweight, then eat a second serving at a fast food joint and finish off with chips, salsa, and ice cream for dessert. "Gee, honey, I guess we know why you're overweight?" comes to mind a lot.

Since I'm still married, though, I guess I can occasionally control my tongue...

Luckily, she never reads posts here...

 

[CFLarsen]

Larsen: It isn't a question of what "befits" a company. Pedophilia is not legal, Steve. How can Prometheus "extoll the virtues of pedophilia", if it is illegal?

Answer: Because it is not illegal to talk about it in any light desired.

But we are not talking about merely talking here. We are talking about publishing. How are they "extolling the virtues of pedophilia"? They are not publishing pedophilia, are they?

Larsen: Whoa. How can publishing a catalogue on X-rated movies lead to pedophilia, AIDS and unwanted babies?

Answer: I answered the second part of the above. I will not be tricked into going into detail on the descriptions of their s-autbiographies or human-s titles. I will formally complain to the moderators that you are trying to bait another poster here into violating the rules of the forum if you persist.

And I will formally await their response. If they rule that you can link to the offending publications, I expect you to do so. Of course, you have to tell them exactly what publications you are thinking of.

Larsen: Steve, you are talking to someone who grew up in a country where porn was legalized. I am not a prude like you are.

Answer: it is not legal on this forum.

To talk about sex? Sure it is.

Larsen: What titles are you talking about? Be precise!

Answer: See #2 above.

You have not been able to name the titles, then.

Larsen: That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have such an opinion. But please respect their freedom of speech. You have no right to impose your own prudish morals on them.

Answer: I respect freedom of speech. I also respect the rules of someone's private forum. This is JREF's house, not yours. If you don't like it you know where the door is.

You hypocrite. You have worked so hard trying to discredit JREF and this forum, and here you are, playing the saint. Let's see if you can link to those offending publications, hm?

Larsen: I asked for the quotes from the study you linked to. Do you have them, yes or no?

Answer: Trying searching Emily Rosa and T. Cox. I don't have a link.

You don't have them, then. Did you read the full paper, or merely the abstract?

Larsen: Since when did her parents have the power to make JAMA publish the paper?

Answer: Since never. If the paper wasn't of interest to the editor they would not have published it.

Here's what you said:

Emily’s parents got her the space in JAMA for her school science project

So, you lied. Again.

Larsen: If it has nothing to do with it, why do you feel the need to mention her age?

Answer: Because it is an amazing and wonderful thing for a child this young to conduct a science fair experiment that gets published in JAMA. A first. A oner.

Look, can you make up your mind? First, you don't like the idea that Rosa gets published in JAMA. Now, it's an "amazing and wonderful thing"?

Larsen: And answer the rest of the questions.

Answer: You haven't answered me. How many Danes have lost their lives in Iraq? How much money has Danish taxpayers contributed to the war in Iraq as members of the coalition of the willing? Or is it just "willing" and not actually giving?

I got the answer from a friend in Copenhagen. Denmark lost two soldiers in Iraq. That's a 2,398 fewer than the U.S. One by friendly fire and the other by an IED. I am still waiting to find out how much money if any they invested. She probably won't know until Tuesday.

I am surprised you didn't know this Claus.

This is pure you, Steve. You get the facts wrong, and then try to accuse me of not knowing.

Denmark has lost 3 soldiers in Iraq:

Preben Pedersen, 2003
Bjarke Kirkmand, 2006
Jesper Nielsen, 2006

Guess your anonymous source isn't reliable, Steve.

I have no idea how much it has cost Danish taxpayers. Unlike you, we don't put a pricetag on our dead soldiers. But since we are contributing with both personnel and equipment, we are "giving". Sorry to disappoint you. This isn't a bloody tally by which we decide who can get exclusive rights to a news story.

Answer the rest of the questions.

I see Denmark had the lowest fat content. Maybe by law?

Yes. See post #12.

Wonder how they taste.

Can't remember.

 

[CFLarsen]

Fact is, every chain has regional, seasonal, and national variations in their nutritional values. And what's reported is only the national average based on standard formulation. And they all tell you that actual values may vary, and to contact your local manager for specific questions.

As evidenced by the fact that they tested several regional stores. They got different results, precisely as expected. So, they find the average for that country. Fair enough.

If McDonald's had claimed that they use exactly the same products in all of their stores, then there would be a bigger story.

There's no "secret" here.

 

[Z]

As evidenced by the fact that they tested several regional stores. They got different results, precisely as expected. So, they find the average for that country. Fair enough.

If McDonald's had claimed that they use exactly the same products in all of their stores, then there would be a bigger story.

There's no "secret" here.

[happysigh]

It's nice to be in agreement with you for once, Claus.

