HOME > Chowhound > Chains >

Discussion

Celebrate !!! No more 'pink slime' at McDonalds, Burger King or Taco Bell

LOCKED DISCUSSION

I am too through with those chains, especially McDonald's.

I actually have cut way down on Mcdonald's since learning the buns have a chemical used in yoga mats. i haven't bought a burger or sandwich there since.

Then last night on the news it was reported that McDonalds has stopped creating burgers from 'pink slime'

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/20...

'These trimmings, which consist of what’s left of the meat after all the choice cuts of beef are taken, are banned for human consumption in the U.K, where they are instead used for dog and chicken food. They are legal for consumption in the United States, however, where they are treated with ammonium hydroxide in order to kill off bacteria such as E. coli and make it safe for human consumption'

BK and Taco Bell are mentioned in the article

The one thing i've defended McDonalds about was that their burgers are all beef. That is how they built their reputation. Who knew that meant all beef pink slime.

So if I must have fast food it will be at In-n-Out burgers a western chain that has whole fresh potatoes in each restaurant to make the fries, real beef and buns that are NOT shelf stable longer than Twinkies.

Are there any other chains not using ingredients from the chemistry lab?

  1. Your body has a chemical that's in nail polish remover. So... I guess our bodies aren't "real" or "whole."

    I'll always defend McDonald's and other fast food places for filling their role (quick, filling food on the go). What goes into it isn't much of a concern. Ammonium hydroixde? Why am I supposed to be concerned about that when there's ammonia in our bodies right now? Wait! Toxic substances like ammonia are in our bodies naturally? What's going on? Real (non-alarmist) science is what's going on.

    1. "These trimmings, which consist of what’s left of the meat after all the choice cuts of beef are taken, are banned for human consumption in the U.K, where they are instead used for dog and chicken food."

      I assume the Brits love their pets so if they feed it to their dogs, does that mean they really don't care about them? As for feeding it to chickens, I presume these are chickens being raised for eating and/or egg laying. Either way, they will be consumed by humans who will now have eaten something that has eaten "pink slime." What's the difference? Hmmmm.

      2 Replies
      1. re: ttoommyy

        >>> I presume these are chickens being raised for eating and/or egg laying. Either way, they will be consumed by humans who will now have eaten something that has eaten "pink slime." What's the difference? Hmmmm.

        I guess people have forgotten about mad cow disease.

        1. re: rworange

          It's the risk we take as carnivores. It's more likely that I'll be hit by a car than get mad cow's disease. I'll take my chances.

      2. The term "pink slime" came from Jamie Oliver. McDonald's burgers are indeed all-beef -- that hasn't changed. This strikes me as silly alarmism.

        54 Replies
        1. re: Boston_Otter

          Funny how the Brits love their offal but draw the line at beef trimmings.

          1. re: Boston_Otter

            Yeah ... well i'll stick to beef without the ammonium hydroxide marinade. If it was so wonderful it would seem that McDonald's would have not decided to change their practices.

            Funny, in the past there were stories of poor people eating dog food. It looks like McDonalds has updated the recipe for its value menu.

            1. re: rworange

              The ammonium hydroxide rinse was miniscule compared to what already exists in your body. McDonald's did it because they were out-PR-ed. If they can gain a PR (and marketing) advantage by distancing themselves from that story then it works to their advantage.

              The problem is the sensationalistic approach to journalism (nothing new). "Pink slime" and "yoga mat chemicals" apparently have their desired effect when people here react as if they're being fed toxic sludge when the reality is altogether different.

              1. re: ferret

                What upsets me is that they believe their beef is so contaminated that it must be treated, by whatever means.

                1. re: ferret

                  Good. I hope more publicity about this works. If you want to call the facts of what is in your food alarmism and ignore it that's your choice.

                  There is no reason all these chemicals need to be in food.

                  People started voting with their dollars in terms of HFCS because despite claims of safety, it tasted lousy and people just aren't buying that everything is okey, dokey.

                  There is an old Chowhound post that asks why Subway smells like butt http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/416124

                  This aricle from natural news has a lot about the different things hidden in fast food. It made me laugh out loud about Subway.
                  http://www.naturalnews.com/022194.html

                  "None of Subway's breads are whole grain. Ammonium sulfate (a fertilizer) is also added."

                  That could explain the smell.

                  While I'm not hard core about healthy food, some other things in that article are pretty shocking, such as ...

                  "Along with many of McDonald's sauces, both the cilantro lime glaze and the orange glaze contain propylene glycol alginate. While propylene glycol is considered "GRAS" for human consumption, it is not legal for use in cat food because the safety hasn't been proven yet [10]. Propylene glycol is also used "As the killing and preserving agent in pitfall traps, usually used to capture ground beetles" [10]. ;

                  Bon apetit

                  1. re: rworange

                    Cats are sensitive to propylene glycol but that doesn't means it's unsafe. It's the way their bodies work. Same holds true for dogs and theobromine, so by your reasoning you should avoid chocolate.

