Lawyers going after fast food...
 

Okay, so I'm watching the news the other day. Turns out, a group of lawyers are starting to claim that fast food is causing health problems in the same way that cigarette manufacturers cause health problems.

I really am speechless. How insane can they get, anyway? Fast food, in and of itself, does no real harm. French fries made at McDonald's are no more or less healthy than ones you make at home. Same for burgers (which aren't unhealthy to begin with). Same for everything! This is beyond stupid . . .

To compare fast food to cigarette manufacturing, and to claim that they are equally adictive, is insulting to any intelligent being and is quite laughable. Nicotine is a truly addicting drug. Fast food, no, that's no addiction, at least not a true addiction. Smokers, they are the ones getting hurt, the ones truly addicted. Fat people, no, apples and oranges. There is no true addiction there. They just gotta stop being lazy and exercise, and demonstrate some self-control.

There is virtually no difference between fast food and home-cooked food. If you go after McDonald's, don't you have to go after every food manufacturer on the planet? There is no difference after all . . . Cigarettes are something that have no positive use and are terribly addicting by chemical nature. Fast food supplies us with something we need (food and drink), and it's not their fault if you overeat. Guess what? Drinking too much milk can kill you too. Why not just outlaw everything and sue everyone?

This is so stupid. I really want to know something now. How does this kind of stupidity happen? Seriously.

This has been happening for years. Where have you been?

There's such thing as a psychological addiction, and I'm sure some people are addicted to food such as this, but people can become addicted (in a completely psychological sense) to completely anything. It's ludicrous people are suing for this, though. It really makes no sense.

And all smokers have to do is stop being retards and quit smoking. Addiction is addiction. Fat people have just as hard a time trying to not eat so much shit as smokers do trying to quit.

That's about a bold face lie if I've ever heard one. If I eat at McDonalds for 30 days straight (for all 3 meals) there's a pretty good chance my heart will stop or I'll have some sort of massive heart attack. The odds of the same happening if I eat at home on a regular basis are much much further from that (of course you have to give and take a little for different diets, but the difference is still astronomical).

You're not making any sense here at all. Sure, McDonalds provides us with a cheap and easy solution for food rather than going to the grocery store and just making some shit yourself (hell, even heat-n-eat would be better than McDonalds in most cases, except Banquet. That shit is the worst garbage on earth), but it's certainly nothing positive or neccessary.

Tails, smoking is an actual physiological addiction. It's a shitload harder to quit than fastfood, or any other non-physiologically addicting substance. Hell, I've heard it being compared to opiate withdrawal in some cases.

Keep talking, buttermound.

How is it that you take such a juvenile stance on everything? Like here, you have a gimme of a "lol selfish lawyers" stance but somehow you dumb it down.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that McDonalds is specifically and uniquely the cause of obesity, sir.

Do you guys remember that episode of Fresh Prince when Uncle Phil had a heart attack because he kept eating fast food? That right there is proof that fast food is addictive and deadly. My mom died of secondhand cholesterol, it was tragic and since then I only eat caterpillars and wheat.

Ok, first of all, yes, people don't exercise enough and don't have a lot of self-restraint, discipline, or whatever else, and some people pig out on fast food so much that they end up like pigs, no surprise. And I do think that suing these fast-food companies is pretty stupid, just like the guy who bought coffee and McDonald's, spilled it (by his own actions) into his lap or something and gets burmed, so he sues McDonalds, or at least there was some story like that. Anyway, people suing other people or business from their own stupidity is pretty stupid. It's not like medical malpractice or something. What really bugs me though is what you say about the nutritional value of fast food.

Are you stupid or something, or have you only eaten fast food your entire life? Just do a little bit of research and you'll find out how "healthy" fast food is. Anyone with a basic education knows fast food is not healthy for you, and they don't have to be those rocket scientists that are doing all these studies just to prove to you that it's not healthy, especially when compared to a decent home-cooked meal. But, I guess you never learned this, so here is some information excerpts on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_foodhttp://www.ricancercouncil.org/health/fastfood.php - Also shows nutritional values of popular fast food choices in relations to recommended daily values.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet....astfood.tv.ap/http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2004/nhlbi-30.htmHere are some more links if that wasn't enough reading material for you:
http://www.fa-ir.org/ai/fastfood_hidden.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3210750.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310064547.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003...sity8mar03.htm

When I say no difference, I mean if you cook the same product. A cheeseburger is a cheeseburger. Yeah, I can make it healthier by cooking on a George Foreman Grill (love those things, so handy), but at the end of the day, there is no true difference.

Sure, if you eat tons of french fries, you're gonna probably get fat. Well, if you use a Fry Daddy to cook french fries at home, same thing'll happen over the same period of time, assuming the same rate of intake.

Someone also mentioned the important fact that nicotine is a psysical addiction, and that's the primary difference. As for the rest, all I know is that I eat home-cooked about three times a week, out about twice a week, and fast food about twice a week, and I'm not overweight in the least. Perhaps it's because I exercise? Very key thing, there. Whatever you take in, you gotta burn it off. The more you eat, the more you have to exercise. Beyond a certain point, you can't exercise enough, so you need restraint. Craving so much food is purely psychological, and is not the fault of the manufacturers of the food (unlike in the case of cigarettes, where the manufacturer is producing something that is lethal and physically addictive).

