Why don't fast-food restaurants make their food healthy?

[Ephemeral]

Funny that you should recommend Chipotle. There was a time when Chipotle was owned by McDonald's. They also use to own Boston Market.

McDonald's has plenty of options. Don't get a Big Mac when you go there (Big Macs are total rip-offs anyway, they have the same amount of meat as a double cheeseburger at two-tenths of a pound). Get yourself a SW chicken salad, or a bacon ranch salad. Buy a chicken wrap, or a grilled/crispy classic/BLT chicken sandwich. Kids can get apples instead of fries and apple juice instead of pop. They do offer healthy options.

McDonald's doesn't need regulated, we don't need nutrition standards, it's not a big conspiracy, and fast food isn't cheaper because it's better subsidized (seriously, anyone who thinks this clearly isn't aware of how much we subsidize farming/agriculture in this country).

And don't forget breakfast, which McDonald's dominates. You can get coffee, a hash brown, and a muffin with a real egg, cheese, and canadian bacon or sausage on it, among many other options. For breakfast, that's not terribly unhealthy.

Plus, since when was it corporations' responsibility to babysit the country and make sure they eat right? They're there to deliver a profit to their shareholders and employ lots of people. Their "social responsibility" ends there. As has been said, if you don't like it, don't eat there.

Side note: remember when their chicken nuggets weren't white meat? Remember when they didn't have apples for happy meals? Remember pre-salad days? They have changed their menu and added on to it in a manner sometimes healthier, sometimes not, over the years. It's a response to consumers.

Yes, it's up to the consumers since they aren't forced to eat there, but they are HIGHLY persuaded and recommended. McDonald's can't pull the innocent card; they know what they're doing. They know that the way they promote their products people'll want to and continue to eat there. They know the additives they put into their food can have people psychologically addicted and phsycially screwed. They know that appealing to kids will convince parents to take them there, thus starting them off on their regular trips to MkieDee's and the birth of an addiction. It's hard to avoid something when it's everywhere you go. They know conveniece + affordablity + familiarity + tastiness + ubiquity = JACKPOT.

The have some responsibility as a business. Until they start posting in their restaurants what's in their products and the side affects of regularly consuming them (which many people are daily customers), they aren't telling the whole truth. And this is for all fast-food companies, not just The Golden Arch. If you went to Target, bought some store brand cereal and became terribly sick, would it be the company's fault or yours?

 

[hotdog1846]

Plus, since when was it corporations' responsibility to babysit the country and make sure they eat right? They're there to deliver a profit to their shareholders[STRIKE] and employ lots of people[/STRIKE]. Their "social responsibility" ends there.

There. Fixed it for you.

 

[Sunshine]

healthy/organic food is not cheap.


sure you could just offer some raw or slightly steamed vegetables. with brown rice etc .. and no - people would not eat it unless they could drown it in gravy or worse.

Mmmmmmm *drools*

you had me at "gravy."

 

[elra]

Yes, it's up to the consumers since they aren't forced to eat there, but they are HIGHLY persuaded and recommended. McDonald's can't pull the innocent card; they know what they're doing. They know that the way they promote their products people'll want to and continue to eat there. They know the additives they put into their food can have people psychologically addicted and phsycially screwed. They know that appealing to kids will convince parents to take them there, thus starting them off on their regular trips to MkieDee's and the birth of an addiction. It's hard to avoid something when it's everywhere you go. They know conveniece + affordablity + familiarity + tastiness + ubiquity = JACKPOT.

The have some responsibility as a business. Until they start posting in their restaurants what's in their products and the side affects of regularly consuming them (which many people are daily customers), they aren't telling the whole truth. And this is for all fast-food companies, not just The Golden Arch. If you went to Target, bought some store brand cereal and became terribly sick, would it be the company's fault or yours?

Totally agreed. Billions of dollars are spent every year brainwashing kids for life long product placement. 96% of school kids recognize him. 96% is OUTSTANDING market penetration. I doubt any other company has as logo/icon that recognizable by that age.