                    Actually, even small amounts of chocolate can KILL dogs while it takes a reasonable quantity of propylene glycol to have an ill effect on cats - and it won't kill them. Oh, and onions and garlic can have a similar effect on cats -- so give those up too.

                    In fact, here's a long list of foods that will kill or sicken your cat - do yourself a favor and stay away from all of them:

                    http://cats.about.com/cs/catfood/a/hu...

                    1. re: ferret

                      Yes, nature at work here at Mcdonald's (pdf)
                      http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnut...

                      Big Mac Bun:
                      Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, soybean oil and/or canola oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (may contain one or more of the following: sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides,ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide), calcium propionate and/or sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin, sesame seed.

                      Big Mac Sauce:
                      Soybean oil, pickle relish [diced pickles, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, vinegar, corn syrup, salt, calcium chloride, xanthan gum, potassium sorbate (preservative),
                      spice extractives, polysorbate 80], distilled vinegar, water, egg yolks, high fructose corn syrup, onion powder, mustard seed, salt, spices, propylene glycol alginate,
                      sodium benzoate (preservative), mustard bran, sugar, garlic powder, vegetable protein (hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat), caramel color, extractives of paprika, soy
                      lecithin, turmeric (color), calcium disodium EDTA (protect flavor).

                      Who knows what new slime mixture they are now using for the patty now that they say they are focusing on "quality"

                      1. re: rworange

                        I am certainly no food scientist. However I do know that there are many different names for common items. Here is a simple example, salt=sodium chloride. Or cream of tartar=Potassium bitartrate. Granted, the more things added, the more chances of adding something suspect, but I refuse to walk around afraid of everything I eat.

                        1. re: Jerseygirl111

                          The problem is these lists keep getting longer and longer. So it is difficult to catch things and our eyes glaze over.

                          As of this fall, I was one of the biggest boosters of the mystery McRib.

                          That was when i learned about the yoga mat filler in the buns and it just made me sick to think of eating something like that. So i just stopped eating their sandwiches.

                          No one expects a chicken McNugget to be anything that what it is. But the one thing i've always thought was unadulterated was the burger. i don't want beef of such poor quality that it has to be sanitized. Anyone can eat what they want. But they lost any credibility and trust from me and that will probably be impossible for them to get back.

                          No. They call salt salt. if i need a chemistry degree to know what it is, I don't want it. Making a personal decision is up to the person. I think it is sad this is what people are feeding their kids.

                          If this stuff they are adding is so good, we'd find it in the baking section of supermarkets. Add a dash of yoga mat to your home-baked bread. Seems like we are over the days though when fiber in bread was basically sawdust.

                          It would seem that it is just cheaper using eggs, chicken, beef, potatoes than adding all that stuff. A few of the things being glossed over and it ain't cream of tartar

                          trisodium phosphate - a cleanser

                          monosodium phosphate - a laxative

                          sodium phosphates - a foaming agent

                          titanium dioxide - a sunscreen, used to manufacture paint and semiconductors

                          dimethylpolysiloxane - used in silicone caulk, adhesives, and as an anti-foaming agent

                          azodicarbonamide is considered by some countries as a possible cause of asthma and banned from use in food.

                          1. re: rworange

                            That's exactly the kind of cherry-picking that does your alarmist reporting no favors whatsoever. There is no "yoga mat filler" in the buns -- that's a blatant lie. The only chemical that their buns and yoga mats have in common is a bleaching agent commonly used in commercial flour.

                            I can use vinegar (acetic acid) as a cleaning agent or in my food. Should I avoid it because it's a chemical?

                            1. re: rworange

                              "azodicarbonamide is considered by some countries as a possible cause of asthma"

                              If inhaled. Lots of things you eat that are "natural" can potentially make you ill if you inhale them. Try snorting flour or sugar sometime.

                              1. re: ferret

                                Perhaps you should contact McDonalds and request they return the hamburger sludge.

                                1. re: ferret

                                  "Flour dust and enzymes containing additives such as amylase are the second most common cause of occupational asthma"
                                  http://www.hse.gov.uk/asthma/bakers.htm

                                  Work place warning poster about the hazards of flour
                                  http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg429.pdf

                                  1. re: paulj

                                    ha. the same amylase we produce in saliva and GI secretions. love it

                                2. re: rworange

                                  "the yoga mat filler in the bun" " a dash of yoga mat" "sawdust" ????