Still, at the end of the day, a cheeseburger is a cheeseburger. This just disgusts me that the lawyers are trying to compare fast food with cigarettes. It's beyond ludicrous.

So a McDonald's salad is the same as a salad of your own concoction?

You are so fat it hurts.

Well, there are two points here, aren't there? For one, you are not fourty years old and you probably should not have the metabolism of one. For another, you eat out entirely too often, chubbs. Also for those of you keeping score at home, I don't think you can walk off the cholesterol or jazzercise away the 250% RDA of sodium you take in every day. What I'm trying to say is that it is very possible to be within a target weight while having deplorable nutrition.

Leave it to someone as dumb as you to call an athletic woman who's 5'11" and about 150 lbs. fat. You're exactly what's wrong with society today. So because I'm not anorexic, I must be fat? You're beyond ignorant. Why don't you go crawl back under the rock from whence you came?

I know I should just ignore you, but you know what, I don't take crap from anyone, especially not retarded juveniles online. So go fuck yourself.

You can call whatever you want, you'll still be wrong. Who cares if they're put under a heater to be kept warm? Heck, I've nuke a leftover burger before at home, no harm. The only thing I have is my personal experience. I listed my average diet and I exercise, and I'm probably in better shape than most others on this web site.

Meanwhile you think a McDonalds salad is equivilant to a salad that I would make. You think exercise is a food version of Hail Marys. You think that having a country whose majority of its citizens are obese, including very young children, is no big deal.

It doesn't matter what your stats are, made up or not, you have a very obese soul.

Wait, are you telling me that those options for chili and side salads are loaded with fat somehow, too?

Fuck. No WONDER the weight won't come off.

You know what, I've really had it with you. I never said it's no big deal, and I will not tolerate any further bullshit and lying from you. I know it's a big deal. What I'm saying is that fast food restaurants are not to blame for the problem! So stop lying about what I say and get a clue.

What kind of dumb bullshit is that? I'm guessing you toss insults so freely because you never have anything intelligent to say.

No, I get pissed off because of her baselss insults and complete ignorance. I made no generalizations; that statement was not meant as a dis to anyone here. I made that statement because I know it to be true, because I know myself. I push myself to the limit. I have to. I'm a woman in a predominantly male line of work, and I have to be able to do my absolute best, so I need to be in the best shape possible, period. I have to push myself harder than most in order to prove myself, and that's exactly what I do.

Like I keep saying, a cheeseburger is a cheeseburger. Besides, you miss the entire point. These lawyers are trying to claim that fast food is a real addiction exactly like nicotine addition, and scientific fact says that is simply not true. People only think they're addicted to fast food, they are addicted to nicotine. Thus, the point is that fast food restaurants have absolutely no blame in any of this!

I don't even know why I bother with this web site. I've met a grand total of three people on here whom I consider to be intelligent. The rest of you just waste my time. Some day, you'll be in a position where you have to take responsibility for your own place in life, just like I did, and from the looks of it, most of you won't be ready for it. I pity you. You can't blame others forever!

A cheeseburger is not a cheeseburger. That's what everyone is trying to get across. I don't stuff shitloads of preservatives in my burger, and I sure as hell hope you don't.

Anyone with two braincells to rub together will make the 'cigarette addiction : Big Tobacco' connection. It's telling you don't.

All I'm saying is that there's one kind of girl who uses the "just because I'm not anorexic" gambit when her weight is questioned.

http://www.benjerry.co.uk/ouricecrea...nky_monkey.gif

EATING FAST FOOD TWICE A WEEK IS NOT THE BEST SHAPE POSSIBLE SUGAR TITS

That's the fourth time you said that without bringing any backup. Why do you keep pulling your arguments from your voloptuous ass?

Just like a cigarette is a cigarette, huh? There all exactly the same no matter what they are made of or how they are prepared. Yup, Yup.

Were you born this freaking stupid? I'm telling you that, for fact, the fast food has not had any negative effect on my health whatsoever. That's fact, you have no place to dispute that. Or are you saying you know more about me than I do?

You see, I'll let you in on my secret: balance. Fast food, in and of itself, is not a killer. Excess is the problem, and it is not the fault of fast food chains. Tabacco companies are marketing a product that is addictive and kills. The same can't be said about fast food restaurants, period. Unfortunately, lawyers are trying to do exactly that, and I say it's total BS that they would pull something like that.

Nor is it likely that you deliberately process your food in such a way that it will absorb extra fat during the cooking process. I'm led to believe that McDonalds and other fast-food chains do this, in order to increase the perceived bulk of the product, for a low cost.

Not to mention that they've lied about nutritional information & cooking ingredients in the past.

Oh, sorry, those fries you're eating actually have 3x the saturated fat and were cooked in beef fat. You say you're jewish and can't eat that stuff? Oops, guess you're going to hell!

Patty, you really should just leave GFF and join a board that is more, you know, conducive to your kind of....er....person. Because, you know, stupidity is kind of PICKED ON HERE.

A hamburger made at home compared to one made at McDonalds is so different, it's not even funny. I won't get into that, since everyone else is totally all over that point.

Let's talk about the addiction, though. Smokers have a physical addiction to smoking, but poor people have an economical addiction to fast food. Devo is absolutely right when she says that it saves money to eat fast food.

