tube fanatic Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Some things are presented here which I wasn't aware of. Interesting that McDonalds is following the same line of "reasoning" as Monsanto that it's fine for Americans to be poisoned, but not fine for the citizens of other countries. I'd love to see the non-US based bank accounts of those who make the laws here......... Maynard http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/11/mcdonalds-fries-ingredients.aspx?e_cid=20150211Z1_DNL_NB_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150211Z1_DNL_NB&et_cid=DM67181&et_rid=838502390 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 11, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 11, 2015 Some things are presented here which I wasn't aware of. Interesting that McDonalds is following the same line of "reasoning" as Monsanto that it's fine for Americans to be poisoned, but not fine for the citizens of other countries. I'd love to see the non-US based bank accounts of those who make the laws here......... Maynard http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/11/mcdonalds-fries-ingredients.aspx?e_cid=20150211Z1_DNL_NB_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150211Z1_DNL_NB&et_cid=DM67181&et_rid=838502390 I am afraid to read that article, just like I am afraid to watch "Fast Food Wars" based on what I have heard it uncovered. Subway being made out of yoga mat material. I thought no way, that has got to be a hoax. My quick go to source for an instant BS test is SNOPES. Comes back true. I heard that someone had asked Subway what their bread was made out of, got the stall, sent it to a lab on their own, yoga mat. Several years ago I was reading the the label on a loaf of bread, and I am going down the list, whole wheat flower . . . and then saw "sawdust." I couldn't believe it, had to check it three times. Not particlized cellulose or some other watered down version, just "sawdust." I was a fast food fiend for years and years, I just almost completely avoid it now, (well, I am assuming that Franklin BBQ is not considered fast food) but you have to be just as careful with processed foods at the grocery story. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I don't eat at MickeyD and this should in NO way be considered in their defense. But 20 years ago or so their French fries were fried in lard. "For some reason, American French fries also contain beef flavor..." is due to the fact that the McDonald's brand was largely built by the excellence of their French fries "back in the day." It was the food police that made them change and that beef flavor is an attempt to replace a natural flavor with an agent. If you've been programmed to consider lard a deadly poison you'll ignore this whole post, but into the 1960s it was a staple in home cooking and had been for centuries. My mother didn't fry something daily, but we had fried chicken, chicken fried steak, or fried fish reasonably often. Cakes were made with lard shortening. All in all I am reasonably certain I never consumed more than a tablespoon a week and I find it rather unlikely that in those amounts it was deleterious in any way. Like any food, I suspect it wouldn't be a good thing to eat lard, or any greasy food, multiple times per day. So don't. I won't say the food police aren't really trying to help people, but I believe some efforts over the years have been misguided and overhyped and, in many cases, have led to the use of stuff even worse than the natural, original ingredients. I still keep lard around to extend pan drippings in the making of southern milk gravy and a few other things. Blast it if you will...but it IS organic by definition. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 11, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 11, 2015 I know this will irritate many people, but this discussion of the food is exactly why people can't do anything about "Global Warming" - they can't even get clean food to eat. Now, before everyone yells that "people have a choice" and all that other fluff about choice being the only concept that matters, let me say this, the choice to put sawdust in bread, or pink slime in meat, and think you are doing the world a service, is the only choice we need to be focused on. Choice begins at the source. If the source is philosophically polluted and criminal, the downstream events don't really matter. You can't push on a string. I pretty much agree with that, but believe it can go from both sides. We had to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in high school. That book, at the time it came out, apparently stood the country on its ear. It may have even contributed to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration, I can't remember exactly. So how do you motivate the fast food industry, the tobacco industry, the meat packing industry to do the "right thing." They will not, absolutely will not, ever do the right thing when they learn of a problem, or at least when they do the right thing they don't have the right PR people to say they did the right thing. Example after example after example shows that they were aware of the problem (or a condition which they didn't perceive to be a problem, for example trying to make cigs more addictive), but made a conscious BUSINESS decision to keep doing what they were doing. Subway, from what I heard, finally had to acknowledge that it was using this material in their bread because it was a preservative that made the bread the way customers wanted it, and the material wan't toxic. Really? It usually takes a whistle blower, or a consumer advocacy group or a lawsuit or sometimes even an agency that regulates/inspects them to push/pull them along. It seems like the only thing that keeps them on their toes is the threat of fines, being shut down or being sued. Just never, ever