Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans?

[SteveGrenard]

I understand you perfectly.

From the OP:



I asked if they use the same type of oil in LA for various stuff. Don't they?

no

 

[CFLarsen]

(bolding mine)
that's the point isn't it, it seems that given McDonald's advertising in the US, it is a surprise to people.
Now, you may be very well informed as to the relative fats contest of big macs world wide, but given that McDonald's has been advertising standard fat contents in the US, this study does show that they have be lying (by omission) to those US consumers who at the same time want to control their trans fat intake, whilst still eating at McDonald's.
The issue is not that there are varying fat levels in McNugets around the US, the issue is that McDonald's not only dos not tell people that, they are indicating to their consumers that the fat levels are consistent across all outlets, and informing consumers what that "standard" level of trans fat is.

Hmmm.....I'm not sure I follow you.

Has McD been keeping this secret, or is it merely a case of people simply not asking for the information? Did the researchers have to go through the legal system to drag this information out of McD's, or did they simply write and ask?

It can hardly be a surprise to people these days that there is fat and then, there is fat. Or is it?

I could only check out McD's website for countries that speak English. Canada's site I couldn't find info on oil type. UK's says partially hydrogenated rapeseed oil, Australia's says canola oil blend, New Zealand says they recently switched to all vegetable oil.

Since McD's UK's website says they use partially hydrogenated rapeseed (canola for Americans) for fries and nuggets why is there a 3 percent difference between trans fats in fries between Glasgow and Aberdeen?

I have no idea. It could be due to the particular shipments from different suppliers.

yeah, so? Is it against the rules? You must have been some whiney child.

No, it is not against the rules. But it is highly dishonest of you to go back and edit a post to make it look as if you had already answered the question, when in fact you hadn't.

But thanks for admitting you are a fraud. You haven't changed one little bit.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hmmm.....I'm not sure I follow you.

Has McD been keeping this secret, or is it merely a case of people simply not asking for the information? Did the researchers have to go through the legal system to drag this information out of McD's, or did they simply write and ask?

A. They did not publish these regional differences in the type of fats (oils,shortening, etc) they use on nuggets and fries. That constitutes a a secret.

It can hardly be a surprise to people these days that there is fat and then, there is fat. Or is it?

A. There are healthy fats and there are unhealthy fats.

I have no idea. It could be due to the particular shipments from different suppliers.

A. This one I cannot take seriously. You are saying that
because McDonalds uses different suppliers they are liable to get different oils in different parts of the country and different parts of the world? If this were true they do have a problem. I guess that throws out
regional preferences for unhealthy versus healthier fats.

No, it is not against the rules. But it is highly dishonest of you to go back and edit a post to make it look as if you had already answered the question, when in fact you hadn't.But thanks for admitting you are a fraud. You haven't changed one little bit.

A. Geez.....whine whine whine. You asked a question. I answered it in an edit. I pointed out to you I answered it above. It plainly states that I edited the post. Do you need flashing neon lights and 20 point boldface?
What is your problem? Never mind. Clue: there is a little italicized note at the bottom of a post whenever a poster edits a post. It has the time of the edit (in blue) and the name of the person doing the amendment, add or deletion. It is not against the rules. Please apolgize to me for calling me a fraud. You are adding to your list of libelous assertions, you are demeaning my character, you are causing me to be mis-characterized to professional associates who impact me outside this forum. I look forward to the moderators asking you to apologize and retract if you will not do it voluntarily.

 

[brodski]

Hmmm.....I'm not sure I follow you.

Has McD been keeping this secret, or is it merely a case of people simply not asking for the information? Did the researchers have to go through the legal system to drag this information out of McD's, or did they simply write and ask?

McDonalds provides a service on its website to calculate the "nutritional " (ha!) content of their "food"

here is the page for the basic hamburger

http://app.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal?process=item&itemID=1

it is clear that they are trying to put a value for the fat content of their food into the public domain, there is some very small print at the end of the page which says

McDonald's attempts to provide nutrition and ingredient information regarding its products that is as complete as possible. Some menu items may not be available at all restaurants; test products, test formulations or regional items have not been included. While the ingredient information is based on standard product formulations, variations may occur depending on the local supplier, the region of the country and the season of the year. Further, product formulations change periodically

(my bold)
However, as the research shows, the variations are so massive between different regions, that this information whilst accurate, is so misleading as to be effectively lying by omission. McDonalds is, whilst following the letter of the law, providing misleading information on the nutritional value of its foods, which is an issue, especially as McDonalds in currently engaged in a PR war to try and convince people hat eating at their restaurants isn't as unhealthy as most educated people know it to be.

 

[CFLarsen]

Geez.....whine whine whine. You asked a question. I answered it in an edit. I pointed that out to you I answered it above. It plainly states that I edited the post. Do you need flashing neon lights and 20 point boldface?
What is your problem? Never mind.

My "problem" is that you make it seem as if you already had answered me. You hadn't. You are a fraud, Steve.

McDonalds provides a service on its website to calculate the "nutritional " (ha!) content of their "food"

That's no different from any other business. You really think anti-wrinkle creams will obliterate your wrinkles?