Some people are willing to compromise their health and their wallet for the money cheap-ass, fucked up food gives. Extreme measures, you know. When you have money, it's easier to be healthy.

In fact, I am tempted to say that it would be EASIER to quit smoking than it would to quit fast food. Fast food is not so much a physical addiction as it is a social problem. Smoking is something an individual can overcome - REGARDLESS of income. In fact, quitting the cancer sticks SAVES money. Its a wonder more people don't quit.

Shoving Big Macs in your face as incredible rates for $10 is a really hard habit to break if you only make so much a week and can't afford nice, healthy, fresh food. McDonalds also offers fast food. People these days (or the blue-collared ones I know of) have little time to eat on their breaks and after hours. The kids, the chores, the bills - best to just swing by the drive-thru and grab a cheap burger on the way home.

It's so convenient, why would a person slave over a stove for much, much longer to cook more expensive food? The industry knows what they're doing. They make it so easy. If you're stupid, you can fall into the trap easily.

It's about income. Not about addiction.

I am not in favor of rewarding stupidity, and encouraging the trend of raising people to be quivering nancies. Everyone practices some form of self abuse. None of them should be litigable.

I think it's safe to say that you don't know much about healthy eating, that's all I'm saying. The mere idea of a salad without ham cubes, bacobits and ranch dressing is anathema to you.

By your own conservative estimate, you eat fast food twice a week and your own home cooking is similar enough to fast food that you can't tell the difference. This is not what they had in mind when they said McDonalds is a 'sometimes' food.

I don't know how you cook, but I don't know if any meal I've ever made for myself has been more expensive than $5 a plate. Not to mention I probably save time by cooking my own food over going out to buy it pre-made. I spend, maybe, an hour every third day cooking a meal for myself that makes enough leftovers to eat for lunch and dinner for a few days. It takes me at least ten to fifteen minutes in walking time alone to get to food for each meal.

Fast food is cheaper to buy, RR. It usually costs me around $20-30 to cook a meal for my family. Sometimes more, depending on what we're having. We can eat at McDonalds's for under $20. I can see why money would factor into this, and convenience is also an issue. I only work part-time and sometimes it's still a struggle to get dinner on the table at a reasonable hour. A couple of times a month I break down and buy fast food just because I didn't have time to cook. I sympathize with mothers who have to work full-time. I honestly don't know how they would cook a meal every night.

Like Alice and Devo have already noted, when you're cooking for more than two people, it gets expensive. Especially if you're planning on doing something notably healthy (fresh veggies alone these days get expensive) or extravagant.

But last night, I made chili for 3 people for about $4.50 a plate. Thats because, you know, its mostly all canned shit where brands don't matter.

Wouldn't that be as bad as fast food though? I don't mean from the view of hygiene obviously but as in canned foods like that would have a fair amount of crap in them aswell y'know?

Canned corn, canned tomato paste, canned kidney beans....not that I see, no? Maybe a little extra shit, but nothing compared to a $4.50 menu meal at Burger King, right?

Sass, did you buy the highest quality tomato paste? or the grocery store brand? Get all generic brands.

The hell. It's tomato paste, dude. The price range doesn't VARY too much.

Unless you're implying generic is like, more healthy or some shit. In which case, I would be tempted to argue with you on the principle in general.

Dont jump to conclusions so fast. No, im implying buy the cheapest shit you can find for all of that if your going to compare it to fast food. You say a .50 cents here or there isnt a big deal, but it adds up fast.

Dude. What the fuck are you on about.

$4.50 a plate compares fucking fine with a $5 value meal. I don't NEED to go cheaper. Not to mention that it HARDLY MATTERS in the scheme of this thread.

Fact of the matter is that you can cook for cheaper than fast food, but it takes more effort.

I would simply like healthy alternatives on all fast food places' dollar menus.

Since I started on a diet 3 months ago, I studied all the major fast food nutritional charts. Yup, I pretty much couldn't eat anything on the McDonald's or Burger King menu. HOWEVER, Wendy's and Taco Bell had good options.

Wendy's had small chili (good protein, low cal, low fat), side salad with fat free dressing (veggies, low cal, no fat).
Taco Bell had "fresco style" versions of their chicken/steak soft tacos and hard tacos (good protein, low cal, low fat).

That's about all I can eat from fast food, though (and the taco bell one isn't as cheap as I'd like since the chicken and steak are 1.69 each as opposed to the "BIG BELL VALUE MENU" which has a 1/2 pound fatty burrito for a buck).

I just want to be able to eat at McDonald's or Burger King again for cheap (and healthy).

I honestly wasn't going to post since everyone's making good arguements against the original poster but this news post was too good to pass up. Addiction maybe?