McD's also has other responsibilities as a business. They buy pretty insane quantities of the planet's resources. That comes with its own problems/opportunities.. so we get clear cutting of rainforests. Nobody seems to give a crap about that anymore either. But every day huge sections of South America and Madagascar are obliterated so McDs can keep the price of beef down.

Bottom line is this: McDs (corporations in general) bends to one thing, the almighty dollar. Anything for money. Be it combining your "food" with cheap corn filler, making sure you get your first hit (or that you at least know who they are, and what they sell, by age 5), or destroying irreplaceable landscape.

I wonder when the people responsible for running these companies will be responsible for the shit their companies does. I think you might see the planet run a little differently.

 

[Joshua_me]

^ Well, yeah...

I agree with that, the marketing has been nothing short of insidious...

But, the fact remains that little kids don't have money for Happy Meals. Their parents are the ones who have to buy them, and I'd like to think that adults have enough wisdom to resist the endless marketing and to explain to their kids that hamburgers at McD's are a "once in a while" kind of thing....

But, maybe I'm in la-la land here.... Maybe kids control their parents.

And if that's the case, our society has problems that run a lot deeper than burgers and fries....

 

[NotThatCreative]

Yes, it's up to the consumers since they aren't forced to eat there, but they are HIGHLY persuaded and recommended. McDonald's can't pull the innocent card; they know what they're doing. They know that the way they promote their products people'll want to and continue to eat there. They know the additives they put into their food can have people psychologically addicted and phsycially screwed. They know that appealing to kids will convince parents to take them there, thus starting them off on their regular trips to MkieDee's and the birth of an addiction. It's hard to avoid something when it's everywhere you go. They know conveniece + affordablity + familiarity + tastiness + ubiquity = JACKPOT.

The have some responsibility as a business. Until they start posting in their restaurants what's in their products and the side affects of regularly consuming them (which many people are daily customers), they aren't telling the whole truth. And this is for all fast-food companies, not just The Golden Arch. If you went to Target, bought some store brand cereal and became terribly sick, would it be the company's fault or yours?

However, you failed to address my point that McDonald's does offer healthy options. They have salads, juice, etcetera. It's a choice on the part of the people who go there. Burgers aren't inherently bad for you, neither is chicken, or cod (which is what the Filet-o-fish is). In excess, they can be. You can order grilled chicken if you want to avoid deep-fried food, or burgers. The only breakfast items that are deep-fried are the breakfast chicken (for the southern chicken biscuit) and the hash browns.

Your analogy doesn't work at all, either. If I got sick from McDonald's, I'd assume I was food poisoned and blame it on McDonald's though I wouldn't take action. It might make me less likely to eat at a McDonald's in the future. If I bought store brand cereal and it made me sick, I'd assume the same thing and have the same response. Unless I missed something though, that's not what's happening. Eating unhealthy regularly for an extended period of time is the fault of the eater. Eating something once and getting sick is the fault of the preparer of the food. Two different situations.

And most McDonald's do allow you to see the nutritional value of their products. Like other fast food restaurants, it's on the back of the tray liner. All customers who eat in the store itself and have a tray are given a copy of nutritional facts. And it's not McDonald's responsibility to tell you what sodium or fat or fiber or whatever consumed in excess can do. They tell consumers how much they're consuming, consumers have the responsibility to find out the effects for themselves. It's not like the information is hard to find.

And as far as psychological addiction is concerned, companies aren't responsible for worrying about that. I could buy the argument that companies whose products can cause a physical addiction (tobacco and gambling come to mind here) have a certain level of associated responsibility. But as for psychological addiction? Well, what can't we get psychologically addicted to? Do you think porn companies should start warning their viewers of potential psychological addiction? (which does exist and is enough of a force in society that major newspapers have written on it. An article my father made me read in the FT comes to mind)

Thanks for the adjustment hotdog1846.

By the way, how the hell did my writing "Big Macs" on my last post get turned into a link on the last three letters of that to corbin fisher? I certainly didn't do that. Not that I mind, just seems odd.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Totally agreed. Billions of dollars are spent every year brainwashing kids for life long product placement. 96% of school kids recognize him. 96% is OUTSTANDING market penetration. I doubt any other company has as logo/icon that recognizable by that age.