This reminds me of the jokes that went around while the whole 'Sean Penn' thing happened over here (I'm showing my age now)... If you take a candid photo of a star, and he assaults you, who do you file suit against? Why, the manufacturer of the camera, of course! They didn't tell you, explicitly, that taking photos of temperamental movie stars would be hazardous to your health, did they? What are they hiding, after all?

Geez...

I think it all boils down to this: people are idiots. Then again, we live in a world where we can sue McD's for making their coffee too hot (even though we stupidly took the lid off, tucked the cup between our legs, and all while trying to drive???).

OK, if you didn't know already - you are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for your own health. And I've known since, like, first grade that fast food = fat food. If you need to monitor your health, STOP EATING A DOZEN BIG MACS A DAY!!! If you're concerned about trans fats, STOP HAVING FOUR OUT OF FIVE MEALS AT THE LOCAL ROTGUT BURGER STAND!!! And a salad stops being low-fat once you add cheese, eggs, bacon bits, and twelve ounces of ranch dressing!!!

Or was all this being kept a 'secret'?

I think the more pertinent question is, why do Americans seem hell-bent on killing themselves by eating this crap? It ain't McDonalds' fault, by the way.

 

[Luke T.]

Looking at the last link I posted again:

At a New York City McDonald's, a large fries-and-chicken-nuggets combo was found to contain 10.2 grams of the trans fat, compared with 0.33 grams in Denmark and about 3 grams in Spain, Russia and the Czech Republic.

Well, according to this site, there are almost 9 grams of fat in a glass of whole milk. So 10.2 grams of fat in a LARGE fries and nuggets combo doesn't sound bad at all.

 

[dissonance]

10.2 grams of trans fat, Luke. The total fat is higher.

 

[Luke T.]

10.2 grams of trans fat, Luke. The total fat is higher.

Okay. But here is another interesting thing:

The Food and Drug Administration has required that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol be listed on food labels since 1993. Starting Jan. 1, 2006, listing of trans fat will be required as well.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html

So trans fat wasn't even required to be on labels until a few months ago.

Maybe all the fuss in the past was over saturated fat, and the researchers in the OP article study shifted the goal posts to trans fat.

And just for informational purposes:

Basically, trans fat is made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil--a process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats.

Trans fat can be found in vegetable shortenings, some margarines, crackers, cookies, snack foods, and other foods made with or fried in partially hydrogenated oils. Unlike other fats, the majority of trans fat is formed when food manufacturers turn liquid oils into solid fats like shortening and hard margarine. A small amount of trans fat is found naturally, primarily in dairy products, some meat, and other animal-based foods.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Re. The OP " Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans? "

Only the ones who choose to eat their food.. They can't kill the ones who don't..

So yes, it looks like they are... But I would say they get some help from Burger King, et al ...

With all the negative publicity McDonald's is getting, I'm amazed at some of the advertising campaigns of the other fast-food chains. Taco Bell has been running the "I'm Full" commercials for some time, letting their customers know they can eat until they full for a reasonable price (and of course, you are acutally full long before you FEEL full, so they are encouraging their customers to overeat).

I noticed just yesterday that Wendy's is now trying to get people to add a fourth meal -- one between dinner and breakfast -- to promote their restaurants with all-night drive-through service.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Then again, we live in a world where we can sue McD's for making their coffee too hot (even though we stupidly took the lid off, tucked the cup between our legs, and all while trying to drive???)...

Hi.

The coffee lawsuit was warranted.

 

[Rob Lister]

With all the negative publicity McDonald's is getting, I'm amazed at some of the advertising campaigns of the other fast-food chains. Taco Bell has been running the "I'm Full" commercials for some time, letting their customers know they can eat until they full for a reasonable price (and of course, you are acutally full long before you FEEL full, so they are encouraging their customers to overeat).

I noticed just yesterday that Wendy's is now trying to get people to add a fourth meal -- one between dinner and breakfast -- to promote their restaurants with all-night drive-through service.

Hardee's went right for the jugular. They practically bragged about how unhealthy (yet very, very tasty) their food was. The commercials for their half-pound angus burger drinched in mayo was a huge success for them.

The burger, OTOH, really wasn't all that tasty.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hi.

The coffee lawsuit was warranted.

Based on its finding that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages;

Selling hot coffee is engaging in "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct"?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

As I understand it, McDonald's, in spite of repeated advice to the contrary, continued to serve their coffee hotter than necessary. If I recall, this was intended to maintain a degree of hotness over time (in assumption that the drink would not always be consumed right away). Naturally, "super-heating" (my term) a liquid and then serving it to a drive-through customer is a risky game, as the company found out.

 

[CFLarsen]

As I understand it, McDonald's, in spite of repeated advice to the contrary, continued to serve their coffee hotter than necessary. If I recall, this was intended to maintain a degree of hotness over time (in assumption that the drink would not always be consumed right away). Naturally, "super-heating" (my term) a liquid and then serving it to a drive-through customer is a risky game, as the company found out.

Just how hot does coffee has to be?