Although on the matter of eating out VS eating at home. I admit my husband and I cant really afford to have nice home cooked meals. We tend to eat out or just have really cheap-prepackaged stuff because we can't afford any better. I guess working at Subway is a slightly better alternative to McDonalds or Burger King, but those subs are tricky as fries. That "6 grams of fat" deal only counts if you dont get cheese or any condiments (aside from sweet onion sauce or mustard)

You guys spend over $20 making a home-cooked meal for two people? WTF is that all about? There's three people living in my house, and altogether, a home-cooked meal can feed all three of us for like $10-$15 easily. Except for McDonald's, fast food is usually more expensive, especially Wendy's and Dairy Queen (where it costs us about $20-$25 total for all three of us to eat). So I dunno where you guys are getting your food or how much you're eating, but it's a bit too much I'd say! RacinReaver is absolutely right on this, it would never be more than $5/plate, if that, and it takes far less time (given how long it takes to drive and wait in the drive-thru). Oh, and let's not forget to factor in the cost of gas because President Bonehead is too damn busy funding his ridiculous war to put more money into investigating alternative fuel sources; imagine the advances we're missing out on because all that money is getting wasted. So yeah, by the time you factor in gas and driving and waiting, fast food takes longer and is more expensive, just as RacinReaver said. If you're spending so much on home-cooked meals, they must be pretty damn big meals.

Oh, and Sass, you say stupidity is picked on around here, but from the looks of it, it's the other way around. From the looks of it, stupidity is encouraged while thinking for yourself and intelligence are picked on.

Man, you sound just like my dad, who will go out of his way if he knows another store is selling the same bargain-bin stuff for 10 cents cheaper. Back in the day, he had a mental map of every place within five miles that was selling Pepsi for 79 cents a 2L. And no, before you ask; it never made a whit of difference.

Double Post:
One wonders why you choose this route so frequently then.

:edgartpg:

Nothing more needs to be said, thats hit the nail on the head, people are just bloody lazy. That or people are too busy to wait on food


That guy just seems like more of a looper than anything else, I reckon if he was that addicted he'd probably be quite sizeable but still managed to slide through a roof vent?

Yea, sure, but like Devo (again) proved, its not ALWAYS cheaper. Eating out of cans is nice and convenient when you're short on time and you have mouths to feed. But like Devo, my tally for tonight's dinner was around $30 for 3 of us.

It's not that people are lazy alone. It's that while dinner CAN be prepared for cheaper, they aren't ALWAYS cheaper. Laziness has a hand in it, but not as much as cost.

I guess that sounds about right yeah

As for people attempting to sue fast food outlets, that drives me mad, they knew what they we're doing to themselves, fast food is nice but if people are too stupid to know when to stop its them who should be held accountable right?

I mean to this day I still cant believe that cigarette companies are being sued by people who used it before warnings were displayed. they inhaled smoke into their lungs ffs there's no need for a damn warning. I hate cigarette companies but for gods sake its like saying people had no brains back then!

Expect a warning on fast food over the next year or so, beside the warning that there may be traces of nut...

Do you eat these steak dinners every night? I sure as Hell don't eat steak every night. So sure, occasionally it will cost more, when you have a bigger dinner like that, but not most of the time.

Take my dinner tonight, for instance. I simply had a Healthy Choice frozen dinner. Has decent nutrition, faster to fix than fast food could ever be, and really pretty cheap for an entire dinner.

I might eat more lavishly maybe once a week. Like I said, I don't freaking stuff myself. It's called self-control. It's also called moderation. Fast food companies aren't to blame for people getting fat, people eating too much are to blame!

Discovery of the decade.

wait


you think frozen meals are home cooking

what.

so like, does a larger dinner for you mean a Hungry Man meal? Maybe a seperate side dish of frozen veggies?

Healthy Choice, Lean Cuisine, and SmartOnes (bleh) are a lot healthier than normal TV dinners. Plus, they're cheap if you get them in bulk. It's silly to compare to Hungry Man, which is packed with sodium and fat.

I lost most of my weight due to a diet that included a lot of Lean Cuisine meals.

I think lurker was focusing more on the fact that Patty had said she had home cooking a few times a week, then mentioned frozen meals.

^ Yeah, basically. It's like saying you eat healthy when you buy a McSalad every day, or that when you say you're exercising every day, it's from taking a flight of stairs up to your classroom. Just doesn't quite ring true.

You're comparing steak to hamburgers. While in Irvine, I was able to buy 85% lean hamburger for $1.00 a pound when I bought it in 3lb bulk packages. I could make four quarter pound patties for $1, how many can you buy at McDonald's for that? I also just bought 5 pounds of potatoes for $2.50 today, not on sale, so I don't know why you're spending that much on them.

You should do a more fair comparison. How many steak dinners could you get at a restaurant for the $20 your mom paid?

And I still don't understand this. It doesn't matter if I'm cooking for myself or my family, the cost per plate is still the same; well under $5 each. Usually the cost per plate goes down since I eat more in one sitting than most other people. The only thing that sucks about cooking for a family is there's fewer leftovers.

Even still, you're not making a fair comparison. You're comparing canned tuna to caviar. You need to either compare how much it'll cost you to make burgers and fries at home or how expensive it would be for everyone in your family to go out and have steak dinners with potatoes and a side of zuccini.

How does economies of scale somehow get cheaper for when you're buying fast food but not when you're cooking your own food? If someone eats a larger plate of food normally, wouldn't they tend to eat more fast food which would be more expensive?

Say I make a casserole, $2 for cheese, $3 for meat, $1 for pasta, a few cents for an onion, a few cents for spices, a few cents for maybe some celery or peppers. Now, this feeds me for at least six meals. Let's say I make it for my family instead (which I've done a few times while at home). I eat more than my mom and about the same as my dad. It usually works out so my dad and I get two meals out of it and my mom will get three. Sure, it gets more expensive to feed everyone compared to if I was eating alone, but I'm also feeding three times as many people so you should expect it to get roughly three times more expensive (as you should expect the same thing at a fast food place).