McD's also has other responsibilities as a business. They buy pretty insane quantities of the planet's resources. That comes with its own problems/opportunities.. so we get clear cutting of rainforests. Nobody seems to give a crap about that anymore either. But every day huge sections of South America and Madagascar are obliterated so McDs can keep the price of beef down.

Bottom line is this: McDs (corporations in general) bends to one thing, the almighty dollar. Anything for money. Be it combining your "food" with cheap corn filler, making sure you get your first hit (or that you at least know who they are, and what they sell, by age 5), or destroying irreplaceable landscape.

I wonder when the people responsible for running these companies will be responsible for the shit their companies does. I think you might see the planet run a little differently.

So now we should blame them for having good advertising campaigns? Yes, they're successful. What's wrong with that again?

If you care so deeply about the planet's "natural" resources, then support laws that prohibit the clear-cutting of forests. Preserving so-called natural resources and treasures can easily be argued to be a legitimate use of government power.

The reality of any form of capitalism is that corporations won't care about more than profit, and the economy is most successful when that's the case. That's the economic system we live in. We tried, in the 1920s, to get corporations to voluntarily give a shit about the little people. It worked okay, until business took a turn for the worse, when that voluntary system totally collapsed.

Government can be a balancer against the power of private companies, but we must be wary of the government too, as it cares about us the people ever-so-barely more than private corporations do (and the government comes equipped with a rather large army/navy/air force). Neither will ever truly care. That's the reality as I see it (says the libertarian socialist. I say that so you know where I'm coming from ideologically, as it's obviously shaping what I write).

I guess the bottom line is just that: they don't and won't care. And you accomplish little other than putting more power into the hands of that other institution that doesn't and won't care - the government - by advocating increased regulation of the industry. It's a balance, and I favor whatever creates the least amount of control on we the people and our ability to exercise choice and take responsibility for our own actions.

If I misunderstand and you simply wish they did care without having it forced on them by the government, then wish away. But all you'll be doing is because it'll never happen.

 

[Ephemeral]

However, you failed to address my point that McDonald's does offer healthy options. They have salads, juice, etcetera. It's a choice on the part of the people who go there. Burgers aren't inherently bad for you, neither is chicken, or cod (which is what the Filet-o-fish is). In excess, they can be. You can order grilled chicken if you want to avoid deep-fried food, or burgers. The only breakfast items that are deep-fried are the breakfast chicken (for the southern chicken biscuit) and the hash browns.

Your analogy doesn't work at all, either. If I got sick from McDonald's, I'd assume I was food poisoned and blame it on McDonald's though I wouldn't take action. It might make me less likely to eat at a McDonald's in the future. If I bought store brand cereal and it made me sick, I'd assume the same thing and have the same response. Unless I missed something though, that's not what's happening. Eating unhealthy regularly for an extended period of time is the fault of the eater. Eating something once and getting sick is the fault of the preparer of the food. Two different situations.

And most McDonald's do allow you to see the nutritional value of their products. Like other fast food restaurants, it's on the back of the tray liner. All customers who eat in the store itself and have a tray are given a copy of nutritional facts. And it's not McDonald's responsibility to tell you what sodium or fat or fiber or whatever consumed in excess can do. They tell consumers how much they're consuming, consumers have the responsibility to find out the effects for themselves. It's not like the information is hard to find.

And as far as psychological addiction is concerned, companies aren't responsible for worrying about that. I could buy the argument that companies whose products can cause a physical addiction (tobacco and gambling come to mind here) have a certain level of associated responsibility. But as for psychological addiction? Well, what can't we get psychologically addicted to? Do you think porn companies should start warning their viewers of potential psychological addiction? (which does exist and is enough of a force in society that major newspapers have written on it. An article my father made me read in the FT comes to mind)

Thanks for the adjustment hotdog1846.

By the way, how the hell did my writing "Big Macs" on my last post get turned into a link on the last three letters of that to corbin fisher? I certainly didn't do that. Not that I mind, just seems odd.

