Any Concerns about the Content of Fast Foods?

Here's the list of ingredients off of the generic store brand bread from my local grocery chain (not necessarily in order):

Flour, water, butter, shortening, salt, sugar, yeast.

To test your theory, I have left a slice out, and will report back daily.

So, let me get this straoight. If I'm obese, and I want a hamburger, then it's McDonald's fault that I'm obese, and not my own? Sounds like the ultimate entitlement mentality.

Of course not. It's a convenient "out" to say "oh, well, you can't trust the labels".

We already know your book is subjective.

Okay, so now it's not the Arby's beef that is bad, but what they cure it with that is bad. At least you're being more honest now. Why don't you find out what they cure their beef with, and tell us what ingredient is bad, rather than make blanket statements.

How convenient.

 

Bit of mold can be good for you I believe, it has antibiotic properties. Careful with the word preservative it's means something else here in France.

I enjoy cooking. I have a glass of wine while at it too. Fast food is ok but not all the time surely.

Man I love hot currys.

 

if I want a burger I make it at home, I use 93% lean ground beef, never hamburger, and vegatables or baked potato. I cut more then half the calories and most of the fat out. I never use ground beef thats less then 93% lean, same for ground turkey, which also makes a good burger.

I spent 25 years morbidly obese, and guess whose fault it was,,,, mine.
I ate burgers and fries and all the junk food, I made the wrong choices. Now I'm always strict to make good healthy food choices. I refuse to go back where I was. Not to mention my body is so much healthier, and life is so much easier.
good food choices are wise and pay off.
bad food choices have their own penalty.
but people have to take responsibiblty for themselves.

about the food labels, (I couldn't copy and paste for some reason),
I've seen numberous times in tv about fda regulations and food labels, and no they are not correct, there are loop holes they use for most foods, like the definations used for lite and light, and even low fat can be legally twisted, even sugar free doesn't have to mean it really is sugar free, only that it has no white sugar added to it, but can have other forms or sugars.
nope, I never trust a label, I read the ingreidents, which does have to be accurate. and I read a lot of labels making sure I eat healthy.

 

The bolded portion made me snort. I'm assuming it means the same as in Romanian.

I'll refrain from making preservative jokes.

 

Preservatives (or 'conservants' for our European friends) are everywhere. It's nearly unavoidable. Your table sugar has sulfites. So does your tea, coffee, and spices.

Imagine being allergic to sulfites!

 

Interestingly, the rate of malnutrition dropped at that same time. Sorry, it wasn't the "rise of the fast food industry" that caused obesity, it was the fact that the American standard of living included easy access to food in general. The fast food industry arose as a result of this standard of living, not the other way around.

You keep referencing "Super Size Me". You must have missed the fact that the person in it intentionally consumed 5,000 or more calories per day and did not exercise. The result will be the same if you eat 5,000 calories a day at a fast food restaurant, an expensive fine dining establishment, or a home cooked meal. The fact that you're oblivious to that shows that it is your mentality that is in question.

There have been numerous experiments done in response to "Super Size Me", which refute the claims of the film. Documentary filmmaker Scott Caswell did the same thing. He ate at McDonald for the same aount of time. Only he chose healthier options such as the side salad and more normal portions. He also included normal physical activity and excercise. He lost 20 pounds and his cholesterol fell sharply. Documentarian Deshan Woods did something similar in "Super Size Me" fashion. He ate nothing but fast food amounting to 2500+ calories a day which included burgers and fries, but avoided the sugary drinks in favor of iced tea and similar beverages available at McDonalds. He reported an overall health improvement, including a loss of 14 pounds and a 44 point drop in cholesterol. Professor James Painter made a documentary including two graduate students, one a 254-pound male and the other a 108-pound female. They ate nothing but fast food for 30 days. Both students reported weight loss and an improvement in cholesterol.

Of course you will assume that labels aren't trustworthy, because it's the only way you can support your presuppositions.

Again, why don't you find out what the Arby's beef is cured with and processed in.

 

Not if you're allergic to mold as I am.

 

Rubbish! If you close down every fast food establishment tomorrow, the number of people who are morbidly obese will remain the same. No one forces people to overeat.

Yet you're still referencing it.

More rubbish! I am by no means a "friend" of the "big $ industry". I'm simply an advocate of objective truth. The "12 yo burger" claim isn't truthful. Neither is the claim that a resturant is responsible for how much its patron eats.

The problem with your assertion is that you're blaming the fast food industry for morbid obesity. Morbid obesity is not caused by eating bad food, it's caused by eating too much food. Yet you're going overboard on trying to blame the poor quality of fast food on morbid obesity, and there's no connection.

Pot, kettle. You're the one tossing assucations.

I have no interest in discussing fiction.

 

When adhering to the "objective truth" one doesn't make implications that all fast food is categorically bad (when in reality, some of it is bad and some of it is not), that the fast food industry as a whole cannot be trusted (sometimes it can, sometimes it cannot), that the ingredient labels must be assumed to be deceptive (there's no evidence supplied so far that ingredient labels are intentionally falsified), and than anyone who thinks differently is a "friend" of fast food. Most importantly, one doesn't blame the fast food industry for one's eating choices.

 

I read somewhere that our bodies are so full of those things that preserve food that we take longer to decay after death than in times past

 

I met a man at our xmas work nosh up who has a phobia of cheese can you believe it, a French guy who will not be near cheese. Someone passed him some as a joke not realizing and he literally bashed it across the room.

Off topic sorry, just thought I would share it.

 

So what? Any corporation is going to be loyal to its stock holders. Seeing as how 10% of my retirement money is in restaurant industry funds, I'm thankful that they're loyal to me.

That's a bit of a generalization. Determining something to be unhealthy depends on the frequency of consumption. If a person has one Big Mac a week, that Big Mac is not unhealthy. If OTOH, a person has 100 Big Macs a week, then you bet, it's unhealthy.

Never said otherwise. I was noting that your consider labels to be categorically deceptive as a rule, which is not only foolish, but unrighteous.

Tell us, since you already know, how much pesticide is in a Sinkist Navel Orange, and in what quantities.


But that's a whole other topic. Your contention is that fast food is categorically bad, and now you're citing chemicals in vegetables as evidence. If that's then your argument is with all food, not just fast food.

I'm beginning to think you've been reading to much of Kevin Trudeau's books.

THis is where your'e dead wrong. THe FF industry isnt' involved in the manufacture of food products. They buy food products from third parties, such as Golden State Foods, Tyson, Purdue, Farmer John, etc.

Actually, I do. I've had numerous family members, including my own children, go through 4H and FFA programs.

Nice try, but it doesn't remotely. There's shoe that fit you, though, but being a Christian website, I can't use that thype of language.

Yet, that's what you're doing. Interesting.

Yep, the parent is responsible. The place that supplies the food which the parent feeds the child is not.

 

I agree with John here. The parents are ultimately responsible. Responsible to make sure kids eat right, go to bed on time, wear their seat belts, learn to cross the road safely, and many, many more things. The responsibility can sometimes be heavy, but it doesn't change the fact that my husband and I are responsible for our kids.

 

So, companies value the dollar. Again, so what? That's what they're supposed to be valuing.

What grade are you in?

Wow, talk about a pharisaical attitude.

I'm saying the consumer is 100% responsible for what they eat. To claim anything less, one would be guilty of a liberal entitlement mentality, which you obviously subscribe to.