The only style of eating out where I can't see what I've been saying is true is with Chinese takeout since you get so much food one person can never eat all of it before it goes bad and they wind up throwing some of it out.

If you're just eating a big mac, you could easily make a slightly more healthy burger at home on your own. I paid $1 for a pound of beef at Irvine, so let's say I use a quarter pound, that's $0.25. Then there's the bun, I buy the cheap ones that are $0.75 for eight, so $0.10 for the bun. I personally only like ketchup and cheese on my burger, so maybe another $0.20. If you like other toppings on your burger, they're only a few cents each anyway.

You do realize that McDonald's isn't losing money on these dollar menu items, right? In order for them to turn a profit on them, they need to be able to sell them for more than they're paying, and since they're using less-than-grocery-store-quality ingredients usually, you're getting a better meal for at most the same amount of money.

Also, if you want to actually make fast food a decent deal, you stay away from the combos and only eat the main menu item and get water. Sodas and fries are just empty calories and $2 you don't need to spend.

So in order to eat healthy one has to eat steak and organic vegetables (which, if you're actually concerned enough to buy those kinds of veggies, you'll get a much better deal at farmers' markets than what you see in a supermarket)?

The reason why people buy fast food is because it's a combination of cheap and fast. If you want any variety at all in your diet, you'll be paying a lot more at McDonalds than you would be comparatively at the supermarket.

Um, yes.

Cooked At Home = Home Cooking

You may have a different definition, but I'm usually a literal kind of person.

You're missing the point. It's usually both slower and more expensive, once you break it all down. Fast food isn't necessarily about being fast, that's a misnomer on their part. Yes, it's fast once you're there, but that doesn't factor in the driving time. No, fast food is about convenience. People are just too lazy.

As for my Healthy Choice dinners, they are good for you. This was already mentioned by other people, so I need not elaborate. I don't eat frozen dinners every night, though, I was just describing what I had that night.

RacinReaver is absolutely right about cost and such. Oh, and I'd like to add that eating healthy and being a health nut are two different things. You act as if McDonald's food is completely devoid of nutrition, and that simply is not true. It's not as healthy as meals you prepare personally, but they aren't killer. That's why comparing fast food companies to cigarette companies, like these lawyers are trying to do, is ignorant, dishonest, and irresponsible.

Like has been stated several times, you can eat well enough at a fast food restaurant by cutting out the empty calories from garbage such a fries; news flash here, fries are unhealthy period, whether you buy them at a fast food restaurant or cook them at home in a Fry Daddy. Basically, it's like I said all along, it's about moderation. When I eat at McDonald's, I get just a Double Cheeseburger, that's it. I'm not a heavy eater, so that helps me keep the calories down. I intake a lot of protein and I love cheeseburgers and any other meaty item (including steaks), but I also work out heavily and drink protein shakes, as well as using creatine. So by getting up and working on myself, I stay in shape. If I can do it, anyone can, save for those with like those genetic gland problems that can cause severe weight gain; even then, it's not the fault of fast food companies if they get fat, it's because of their body chemistry.

The bottom line that I'm trying to get across here is that people need to stop laying out blame and take responsibility for their own actions, plain and simple!

Just the thought of seeing a woman who uses creatine grosses me out.

I'm not a freaking bodybuilder! Sheesh! I don't go for the "ripped" look, for the exact reason you said, it's gross! I do like to look feminine, after all . . . Still, I also need strength. How many times must I say the word "moderation"? It's creatine, not anabolic steroids! Good grief . . . You guys say this kind of stuff while calling me stupid? What a joke!

Putting something in the microwave for a few minutes does not equal cooking in my household, but maybe that's just us.

True that.

I can bring a Healthy Choice to work and cook it in the microwave there. How is that considered 'home cooking'. There's absolutely no cooking involved.

Well, it's not very much cooking and it's almost foolproof, but I still consider it cooking. Minimal cooking, but still cooking. Still, like I said, that was my dinner that specific night. Tomorrow night, I'm cooking (oddly enough) cheeseburgers, on my George Foreman. Love those grills!

Just because it's not "traditional" cooking doesn't mean it's not cooking. Extremely simple cooking, yes, but still cooking. I've known people who prepared fresh cheeseburgers in the microwave, and people who prepare bacon in the microwave; is that no longer considered cooking?

Actually, I got a better question. Why is it that so many of you are trying to dodge the issue at hand and focus on me instead as well as all this semantic nonsense? You just can't admit that I'm right about the topic (in that fast food companies are not to blame and these lawyers are being ridiculous in their accusations that fast food is like nicotine) because you have some weird grudge against me.

Whether or not you are right is beside the point. Mostly what people are arguing about is how your arguments are inept and your reasoning is biased and flawed.

This topic is not about Big Tabacco, why do you keep bringing them up? Whether or not fast food is addictive (there are more than physical addictions, you know) is not affected in any way by the actions of tobacco companies. Because it is the lesser of two evils does not remove it from blame.