trust the source. It is hard to know, but you can buy locally grown from farmers markets (of course you never know what they do, but after twenty years I can even figure out what is an organically grown tomato or not), growing it yourself, etc. We have the luxury of Whole Foods being based in Austin, they are all about the source, where it is from, what the impact is, who picks it, etc. They go to the source of the coffee, or the bananas, the fish, and inspect them themselves. You pay a premium, but they are just packed, all the time. I think it is double, by the time you grab all of the stuff you don't really need and isn't available at HEB. HEB, our major grocer, I think pretty much all over Texas now (there are some Randal's, Albertson's/Safeways still around) has taken notice. They thought my having a store every mile or so in Austin would get people to shop there out of convenience (and it is a great store, reminds me of Ralphs or Fry's in CA), but people will drive the extra 15 minutes to get Whole Foods, at a way higher cost. Somehow Whole Foods has an image that you can trust them. For the last two years HEB is doing commercials about the growers, fishermen, wine producers, etc. that supply them with food. They are trying to show that they are selective and put a human side to who they buy from, because they have seen what Whole Foods has done. But how long did it take for people to realize that when purchasing food you may want to consider something else besides price. It used to only be "those" people did that and they had to go to the health food store to get that stuff. Now I am going to go eat lunch, checking every carefully that there isn't a finger or a mouse in my salad. T T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 11, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 11, 2015 I don't eat at MickeyD and this should in NO way be considered in their defense. But 20 years ago or so their French fries were fried in lard. "For some reason, American French fries also contain beef flavor..." is due to the fact that the McDonald's brand was largely built by the excellence of their French fries "back in the day." It was the food police that made them change and that beef flavor is an attempt to replace a natural flavor with an agent. If you've been programmed to consider lard a deadly poison you'll ignore this whole post, but into the 1960s it was a staple in home cooking and had been for centuries. My mother didn't fry something daily, but we had fried chicken, chicken fried steak, or fried fish reasonably often. Cakes were made with lard shortening. All in all I am reasonably certain I never consumed more than a tablespoon a week and I find it rather unlikely that in those amounts it was deleterious in any way. Like any food, I suspect it wouldn't be a good thing to eat lard, or any greasy food, multiple times per day. So don't. I won't say the food police aren't really trying to help people, but I believe some efforts over the years have been misguided and overhyped and, in many cases, have led to the use of stuff even worse than the natural, original ingredients. I still keep lard around to extend pan drippings in the making of southern milk gravy and a few other things. Blast it if you will...but it IS organic by definition. Dave Best frys, bar none. They still taste great, I knew they went from tallow to some kind of vegetable oil, it wold make since they would have to use beef flavoring now because they are not using the beef fat any longer. The best mexican food or Tex-Mex cooks, whether it is at someone's home or eating out, you look in their kitchen and you will nearly always find a block of lard from Mexico. They sell it in every store here, both organic lard, and regular, whatever you want. I figure if I hit McD's twice a year for fries it isn't going to matter. T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Umm, that is a terribly specious article. It is full of unsubstantiated claims and suppositon, ie ("two of the worst cooking oils you can use; both of which are also in all likelihood the genetically engineered varieties.") This is known as "guessing." The article implies American McFries are unhealthy compared to the British McFries, then further down in the article they state the British McFries are unhealthy as well! Meanwhile, French fries sold in the UK consist of potatoes cooked in non-hydrogenated sunflower or rapeseed oil, and nothing else. Salt is added after cooking. Realize that both of these oils aren't great as they are both high omega 6 oils that become oxidized to cyclic aldehydes and the rapeseed is GMO. I'm not defending McDonalds or their food, I'm just saying that article is incredibly biased with no supporting evidence for their generalizations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Now, before everyone yells that "people have a choice" and all that other fluff about choice being the only concept that matters, let me say this, the choice to put sawdust in bread, or pink slime in meat, and think you are doing the world a service, is the only choice we need to be focused on. Choice begins at the source. If the source is philosophically polluted and criminal, the downstream events don't really matter. You can't push on a string. Apparently, this is what the market demands. $1.00 double cheeseburgers can only be made from the cheapest of ingredients. If you have the time and will to cook at home, you don't have to live that way. You do, indeed, have a choice. You are not a victim or helpless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Why do I need a magnifying glass to read the contents labels? I didn't think there was a font that small. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Now, before everyone yells that "people have a choice" and all that other fluff about choice being the only concept that matters, let me say this, the choice to put sawdust in bread, or pink slime in meat, and think you are doing the world a service, is the only choice we need to be focused on. Choice begins at the source. If the source is philosophically polluted and criminal, the downstream events don't really matter. You can't push on a string. Apparently, this is what the market demands. $1.00 double cheeseburgers can only be made from the cheapest of ingredients. If you have the time and will to cook at home, you don't have to live that way. You do, indeed, have a choice. You are not a victim or helpless. Right. Perfect recitation of the standard "choice" argument. We've been hearing it forever in various forms. it masquerades as the perfect answer to every evil, except for getting rid of the evil. The faulty assumption is makes is that perfect information exists, and perfectly rational decisions will be result. Both are untrue. No one expects that their McBurger contains poison, and that before eating it they need to perform a forensic exam on it. No one expects that because they paid a few bucks less for a Chevy than a Cadillac, that it contains a faulty ignition switch that was designed to save a $1 and will kill them. But when all this comes out, the standard answer is "you had a choice and you should have known that a $1 burger was poison." No one ever challenges the source, where the real informed choice was actually made. Yoga Mat did not "accidentally" get into Subway bread, it was put there quite purposely - by choice. The choice was well informed because it was made by food chemists. And the choice they made consciously and deliberately was to risk the customer's health in exchange for an extra a penny. That's a philosophical crime. And it is allowed everywhere, all the time, and then covered over with the blame placed on the consumer for not making the choice to eat at home. This is exactly why none of these problems, like global warming, or poison food will ever be fixed. We have permanently installed all the wrong incentives in all the wrong places. I said you have a choice, and you do. Here you are, telling us the parade of horribles. Yet, when told you have a choice, you act as if your choice has been robbed of you by your own ignorance. I know you are speaking of society at large and its ignorance, but you have to conclude at some point, somewhere in the continuum, that reward go to people in the know. This information is everywhere and easily obtained. Look at all of us on here acknowledging all this bad stuff. Yet, we still claim society is being fooled? I don't think so. I think society doesn't care. Everyone knows fast food sucks for you. They might not know certain details, but so what? It's just like smoking cigarettes. They say there's 7,000 chemicals in them, or whatever. The fact is, you don't need to know all 7,000 of these chemicals to be adequately informed to stay away from them. Same goes for food. Or would you claim that obesity is the result of mass ignorance, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Mass something that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 So how do you motivate the fast food industry, the tobacco industry, the meat packing industry to do the "right thing." You can't. The quest for profit, by definition, is the quest for the wrong outcome. You can't change that and retain it as the goal. The right thing and the profitable thing are incompatible ideas. Oh sure, there are some anecdotes available, but globally, they are incompatible. Destruction is assured. Consumerism is a new idea tracing barely back to the 1930s when Henry Ford realized he needed his workers to become customers. So, it's a very recent concept. It's beginning to crack and break already under the strain of extreme profit making. I have not looked into it statistically, but I am going to guess that "trust" in consumer brands of all kinds is going downward. And it will spiral down to some breaking point at which time something to regain trust will have to be implemented. A new organizing model will have to arise to replace the existing untrustworthy model. I don't see how this current model can continue for many more generations. The barrels of all these loaded guns are being slowly bent backwards into the faces of their creators. Disagree. The method of change is secure a mutual profit. When an exchange occurs, the seller and buyer are both better-off as the result. So goes the theory, although I realize anecdotal cases vary. The idea works better from an aggregate view. Destruction is not assured. It's the other way around. Just like cattle, we don't destroy the entire herd. We keep them around and help them to live and reproduce in order that we can go back to the trough again and again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Mass something that's for sure. "Mass." Haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Who among us goes out and says such stupid things as, "I want to buy the highest profit car I can find!" Or, "I want the burger with the lowest priced ingredients possible!" No one. So, look at how large that disconnect is between production and consumption. It's a trick, a game, a contest to see how deeply screwed you can be without ever finding out. Now, just how long do you think that game is going to last before it gets figured out? The sham can not last. But, it's only about 75 years old or so, and that's very new. Who today believes any ad you see on TV? This has been going on since before written history. It's certainly not new, and the game will last forever. That's what it's all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I can't really remember the last fast food I ate. So the choice argument has staying power. At the same time the reason I make the choice is because of how sick the industry has become, as revealed