But which one do you think the average American 7-year-old coming from school, the 15-year-old on his way to the beach, the 21-year-old heading to McDonald's for a midnight bite, and the unhealthily overweight 41-year-old are going to choose? The popular, familiar, "Hey, I grew up eating those!" Big Mac, Coke, and fries or a salad, water, and fruit parfait? Just because it's offered on a menu doesn't mean they're popular or being ordered. The old selections are more adveritised, well-known, and familiar, so more people will choose that.

You got me on the analogy. I see my error now.

Yes, they may let you see the nutritional value, but why won't they do like cigarette companies and post the side affects of regularly eating their products?

There may be a physical addiction caused by McDonald's food. If you can credit Supersize Me, the main guy started to feel body aches and headaches I believe when he didn't receive his McDonald's and they were relieved some when he ate it.

McDonald's is different than porn. Society still sees porn as something negative, something that needs to be hidden, not openly talked about. Only losers and sex addicts watch porn. A lot of guys won't admit they watch porn even if they beat their meat to it every night. Girls will act disgusted by the very mention of it. You're not "supposed" to like porn. But McDonald's is heavily promoted as something safe, reliable, good. Everyone openly admits to loving their Quarter Pounders and could live off of their fries. Ronald McDonald is seen laughing and having a good ol' time with the kiddies. Families head their to connect with each other. Heck, McDonald's even reminded a girl in one of their commercials of her grandma's fried chicken! McDonald's is revered in a positive light by society. When was the last time you saw a porn star with his dick flopping around joking with the neighborhood kids or a commercial showing guys having a jerk-off contest to a hardcore porno?

 

[Under-taken]

Someone once told me...

"Going to McDonald's for healthy food is like going to a brothel for a hug."

That's also a facebook group that I know I'm part of haha

But on topic:
In Australia at least they've changed a lot of meals to make them healthier:

http://mcdonalds.com.au/our-food/tick-approved
- The Australian Heart Foundation has approved a whole bunch of meals

http://mcdonalds.com.au/our-food/nutrition
- All nutrional values are provided instore and online and they've made changes such as used Canola oil (free of trans fatty acids).


Not saying they're doing all that can be done, I think they understand that people know that it isn't the healthiest choice (Quarter Pounder, Fries & Shake etc), but they have healthy options (Salads, Deli Choice, Water, Fruit). Stores like Subway and Boost provide those healthy options across the board, I don't think it'd be practical for stores like KFC/Maccas to reinvent their image (in terms of burgers, fried chicken/chips) when people have the option to go elswhere.

 

[Pushyourluck]

If people don't understand that an apple and a banana are healthier for you than a greasy burger with fries and a milkshake then they deserve to have their arteries clogged up.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Many fast food places offer healthy choices.

I've had a few great salads in some of them.

But it's a matter of choice/preference.

People are hell-bent on killing themselves. Food is one route.

 

[NineOfClubs]

honestly, I criticize the salads at fast food restaurants more than the burgers and fries.

no one thinks a hamburger and fries and a milkshake is good for you, but anything is fine in moderation... some of those salads are ridic, though. like, you'd be better off eating that double stack from KFC over a wendy's salad.

Seriously?

I've had salads that seemed very, very fresh and clean. With interesting ingredients.

What was off-putting is that they provided enough dressing to feed a regiment.

 

[Ephemeral]

When you get 2 gallons of dressing, it defeats the purpose of ordering a salad. And don't even get me started on croutons, fried chicken, fried onions, and bacon as salad toppings.

EDIT: Some of the McD's salads are very unhealthy too. Search their website and What Not To Eat.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I was going to add that some restaurants think we need 4 ounces of lousy processed cheese on a salad. Ruins it in more ways than one....

 

[Ephemeral]

And iceberg letteuce is basically solid, green-colored water. Add that all together and you get a sorry ploy to convince the public they're eating "healthy".

 

[NineOfClubs]

Well, a recent improvement is grilled (not Deep Fried) chicken sandwiches.