However, as the research shows, the variations are so massive between different regions, that this information whilst accurate, is so misleading as to be effectively lying by omission. McDonalds is, whilst following the letter of the law, providing misleading information on the nutritional value of its foods, which is an issue, especially as McDonalds in currently engaged in a PR war to try and convince people hat eating at their restaurants isn't as unhealthy as most educated people know it to be.

But the question isn't about how healthy it is. The question is about the differences in oil.

No, they don't say that on their webpage, but obviously, this isn't very hard data to come by.

I still fail to see how this is "secret".

 

[SteveGrenard]

Are you trying to derail by switching to wrinkle creams? Apples and oranges.

It is secret because they are using deceptive practices and disclaimers to mask the true nature of the regional and country variations in the types of fats/oils, etc they use. McDonalds is engaged in the fraud but if
you don't think so, go on eating there. They have good cardiologists in Copenhagen.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you trying to derail by switching to wrinkle creams? Apples and oranges.

No, I am pointing out that all businesses use less-than-100%-accurate-only product descriptions. Not apples and oranges at all.

It is secret because they are using deceptive practices and disclaimers to mask the true nature of the regional and country variations in the types of fats/oils, etc they use. McDonalds is engaged in the fraud but if you don't think so, go on eating there. They have good cardiologists in Copenhagen.

Yes, we do. But deception - or even omission - does not mean secret. You claimed that these data were secret. Care to provide evidence?

How did the researchers get this information? Covert operations? Or did they merely ask?

Your call.

 

[brodski]

That's no different from any other business. You really think anti-wrinkle creams will obliterate your wrinkles?

That doesn't make it ethical, we challenge BS claims made by companies all the time, why should we not challenge McDonalds on this?

But the question isn't about how healthy it is. The question is about the differences in oil.

No, they don't say that on their webpage, but obviously, this isn't very hard data to come by.

I still fail to see how this is "secret".

OK so it's not secret (I never said it was), but can't you see, that by providing data on their web page, they are creating an expectation that the food which one buys in their restaurant will have those same nutritional values? the values are provided for food AS SERVED which means that it should take into account the oil used for preparation.
This article is debunking misleading claims made by a very large company, I would have thought that you would have been in favor of articles such as this, perhaps it will help to engender a little more critical thinking in the McDonalds eating public.

 

[CFLarsen]

That doesn't make it ethical, we challenge BS claims made by companies all the time, why should we not challenge McDonalds on this?

Who is not challenging McD? Who is advocating that we shouldn't?

OK so it's not secret (I never said it was),

No, that was Steve Grenard. He still has to provide evidence of this claim.

but can't you see, that by providing data on their web page, they are creating an expectation that the food which one buys in their restaurant will have those same nutritional values? the values are provided for food AS SERVED which means that it should take into account the oil used for preparation.

They still make it clear that there will be differences. No, they don't tell the whole story, but I have yet to see how this information is secret.

This article is debunking misleading claims made by a very large company, I would have thought that you would have been in favor of articles such as this, perhaps it will help to engender a little more critical thinking in the McDonalds eating public.

I am very much in favor of exposing companies that make false claims. Precisely as I am very much in favor of exposing people who make false claims.

 

[brodski]

Who is not challenging McD? Who is advocating that we shouldn't?

Your first post in this tread asked why this information was relevant, If people are going to challenge McDonald's over this, this information is very relevant

No, that was Steve Grenard. He still has to provide evidence of this claim.

quite right, so don't ask me to defend his unfortunate choice of words, however in his defense, by publishing misleading data McDonald's are deliberately obscuring the issue, OK if people have a very desperate need to know, and are going to wait weeks for their big mac, then the data is available from McDonalds, but if people want to look up the data quickly, they will likely get misleading answers.

They still make it clear that there will be differences. No, they don't tell the whole story, but I have yet to see how this information is secret.

I was surprised to see what the scale of the variation was,
as where most other posters in this thread, by providing "standard" values McDonalds are obscuring the truth, it's not "secret", but it's not honest. Furthermore, as the research indicates that the trans fat content remain reasonably constant within smaller regions, it would be possible, and more ethical, for McDonalds to give data on the rough nutritional content of their food from city to city, or perhaps offer a range of values, rather than using a misleading "standard" value.

I am very much in favor of exposing companies that make false claims. Precisely as I am very much in favor of exposing people who make false claims.

your behavior on this thread makes it look like you are much more interested in pursuing old vendettas against other posters, jumping down their throats because they exaggerated slightly when they used they word "secret" than you are interested in looking at misleading claims made by very large organizations.
It's petty and it's pointless.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I am always happy to help you with expanding your understanding of the English language. The following entries for the term secret may help you in this instance.