The main people who eat fast food are people who are unable to prepare food for themselves or their family for whatever reason, be it time/money etc. The companys that do this know that they will continue to make money by putting addatives into their food that will make their food generally more appealing, (and generally less nutritous) and serving products of an inferior quality in order to be able to sell their products at cheaper prices and thus make it easier for people under somekind of restraint to submit to buying their product. They know what are doing and have become very proficent at keeping their customers hooked in someway.

Do you think it is morally right for a company to abuse its power and take advantage of people who have no other option much of the time?

If the fast food companies suddenly disappeared, what would all of those people that only eat there do? Starve?

He beat me to it. Besides, a lot of people here are greatly exaggerating the "unhealthiness" of fast food. I dunno about you, but if I had to pick between starving and eating unhealthy food, I'd eat the unhealthy food, because it's better than nothing.

The reason I keep bringing up cigarette companies is because that's what these lawyers have done. The lawyers claim that fast food companies are responsible in the same way that cigarette companies are responsible, claiming that fast food companies somehow made their products physically addictive. That is a blatant lie and it is very irresponsible for them to spread such false information. That's what this entire topic is about, so I don't see how I can't keep mentioning the comparison when that's what the lawyers are doing!

Lol, Patty, lol. Oh, lol indeed.

So, um, for a week's worth of dinners, you go to a fast food joint twice, you go 'out' (Olive Garden?) an additional two times, and you eat frozen ready meals three times. do you expect you will at any time start making your own meals from scratch, or is that women's labor?

Double Post:
Well, there's two points here isn't there. For one, the issue at hand is something you invented, with your own parameters, which does not exist in the real world. No, I'm sure plenty of lawyers are trying to get McDonalds to be held accountable for fat babies, and I bet more than a few of them made the paralell I stated earlier in that McDonalds aggressively creates a culture of dependance on their product and hides negative health facts as well as they can, like Big Tobacco. You are the only one who said that fast food is addictive as cigarettes, or that fast food is completely null and void in all nutritional value. No one is going to argue on your playground, Patty. Stop insulting our intelligence.

The other reason is, of course, you think a Healthy Choice is home cooking. oh lol :edgartpg:

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_mar2004/WhatYouEat.jpg

pop quiz: are these kids responsible for their appearance? yes/no/lol Healthy Choice

Double Post:
So how is it convenient if all this driving is so opressive and time-consuming

i mean christ

who drives anymore

Ah, so in addition to being a worthless troll, you're also deaf and dumb, and you don't know how to read. That explains a lot, really.

You see, you're putting words in my mouth now, meaning either you enjoy lying to put down other people, or you're so stupid you can't figure out how to properly read. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

Now then, I never said I had frozen dinners three times a week, I said I have home cooking three times a week. I know how to cook, probably better than you do, and I do indeed prepare my own meals from scratch occasionally. I don't have a calendar with which I decide meals, though. The numbers I gave were on average, and the information was not specific. Sometimes I might have three frozen dinners, sometimes only one. All the same, when I get fast food, sometimes it's McDonald's, but sometimes it's Wendy's. I do not follow a strict schedule. Do you understand what I'm saying yet or no?

If you don't understand by now, well, I suggest you look into some night school classes or something. Seriously. Learn to read properly, then speak. Until then, just go away.

Well, the news report I saw says you're wrong, and sorry, but they have far more credibility than an internet troll like you. The news report stated specifically that the lawyers in question were planning to go after fast food companies by the same premise as cigarette companies were nailed, and claimed that fast food is an addiction exactly like cigarettes. Those aren't my words, those are their words. The point, and the issue at hand, is that these lawyers are full of shit to push such nonsense.

As for insulting your intelligence, that would require that you have some to insult, wouldn't it?

Their parents are the ones responsible, actually. McDonald's certainly isn't. You're just trying to spread bullshit propaganda here.

it's not difficult to figure out a microwave i mean

there's 'on' and 'off' that's really it

It would've been nice to share this report with us!


You Don't Understand Things.

You think Healthy Choice counts as home cooking because you cook them at home.

I take offense to that as someone who prides himself on his reheating leftovers skills.

Also, Patty, I'd consider frozen dinners as reheating foods, not cooking, since all the food in those things has already been precooked. All you're doing is warming the food up, something I do whenever I bring some Subway home because their soggy buns suck (and it's bullshit when they say oven toasted, it hardly even warms the bread).

Like how my mom will give me a frozen lasagana when she comes out to visit me at school. I don't say I cooked the lasagana when I heat it up, I'm only reheating something that's already been made by someone else. But when I do my tricky ravoli-pasta bake by boiling the pasta, mixing in some sauce, arranging it in a casserole dish, layering the cheese, and baking it in the oven it's home-made.

Greatly exaggerated unhealthyness? For someone who claims to be informed about nutrition, you seem to be ignorant about what is unhealthy for you. Need I point you to some nutritional guides for some of the most popular fast food chains?

McDonalds nutrition facts


Lets say you order a Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal, arguably one of the most popular items on the menu. With Fries and a Coke, your looking at 45g of fat and 1100 calories. A similar meal at Burger King is even worse, totaling to 67g of fat and 1320 calories. How can you possibly say that this is healthy for you, in any way what-so-ever?

This is exactly my point. What if the only reasonable choice to make for a person is to eat fast food? They knowingly provide food that is subpar in quality and nutritional value without disgreard to the effects that it can have on its customers at such a convenience and value that people are unable to stop the use of the product. They are taking advantage of the people who either have the option of eating here or eating nothing. Does this sound like the moral high road to you?

