Super-size me

what are you babbling about?

I have no problem with people being informed about what they eat, mcdonalds is forced to post nutrition info of everything they serve, and its readily available to everyone.

Instead of letting people decide how they want to live their life, you'd rather tell them how to live their life because you feel that your way is superior. Sorry, but i find that Nazi-ish(i dont know if you were joking or not, but now there is no confusion on that)...Let people live their own life and decide what they eat. Provide all the relevant information on whats healthy or whats not. After that, it needs to be up to the people to decide what to eat.

 

now, let me ask you an honest question...do you think you're funny? Do you have no argument that you have to babble on about nothing? i guess so

 

what is mcdonalds doing that is misleading?

 

do u know about the McLibel trial Megara?http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html

 

interesting, i had never read/heard that.

this is the most important part of the case, from the judges brief..

"


My conclusions and findings in this part of the case are accordingly as follows.

At the material time of publication of the leaflet between September 1987, and September 1990, McDonald's food was high in fat (including saturated fat) and salt (sodium) and animal products and it has continued to be so. It was low in fibre at the material time of publication of the leaflet, but it has not been proved to be so now. It has not been shown that McDonald's food generally is high in sugar, although some individual times are. It has not been shown that McDonald's food is low in vitamins or minerals.

It is not true to say that eating McDonald's food albeit more than just occasionally, might well make your diet high in fat, animal products and salt (sodium), let alone sugar, or low in fibre, let alone vitamins and minerals. Such a statement is not justified. It is not true in substance and in fact because it is only true (so far as fat, animal products, salt and fibre are concerned) in relation to a small proportion of people who eat McDonald's food several times a week. The leaflet does not say that if you eat McDonald's food several time a week it might well make your diet high in fat, animal products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre. It leads the reader to believe that this is to be expected from anything more than just the occasional McDonald's meal.

It follows that it cannot be right to say that eating McDonald's food will bring the very real risk that you will suffer cancer of the breast or bowel or heart disease as a result of making your diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, even if such a diet carries such a risk.

Nevertheless I have gone on to consider whether it has been proved that a diet high in fat (including saturated fat), animal products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre leads to a very real, that is serious or substantial, risk of heart disease or cancer of the breast or cancer of the bowel.

In my judgment a diet high in fat (including saturated fat) and animal products, and low in fibre, sustained over very many years, probably does lead to a very real risk of heart disease in due course.

This conclusion does not help the Defendants to justify the meaning and message of this part of the leaflet because of my finding that it is not true to say that eating McDonald's food more than just occasionally might well make your diet high in fat and animal products and low in fibre. It does mean, in my judgment, that the small proportion of McDonald's customers who eat McDonald's food several times a week will take the very real risk of heart disease if they continue to do so throughout their lives, encouraged by the Plaintiffs' advertising.

It has not been proved, on balance of probabilities, that a diet high in fat, including saturated fat, and animal products, and low in fibre, even if sustained over very many years, leads to a very real risk of cancer of the breast in due course, although it is possible that it increases the risk to some extent.

It has not been proved, on balance of probabilities, that a diet high in fat, including saturated fat, and animal products, and low in fibre, even if sustained over very many years, leads to a very real risk of cancer of the bowel in due course, although it is strongly possible that it increases the risk to some extent.

It follows that McDonald's food is not very unhealthy as stated in the leaflet.

However, I do find that various of the First and Second Plaintiffs' advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food, high in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium, and at one time low in fibre, did not match. Save in this last respect, the defamatory meaning and message of the leaflet is not justified. "

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/summary.html#p16

I'm not defending the companies business practices, just the right of the people to eat there. I'm all for other countries enforcing union laws and other laws against them.

As the judge said, there was nothing to prove that mcdonalds food was unhealthy. It did however, say that mcdonalds puts a *POSITIVE* nutritional spin on their food which was misleading.

Now lets remember that this case was brought in 1990. So they were found misleading 14 years ago.

Anyone have any current misleadings of mcdonalds?

thanks for the read though, was really interesting

 

sure, when you claim they ARE misleading, you claim something that is a present and progressive thing. Had you said, they misleaded, it would be another thing.

So i'll ask again....what has been found misleading lately?

You can say they are whatever, but i will ask for your source if you say they are still misleading.

so to clarify things...which are you implying. They mislead people, or they ARE misleading people? which one? or both?

 

have any current examples?

 

you didnt say mcdonalds wasnt misleading? Look, if all you're going to do is avoid everything i ask, and continue with your inane little story, i'm not going to continue to waste my time responding to you.

 

where exactly did they claim that their food provided 'optiminal nutrition?"

I'd like to see that, so i could laugh at mcdonalds if its true. I somehow doubt, they did claim that though.

 

i see you two are devoid of any original thought. By all means, continue throwing out slander without any proof....its actually quite effective, sadly.

 

so how exactly were we causing the hunger in places like china and india? The fact is, many of these countries are filled with horrible leaders who are filled with only self interest(well i guess all countries are alike in that respect)....so they sell the stuff. Thats not americas, or germanys, or canada's fault.

 

please tell me exactly, what great economic or militaristic threat are we using to coerce india and china into selling us grain(or anything)...?

I never said they attribute to world starvation..they were an example of countries that have multitudes of people starving, and continue to export a lot of food to other parts of the world.

i dont know what you mean with your reference to africa or how it relates....

i dont know how many people die in america...however, if you'd like to compare the US to some third world nation qnd see which country is doing a better job taking care of its citizens, i'd be all for it.

Which countries exactly, are we coercing through either economic threats or military threats into selling us grain?

 

now forgive me, but what question exactly did you ask?

Now not to sound like a jackass, sinec i find it annoying when people nitpick over grammar and syntax on the internet. But we seem to have a real problem communicating. We use question marks to signal a question and normally we invert the verb and the subject. For Example. "You Are a Vegan" is a sentence of fact. "Are you a Vegan?" is a question.

Now if you did ask a question, forgive me, but i sure couldnt spot it.

But i see you did ignore my questions about what countries we were supposedly coercing and causing to starve.

Now, if we cant work out this communication problem, i dont think we can continue to talk.

 

who exactly is saying the emat industry is causing people in africa to starve? Can you reference these people please?

Nations that are exporting their food instead of feeding their people are causing them to starve. Where you CAN blame developed nations like the US is when we dump our food surpluses on poor nations and put out the local business. Thats where we are to blame mostly.

But i'm still trying to find out which countries we are forcing to sell us grain under economic and military coercion.

 

Don't Feed the Trolls

http://vegetarians.netfirms.com/cgi-bin//YaBB.pl?board=general_bd;action=display;num=1086714375

 

lol, so i am supposed to just take your word for it that all the starving africans blame the meat industry on them starving? Ok, will do.

oh well, i've noticed a pattern with you and didgeridoodoo, i ask for facts and i get BS...oh well, guess i wont respond unless either of you two start posting facts instead of opinions or undocumented claims.

 

anything that isnt along the lines of peta, alf, greenpeace etc.


Would you accept information if i posted it from the mcdonalds website? didnt think so

 

huh? i sent you a message calling you a dumbass? what the hell are you talking about?


What exactly have i said that contradicts myself?

I'm not comparing anything anyone said to what mcdonalds puts on their webpage. I said, i wont accept peta shit, just like you wouldnt accept mcdonalds "facts.". Learn to read, it makes conversing easier.

I'd like to know just who says the meat industry is causing them to be poor, i dont trust some dude on the internet, who is obviously a vege/vegan against meat industry to tell me the truth about all these accounts he's had in third world africa.