1. information known only to a special group; "the secret of Cajun cooking"


2. something that should remain hidden from others (especially information that is not to be passed on); "the combination to the safe was a secret"; "he tried to keep his drinking a secret"

3.not openly made known; "a secret marriage"; "a secret bride"

4. not expressed; "secret (or private) thoughts"

5. designed to elude detection;

6. not open or public; kept private or not revealed; "a secret formula"; "secret ingredients"; "secret talks"

This is a small extraction from the following website. For the expanded tree of meanings for the term secret visit the following URL. I included only these 6 as they were most applicable to the usage made here.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/secret

BTW you keep asking how the researchers got their information. Presumably they visited McDonalds restaurants around the country and the world, as "customers" bought chicken nuggets and fries and then took them back to the lab for analysis and eventually for comparison. I don't think there is any secret there.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your first post in this tread asked why this information was relevant, If people are going to challenge McDonald's over this, this information is very relevant

No, I asked what Steve's point was. So far, he has not been able to support his contention that this is "secret".

quite right, so don't ask me to defend his unfortunate choice of words

I'm not.

however in his defense, by publishing misleading data McDonald's are deliberately obscuring the issue, OK if people have a very desperate need to know, and are going to wait weeks for their big mac, then the data is available from McDonalds, but if people want to look up the data quickly, they will likely get misleading answers.

The information is not kept secret. That's the whole point.

I was surprised to see what the scale of the variation was, as where most other posters in this thread, by providing "standard" values McDonalds are obscuring the truth, it's not "secret", but it's not honest. Furthermore, as the research indicates that the trans fat content remain reasonably constant within smaller regions, it would be possible, and more ethical, for McDonalds to give data on the rough nutritional content of their food from city to city, or perhaps offer a range of values, rather than using a misleading "standard" value.

I think that we will have a hard time finding any consumer product that is described entirely honest.

your behavior on this thread makes it look like you are much more interested in pursuing old vendettas against other posters, jumping down their throats because they exaggerated slightly when they used they word "secret" than you are interested in looking at misleading claims made by very large organizations.
It's petty and it's pointless.

I am interested in finding out the reason for this thread. Given Steve Grenard's long and tortured record of mischief, everything he posts comes automatically under suspicion.

Steve is a person who should be challenged at all times. Challenged, and watched.

BTW you keep asking how the researchers got their information. Presumably they visited McDonalds restaurants around the country and the world, as "customers" bought chicken nuggets and fries and then took them back to the lab for analysis and eventually for comparison. I don't think there is any secret there.

Why did you describe it as "secret", then?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Why did you describe it as "secret", then?

It was suppressed or kept secret through deception and disclaimers by McDonalds until these researchers did their research and exposed the fraud and deception. I applaud their efforts.

Are you keeping an eye on me because you think I own Wendy's? Don't worry, I don't. And I stopped eating fast food garbage a long time ago but too many people and that includes children still do. When you start to routinely see 9 year old patients who weigh 160 pounds (who grow into 350+ 17 year olds ) you know there is a problem out there.

 

[CFLarsen]

It was suppressed or kept secret through deception and disclaimers by McDonalds until these researchers did their research and exposed the fraud and deception. I applaud their efforts.

But that can be said for any information found by any researchers. Why you have chosen this new crusade is a bit of a mystery.

Are you keeping an eye on me because you think I own Wendy's? Don't worry, I don't.

No, I am keeping an eye on you because you are a habitual liar, a fraud and someone determined to undermine the work of skeptics.

And I stopped eating fast food garbage a long time ago but too many people and that includes children still do. When you start to routinely see 9 year old patients who weigh 160 pounds (who grow into 350+ 17 year olds ) you know there is a problem out there.

Please don't try to paint me as someone who applauds the widespread consumption of fastfood. It won't work. Try something novel instead: Be honest.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I appreciate the fact that nothing will suffice to quench your malicious prosecution of any motive I have for starting this thread but for other readers, the press reports on this landmark Danish study will be out in the NEJM

"The Danish researchers tested products from the chains' outlets in dozens of countries in 2004 and 2005, analyzing McDonald's chicken nuggets, KFC hot wings, and the two chains' french fries. The findings are reported in today's New England Journal of Medicine.” Detroit Free Press

For a good account of the variations in oils used go to:

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/13/hscout532132.html



And for a medical review of the problem see:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/3093

 

[hgc]

...
I am interested in finding out the reason for this thread. Given Steve Grenard's long and tortured record of mischief, everything he posts comes automatically under suspicion.

Steve is a person who should be challenged at all times. Challenged, and watched.
...

Classic ad hominem. You've spun many cycles in this thread alone because Grenard is a suspicious character. You're staring to look pretty suspicious yourself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Classic ad hominem. You've spun many cycles in this thread alone because Grenard is a suspicious character. You're staring to look pretty suspicious yourself.

It's not an ad hominem. I've provided ample evidence that Steve is a highly suspicious character.

I'm watching Steve closely, and he knows it. He may be fooling you, but not me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

This is a good thread to bump after 3 or 4 years.

 

[brodski]

This is a good thread to bump after 3 or 4 years.

the OP was posted yesterday, you have totally lost me here.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Can I suggest SG asks the mods to replace the title "Graduate Poster" with " Suspicious character" ?

This will save CFL the need to remind us of past misdeeds in each and every thread SG starts.

I'm happy for Claus to maintain his Stevewatch policy, but I tire of hearing about it so often. Yes , SG has opinions and presumably any number of secret (oops), agendas, but so do we all.
(I'm intent on overthrowing the domination of JREF by cat lovers myself.)