Are you an idiot.

You keep saying lawyers as if they are one group of people united together to fight the same cause. You do know that the lawyers who are representing the anti-tobacco lobbyists are probably not the same ones that are running suits against fast food companies. Contrary to what you are saying, they may not have the same opinion or are any at all regarding tobacco use. Thus any references or comparisons to actions brought against tobacco companies is a seperate issue and not relevant to the current issue.

Fast food has only been around for, at most, fifty years. How did all of these people which are currently stuck on fast food with absolutely no other food options survive prior to the growth of fast food?

The world is a much different place than it was fifty years ago. Many household had woman who stayed home to take care of the children and were there to make home cooked meals. Now a days you have both parents working jobs, running kids around to various sports and activities. You have people who juggle school and full time jobs, who adhere to fast food restaurant because they are much easier and convenient than making themselves bag lunches every day. I know personally that when my days consisted of school related activities from 8am-12pm and work from 4pim-12am, I would end up having to eat some type of fast food during the day. I just didn't have time to cook myself anything.

I would venture a guess that, for the majority of people, this was not the case 50 years ago like it is now.

Yeah, but also in those days people had much more home made meals and cooking took considerably longer. It's not like you need a woman home all day to bake bread, slaughter the chickens, and milk the cows. Nowadays a 30 minute trip to the grocery store takes care of all those things. And cooking doesn't necessarily take very long, just ask my favorite lady.

Hell, when I don't have time to make a meal I eat a sandwich, which is the same thing I'd be buying at a fast food restaurant. On days when I really didn't have enough time, I'd throw all the things I wanted to put on my sandwich in my backpack and make it while I was on my lunch break. Considering you have to wait for them to make your meal at a fast food place nowadays (you know, the freshness thing) it's not any longer for you to throw a few slices of roast beef on two pieces of bread than to stand in line and buy a Big Mac.

The worst thing there are the fries, though. You cut the fries and you cut most of the unhealthy stuff. Fries are not physically addictive. If people are so concerned about health, they should stop eating the junk food like that. Oh, and you do realize that fries cooked at home in a Fry Daddy (gotta compare similar methods of preparation after all) are almost as unhealthy, right?

Basically, no one is forcing you to stuff your face with tons of fries. Eat a double cheeseburger. Get a filet-o-fish. Maybe try the chicken sandwich. Stay away from the junk food, and it's much better for you then.

Hmmm. So let me get this straight. You think fast food companies are responsible for all this because people don't know how to stop "ordering fries with that" and can't manage your time properly to make their own food? If you're running out of time and don't like it, make time. If you don't overflow your schedule, you won't have these problems.

You asked if this was the moral high road for fast food to offer this. I do believe there is absolutely nothing immoral about it. Let me pose this question to you, since you have so little time that you're "forced" to eat fast food. Actually, let me pose you two questions. These questions aren't actually directed at you specifically, but apply to everyone who is supposedly "forced" to eat fast food:

1. Why do you order junk sides? Why not just stick to healthier menu items? If you like fries, then it's your choice, and it's not their fault.

2. What would you do if every fast food company disappeared tomorrow? Would you starve? If not, then if you want to avoid fast food, just pretend that their restaurants don't exist, and do whatever you would be forced to do in such a situation.

Oh, this is rich. A woman who proclaims herself healthy because that's how she has to be, to be on the top of the game, is telling you to stay away from the junk food at McDonalds.

Women didn't routinely slaughter the day's roast in 1954, RR. That was the man's job

It's another false dilemma. The poor don't survive on fast food alone, but they eat it way more than normal people should*. What would people do if all the fast food places disappeared? They'd do what they do on their non-fast food days, and their kids would scream a lot more because everyone knows that to poor kids, screaming is their only passtime.

* No Patty, twice a week is not normal.

I gave you the nutritional facts for a reason. You should actually take a look at them before you start spouting off inaccurate words. You keep saying that the fries are the most unhealthy part of the meal and that is untrue. A double cheeseburger at McDonalds has more calorie and fat content than the medium fries that come with the meal. And the Filet-O-Fish and the McChicken sandwich are nearly the same as the french fries.

This is the problem with your arguments. All of your statements are pure opinionated bullshit and every one is calling you on it. If your going to make claims here, back it up or else you will get called on for it.

So are you that people who have to work full time, go to school, take care of the kids and take care of their house should just give up their lives in order to be able to cook their families meals? What do you think that they should just give up in order to cook? Maybe the shouldn't do their laundry? Maybe they should switch to part time work? I know i'm being dramatic, but I give back what I get. I suppose they might have time to heat up some sphagettios.(i.e. home cooking.)

Please stop quoting forced. I don't rememer ever once saying that these companies were forcing anyone to eat fast food.

1. People will order value meals because they are cheaper and more cost efficent for the amount of food than buying items seperatlely. And like I pointed out above, fries are hardly the most unhealthy part of the meal.

2. Like I have been saying the entire time, it is about conveniece. It would be much more inconvenient to do any of these other options. People who are rushed for time and money will always choose the option that is easiest and most convenient for themselves. Fast food companies know this well and market towards these types of people who would be very inconvenienced by having to go to the store and make their own meals. Again, what should these people cut out of their lives? Sleep? Showering? They are taking advantage of their customers by knowingly serving products of subpar quality and unhealthy nutrition in such a way that many of their cusotmers see no other way than eat there.