here and elsewhere. Mark's point about Europe makes complete sense. People there live a little more simply than we do. They are not so much into the consumption and waste we are. It is a different place with different priorities. For one thing they don't have the economic opportunity as easily as we do. They have lived in the same relatively small area compared to us for much longer and have learned not crap in their kitchen. At least they want to protect the quality of the food in that kitchen, it is much more important to them. In contrast for the extreme American view, my sister in law would rather be able to take a pill providing all her nutritional needs and has no concept of enjoying breaking bread with others and enjoying the flavors for their own sake. It is just fuel to her. She can make anything bland, amazing to me but true. Well I could go on and on about her but in closing I will say that I don't eat the fast food in Europe when I am there either. It's one of those "life is too short" sayings. Life is too short to drink bad beer (booze, wine etc). Life is too short to eat fast food as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) McD's sucks....but if it tasted and was like in the 70s I'd go get a big Mac right now. There...I said it...that's right...I'd go right now if it would be exactly the same. These places all suck so bad now I don't why anyone goes anyway. Poor food, terrible service, dirty...... I had an old family friend make me lunch a while back. I told him those are the best fried taters I've had in many years, what's the secret? He said there's no secret, just slice em up and throw em in the lard. They were really good, he's 84 and in really good health. Information is good, nanny state bad....worse for your health than Monsanto. The nanny state kills more people in my community than any fast food ever could. Edited February 12, 2015 by Fish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Now, before everyone yells that "people have a choice" and all that other fluff about choice being the only concept that matters, let me say this, the choice to put sawdust in bread, or pink slime in meat, and think you are doing the world a service, is the only choice we need to be focused on. Choice begins at the source. If the source is philosophically polluted and criminal, the downstream events don't really matter. You can't push on a string. Apparently, this is what the market demands. $1.00 double cheeseburgers can only be made from the cheapest of ingredients. If you have the time and will to cook at home, you don't have to live that way. You do, indeed, have a choice. You are not a victim or helpless. Right. Perfect recitation of the standard "choice" argument. We've been hearing it forever in various forms. it masquerades as the perfect answer to every evil, except for getting rid of the evil. The faulty assumption is makes is that perfect information exists, and perfectly rational decisions will be result. Both are untrue. No one expects that their McBurger contains poison, and that before eating it they need to perform a forensic exam on it. No one expects that because they paid a few bucks less for a Chevy than a Cadillac, that it contains a faulty ignition switch that was designed to save a $1 and will kill them. But when all this comes out, the standard answer is "you had a choice and you should have known that a $1 burger was poison." No one ever challenges the source, where the real informed choice was actually made. Yoga Mat did not "accidentally" get into Subway bread, it was put there quite purposely - by choice. The choice was well informed because it was made by food chemists. And the choice they made consciously and deliberately was to risk the customer's health in exchange for an extra a penny. That's a philosophical crime. And it is allowed everywhere, all the time, and then covered over with the blame placed on the consumer for not making the choice to eat at home. This is exactly why none of these problems, like global warming, or poison food will ever be fixed. We have permanently installed all the wrong incentives in all the wrong places. I said you have a choice, and you do. Here you are, telling us the parade of horribles. Yet, when told you have a choice, you act as if your choice has been robbed of you by your own ignorance. I know you are speaking of society at large and its ignorance, but you have to conclude at some point, somewhere in the continuum, that reward go to people in the know. This information is everywhere and easily obtained. Look at all of us on here acknowledging all this bad stuff. Yet, we still claim society is being fooled? I don't think so. I think society doesn't care. Everyone knows fast food sucks for you. They might not know certain details, but so what? It's just like smoking cigarettes. They say there's 7,000 chemicals in them, or whatever. The fact is, you don't need to know all 7,000 of these chemicals to be adequately informed to stay away from them. Same goes for food. Or would you claim that obesity is the result of mass ignorance, too? Why do you encourage a system where deception is the keystone of of life? You say everyone knows fast food is bad for you, but that isn't true. The providers tell you constantly that it is good. If not, that's deception. The providers don't tell you there is Yoga Mat in the bread, this must be discovered by adversarial detectives. How far should the deception be allowed to go?My point is that the instruction to exercise choice is being directed at the party who hasn't got the information. Why not demand a better choice from the party with the information? This system can only devolve into worse deception. http://www.subway.com/Nutrition/Files/usProdIngredients.pdf The information is quite often there. Again, you seem to not want to acknowledge the elephant in the