BTW, even though I seem to be defending these places, I go into them about once every four or five months, if that.

 

[NotThatCreative]

But which one do you think the average American 7-year-old coming from school, the 15-year-old on his way to the beach, the 21-year-old heading to McDonald's for a midnight bite, and the unhealthily overweight 41-year-old are going to choose? The popular, familiar, "Hey, I grew up eating those!" Big Mac, Coke, and fries or a salad, water, and fruit parfait? Just because it's offered on a menu doesn't mean they're popular or being ordered. The old selections are more adveritised, well-known, and familiar, so more people will choose that.

You got me on the analogy. I see my error now.

Yes, they may let you see the nutritional value, but why won't they do like cigarette companies and post the side affects of regularly eating their products?

There may be a physical addiction caused by McDonald's food. If you can credit Supersize Me, the main guy started to feel body aches and headaches I believe when he didn't receive his McDonald's and they were relieved some when he ate it.

McDonald's is different than porn. Society still sees porn as something negative, something that needs to be hidden, not openly talked about. Only losers and sex addicts watch porn. A lot of guys won't admit they watch porn even if they beat their meat to it every night. Girls will act disgusted by the very mention of it. You're not "supposed" to like porn. But McDonald's is heavily promoted as something safe, reliable, good. Everyone openly admits to loving their Quarter Pounders and could live off of their fries. Ronald McDonald is seen laughing and having a good ol' time with the kiddies. Families head their to connect with each other. Heck, McDonald's even reminded a girl in one of their commercials of her grandma's fried chicken! McDonald's is revered in a positive light by society. When was the last time you saw a porn star with his dick flopping around joking with the neighborhood kids or a commercial showing guys having a jerk-off contest to a hardcore porno?

Your point on the "undesirability" of porn is valid, so that was a bad analogy on my part. But my point was that psychological dependency can come in all sorts of forms, from porn to McDonald's to shopping to work. Shall we require warnings on all things that could cause it? And, furthermore, do you really think that such a warning would reduce consumption? Warnings on energy drinks don't seem to. I doubt very much it'd make a difference. How many adults aren't aware of the potential effects of eating McDonald's a lot?

Supersize Me was a good illustration of why McDonald's shouldn't be your main source of food. It illustrated it powerfully and helped bring the issue into the public mind. But I can't say I trust it as a source of science. And psychological dependency can cause some physical effects on withdrawal. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the issue to say exactly which withdrawal symptoms are indicative of physical versus psychological dependency. Furthermore, he went into it expecting addictive properties to have an effect and expecting most of the negative effects that he had to deal with (though, admittedly, he wasn't expecting it all to happen to such an extreme degree). If there's a credible study out there that shows it's physically addictive, then I'm clearly wrong. But Supersize Me in itself does not sway me.

I don't really see a feasible way to change the perception of McDonald's. It seems to me that we as a society do view it in a slightly negative manner, but only in the "you can have it in moderation" or "harmless vice" model, which has a very different effect on us than the "I'm ashamed to admit I ...(e.g. watch porn)" model. I doubt there's anything that can be done about it. I suppose theoretically the government could force McDonald's to fund anti-fast food adverts in a manner similar to what tobacco companies do. But as the latter is physically addictive and is rarely ever used "in moderation" (as opposed to McDonald's which most people eat in moderation) then I don't see that happening. And, quite frankly, I don't even agree with making tobacco companies advertise against themselves (I can see a ban on their adverts via TV and radio as being fine, but not advertising against themselves).

 

[seven2go]

obviously not all salads are created equal and dressing is going to have a lot to do with it, but specifically I think it's the Wendy's BLT salad that comes in at like 800 calories.

Dairy Queen has a very nice salad.......I'm a big fan of McD's Filet-O-Fish though.

 

[G-Lexington]

Most fast-food places do have "plain" salads. Which nobody orders, because they want the burgers and chicken nuggets. Even when they order salads, they want the bacon and deep-fried beef salad. So the plain salads sit there until somebody orders them...at which point, they ain't so fresh.