Maybe not something that they should be legally held responsible for, but ehtical and moral? I think not.

I have backed it up. It's not my fault you haven't read the very nutritional chart you linked to. Sure, those products have more calories, but they also have more nutrition. The only thing besides calories that fries have is Vitamin C, and very little of that compared to the number of calories; the meats, on the other hand, have several things going for them that fries do not, especially protein and calcium. So either read the information in that link before claiming that I don't, or if you already do, please check out more than just the calories and fat columns.

Given that fast food also takes time, how about taking some of that time, and cutting a bit of extracurricular activities or leisure time?

How is it at all unethical or immoral? Food is something people need to survive, and if there is a demand for a faster method of obtaining it (even if it's not truly faster), then there is nothing wrong with supplying it. It should be assumed that if short cuts are taken to make food, it won't be quite as healthy as normal food. Still, the unhealthiness, as I already said, is exaggerated, and your own link proves me right.

Jesus. Political Palace type posting in the food forums! :o

My personal opinion is, fast food companies like McDonald's provide a quicker and more convenient alternative to home cooking. However, I don't think they intentionally select ingredients which are more fattening. After all, you'd want to keep your customers alive for a longer time, no? :D

Thus, it is my opinion that any attempt at litigation is ill-advised. No one's forcing you to eat at fast food places. If the lawyers win, and the fast food places have to provide only healthy food, betcha the prices will shoot right up. Not a good thing for the majority of its customers, in a fiscal sense.

When will these Americans stop suing people willy-nilly, and start taking responsibility for themselves?

I.... jesus. Do you think I'm the only one who noticed that, not only is a woman who fancies herself at the top of her game giving out advice on what's more nutritional at McDonalds, but that the word 'salad' never passes through her lips? Not to mention she's comparing apples and oranges, if she even knows what those are. The fillet o' fish (a healthier alternative!) is comparable to a double cheeseburger. Big shock there.

Like fucking calcium and protien is hard to come by in an American diet, christ almighty. Actually, I don't know. Maybe it's hard to get your daily alotment of calcium from a Healthy Choice sweet and sour chicken dinner.

When the rapture comes. It's my opinion that its human nature to deny responisbility if its convienient. Just look at the US government.


Really all this thread boils down to is PattyNBK is in denial that fast food is VERY unhealthy (even a McSalad is unhealthy by some standards when you add that chicken that's been cooking on the same grill as a burger patty (I dont care if they scrap the grease off, its still there) or put cripsy deep-fried chicken and/or bacon bits on it. Even the dressings are unhealthy. Eating once and a while, fine. Eating it once a week or more, not good (esspecially if you do not take time on the side to be active or work out).

I won't argue against the fact her original statement declared it's stupid people are suing fast food "because they MADE them get fat" (although I admit that during the time I worked at McDonalds, they pressured the employees to ask if people wanted to "large-size" their orders (we don't have "super size") or even just add an order of fries, cookies, pies or a soda.

I don't like salads very much. What can I say about them? I don't eat like a freaking rabbit. I'm a carnivore, I like meat, it tastes good and is good for you. Salads may be great for really overweight people who are trying to lose a lot, but for someone who's athletic and works out a lot, salads are really . . . well . . . unfulfilling. Maybe you need to eat salads, but I don't.

The point was that there is nutrition in that food. The point is that it's not as unhealthy as portrayed around here. You see, all the news you get about fast food being fattening is usually considering the average meal bought at these places. Yeah, if you get a number whatever with a regular soda and fries, that's gonna be really unhealthy and fattening. I don't order that crap, I only order the sandwiches. Big difference there.

Good grief were you born this stupid?

That is the big thing right there. Right there, "if you do not take time on the side to be active or work out". That is the problem with most Americans: they're lazy! Always making excuses and blaming other people for their own problems that they've brought upon themselves.

I can eat fast food once or twice a week because I work out extensively. Maybe I'm just weird, but my well-being is the top priority for me. If I wanna indulge myself food-wise with something a little less healthy, I make up for it later by working it off. If I can do it, while working full time, why can't other people? Lazy lazy lazy!

Americans always wanna play the blame game and I'm sick of it! People need to starting taking responsibility! I don't feel at all sorry for anyone who eats himself or herself fat; as it goes, "you reap what you sow". If people want a change, that starts from within, not by suing McDonald's!

So you're saying that you don't need to eat vegetables at all because you're "athletic". What planet do you live on? Everyone needs vegetables in his/her life to be healthy.

You really are dumb.

Like people have already said before me, these foods are in no way healthy. You can find nutritional value in anything if you look hard enough.

You can't be seriously telling me that the little bit of protein that is provided from a double cheeseburger makes it healthy?

1140 grams of sodium? 55% of the daily allowance for saturated fats? That's like saying we should all order milkshakes instead because they provide us with a moderate amount of calcium. There is no way that any intelligent person could ever argue that McDonalds foods are in anyway healthy for you.

BAD QUALITIES>good qualities

One litte thing does not redeem it's obvious nutritional faults.

Closed for becoming a train wreck because of Patty's not being able to admit defeat and just walk away.