room - the public doesn't care. Just look at them. They know they are eating crap that is not natural. And if they don't know exactly what they are eating, they can look up and learn about things such as azodicarbonamide. This is no different than your point in the AGW thread about how you can see the slippery slope of regulating CO2 emissions too much. Who gets to drive what vehicles when? Where are the lines? Well, whaddayaknow? We have some lines. They are laid down by the FDA. If the FDA minimum standards aren't good enough for you, you can always find products which exceed those minimums. Just read. Perhaps Google things like "apple," "banana," "broccoli" and learn about things that aren't tainted so terribly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) I am arguing that such a system is immoral, and needs to be tossed into the rubbish bin of history. We must adopt a moral system, based on always seeking the good. We are getting ever closer to being on the same plane. The problem with what you describe is that it is Utopian. It is too inexact. It assumes there is some common understanding of what is "good" and "acceptable" and what is not. Some people are quite happy eating Yoga mats in their bread. They don't care. It tastes so good. You have laid down a concept, but the devil is in the detail once again. And so, 'round and 'round it goes. When you can tell us what regulations will be laid down in this new moral system, let us know. After all, you can't judge or enforce morality without regulations. Edited February 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Now, before everyone yells that "people have a choice" and all that other fluff about choice being the only concept that matters, let me say this, the choice to put sawdust in bread, or pink slime in meat, and think you are doing the world a service, is the only choice we need to be focused on. Choice begins at the source. If the source is philosophically polluted and criminal, the downstream events don't really matter. You can't push on a string. Apparently, this is what the market demands. $1.00 double cheeseburgers can only be made from the cheapest of ingredients. If you have the time and will to cook at home, you don't have to live that way. You do, indeed, have a choice. You are not a victim or helpless. Right. Perfect recitation of the standard "choice" argument. We've been hearing it forever in various forms. it masquerades as the perfect answer to every evil, except for getting rid of the evil. The faulty assumption is makes is that perfect information exists, and perfectly rational decisions will be result. Both are untrue.No one expects that their McBurger contains poison, and that before eating it they need to perform a forensic exam on it. No one expects that because they paid a few bucks less for a Chevy than a Cadillac, that it contains a faulty ignition switch that was designed to save a $1 and will kill them. But when all this comes out, the standard answer is "you had a choice and you should have known that a $1 burger was poison." No one ever challenges the source, where the real informed choice was actually made. Yoga Mat did not "accidentally" get into Subway bread, it was put there quite purposely - by choice. The choice was well informed because it was made by food chemists. And the choice they made consciously and deliberately was to risk the customer's health in exchange for an extra a penny. That's a philosophical crime. And it is allowed everywhere, all the time, and then covered over with the blame placed on the consumer for not making the choice to eat at home. This is exactly why none of these problems, like global warming, or poison food will ever be fixed. We have permanently installed all the wrong incentives in all the wrong places. I said you have a choice, and you do. Here you are, telling us the parade of horribles. Yet, when told you have a choice, you act as if your choice has been robbed of you by your own ignorance.I know you are speaking of society at large and its ignorance, but you have to conclude at some point, somewhere in the continuum, that reward go to people in the know. This information is everywhere and easily obtained. Look at all of us on here acknowledging all this bad stuff. Yet, we still claim society is being fooled? I don't think so. I think society doesn't care. Everyone knows fast food sucks for you. They might not know certain details, but so what? It's just like smoking cigarettes. They say there's 7,000 chemicals in them, or whatever. The fact is, you don't need to know all 7,000 of these chemicals to be adequately informed to stay away from them. Same goes for food. Or would you claim that obesity is the result of mass ignorance, too? Why do you encourage a system where deception is the keystone of of life? You say everyone knows fast food is bad for you, but that isn't true. The providers tell you constantly that it is good. If not, that's deception. The providers don't tell you there is Yoga Mat in the bread, this must be discovered by adversarial detectives. How far should the deception be allowed to go?My point is that the instruction to exercise choice is being directed at the party who hasn't got the information. Why not demand a better choice from the party with the information? This system can only devolve into worse deception. We must adopt a moral system, based on always seeking the good. with that in mind , we could advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 They don't care. It tastes so good MMMMmmmmm yoga mat..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 12, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 12, 2015 So in Utopia the food is free, but we all have to eat together as I recall, in food halls. Hmmmmm? Do they serve cheese burgers? It might work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.