And yes, iceberg lettuce is crunchy water. But it's not deep-fried, sugar-coated potatoes. That makes it immediately healthier.

And yeah, they give a lot of salad dressing, but it's not like it comes ON the salad. I tend to like my salads very lightly dressed, so I only use a bit. But most people seem to like salad soup. Dressing with some lettuce floating in it.

Again, it's going to come down to individuals making good choices. The real question is - have we decided that Americans are incapable of making good choices anymore, and thus need these choices made for them? Should we just put the entire country on a WeightWatchers-style diet, where we give them exactly what they should eat for breakfast lunch and dinner, because they can't be trusted to make food choices?

My "fast-food" restaurant of choice is Mad Greens.

Basically just a huge salad bar, but they make the salad for you, add the dressing, toss it, and serve it to you. They have 15 "menu salads" that they can make, or you can build your own, which I always do. My favorite: hearts of romaine, grape tomatoes, edamame, triple red onions (I work alone), diced pears, grilled chicken, and very light honey mustard dressing. (I'll do port vinagrette if I want something different.) I buy that on my way to work, eat a couple forkfuls every hour, and that's what I eat each day.

Lex

 

[elra]

So now we should blame them for having good advertising campaigns? Yes, they're successful. What's wrong with that again?

If you care so deeply about the planet's "natural" resources, then support laws that prohibit the clear-cutting of forests. Preserving so-called natural resources and treasures can easily be argued to be a legitimate use of government power.

The reality of any form of capitalism is that corporations won't care about more than profit, and the economy is most successful when that's the case. That's the economic system we live in. We tried, in the 1920s, to get corporations to voluntarily give a shit about the little people. It worked okay, until business took a turn for the worse, when that voluntary system totally collapsed.

Government can be a balancer against the power of private companies, but we must be wary of the government too, as it cares about us the people ever-so-barely more than private corporations do (and the government comes equipped with a rather large army/navy/air force). Neither will ever truly care. That's the reality as I see it (says the libertarian socialist. I say that so you know where I'm coming from ideologically, as it's obviously shaping what I write).

I guess the bottom line is just that: they don't and won't care. And you accomplish little other than putting more power into the hands of that other institution that doesn't and won't care - the government - by advocating increased regulation of the industry. It's a balance, and I favor whatever creates the least amount of control on we the people and our ability to exercise choice and take responsibility for our own actions.

If I misunderstand and you simply wish they did care without having it forced on them by the government, then wish away. But all you'll be doing is because it'll never happen.

I'm not blaming them for having a successful advertising campaign. Everybody can have one. I have a problem with them because theirs is particularly insidious. Toys + Cartoons + Cheap Food + Regularly scheduling + Indoor Playgrounds = Captivated Kids.

Nobody cared about smoking up until a few decades ago when they realized... oh shit, this stuff is fucking KILLING people. In Canada (BC at least, not sure about the rest of the country), you aren't allowed to phsyically SEE cigarettes when you go into a store. They are hidden. They aren't allowed to advertise on TV or sponsor events. The FDA just approved banning of flavored rolling papers/additives (which I am super fucking annoyed about, but thats another story). They aren't allowed to have cute cartoon characters as mascots. All because it appeals to kids. The tobacco industry still exists, and seems to be doing fine; even with deep government controls.

When the food (not just fast food, but all that processed garbage that is all equally as bad) industry becomes a liability instead of a tax stream, things will change. And thats how you have to get people to care. Not because they SHOULD care, but because it will affect their pocketbook. People are already dying of obesity related problems in record numbers, but I just don't think its epidemic levels yet.

Go check out a playground and see the physical level of the kids playing on it. Add 20 years. How much fun is THAT going to be to deal with? The American love affair with the quick, easy and bad for you diet may be its undoing and we may all end up looking like the people in Wall-E.

I do wish McD's had a conscious and did the right thing, but as long as corporations carry no responsibility (yay capitalism!), then they won't. I know, I get it. We live in a society where money is more important than people, I understand this.

But its all okay tho. Because we're under some guise that its our "choice" and cheeseburgers are delicious.