                                  How did the use of azodicarbonamide evolve into describing it as filler? You make it sound as though they grind up yoga mats and mix them into the bread dough to cut costs. Is that really what your Google sources are tell you?

                              2. re: rworange

                                So which chemical in the bun makes it taste like a rubber mat?

                                  1. re: rworange

                                    Yes there are lot of hits with those two words, but that just means there is big echo chamber out there. Do any of them tell us something substantial and informative, or are they just repeating a juicy sound bite? A lot of those articles and blogs made it sound like the 'meat' itself had this common ingredient. A few moved on to say it was in the bread. But do any talk about the purpose of the ingredient in the respective products?

                              3. re: ferret

                                Actually, it takes a huge amount of chocolate to harm a dog -- roughly one full ounce of Unsweetened pure Cocoa Solids per pound of dog. Your Schnauzer getting to a Hershey Bar -- which is less than 40% cocoa solids -- isn't a problem. He might throw up but he won't die.

                                But overall I agree with you.

                                1. re: acgold7

                                  It was the physician Paracelsus, who said: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”

                                  You can really buy into that statement when you think about the fact that drinking too much tap water can kill you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in...

                                  1. re: Servorg

                                    When the first artificial sweetener was released on the market and the first rumors were that it caused cancer, that was exactly my friend's response ... the exact phrase was that 'Water wiill kill you if you are a fruit fly and try to drink a gallon"

                                    That particular product turned out to indeed cause cancer and was removed from the market ... much to the distress of dieters who liked the taste.

                                    I wasn't much bothered by the McRib bun controversy. After all, If I eat a McRib or two once a year, what's the harm?

                                    When I found out it was in all the buns ... well ... i eat at McDonalds way more than that. The thing is that most of these chemicals are approved as safe based on a single serving. The cumulative effect may or may not be harmful, but for me with so much good food out there it isn't worth my personal risk.

                                    The slime thing to me was just out and out contempt for the customer. If this stuff is so great there would be commercials highlighty the way they are made. That actually would be quite funny. If people saw the process, I wonder if they would still eat the stuff.

                                    i personally don't see the problem with reporting this. For people don't care, enjoy. Some people might want to know that there is a reason junk food is called that. The ingredients are junk.

                                    1. re: rworange

                                      "The thing is that most of these chemicals are approved as safe based on a single serving"

                                      They are definitely not approved on a single serving. When scientists test chemicals in food they do so at amounts you and I could only get by eating on the order of 40 McRib's a day. Not something anyone is going to be doing. Even with artificial sweeteners one would have to consume gallons of the artificially sweetened drink, each and every day, to approach the threshold that was used in animal testing of the product.

                                      1. re: rworange

                                        "When the first artificial sweetener was released on the market and the first rumors were that it caused cancer, that was exactly my friend's response ... the exact phrase was that 'Water wiill kill you if you are a fruit fly and try to drink a gallon"

                                        That particular product turned out to indeed cause cancer and was removed from the market ... much to the distress of dieters who liked the taste. "

                                        If you're referring to cyclamates, the syudies that led to its removal have been demonstrated to be flawed and the consensus now is that it's not harmful.

                                        http://www.cyclamate.org/regulatoryst...

                                        As for the term "junk food" it relates more to the original notion that it was nutritionally deficient, not that the ingredients were "junk."

                                        Your lack of understanding doesn't automatically equate to danger.

                                        1. re: ferret

                                          There can be as many links proving safety as danger in these chemicals.

                                          Many studies are funded by large corporations. Any study or link needs to be evaluated not only in terms of who is paying for it but how it is conducted.

                                          For all i know your passion for chemicals may be either because you work for one of these companies or simply you just don't think anything that you put in your mouth that doesn't immediately kill you is safe.

                                          You might point out that the population in general hasn't been harmed. However, most of this stuff didn't start getting added until the 1980's and it has since accellerated. It might eplain why there are so many people that are increasingly having problems with allergies and other health problems. it might not, but it is something to consider.

                                          You could just be a trusting soul ... or numb, as many people are because chemicals happen now. It is too time consuming and confusing to explore what all those strange ingredients are.

                                          For me they don't add flavor and i don't want to be eating the same thing that is in fertilizer ... unless your idea of deliciousness is a Subway sandwich and the intoxicating aroma that greets you when you walk in the door.

                                          The bottom line is this stuff isn't there for taste and the food tasted better without it.

                                          After a year in Central American where sugar is used instead of HFCS, it was impossible for me to drink the soda in the US again because it tastes so bad incomparison.

                                          Barnum's Animal crackers just put out a limited edition of animal crackers where they go back to using sugar and there is not one unidentifiable ingredient. They taste like the animal crackers when I was a kid, not the awful animal crackers currently sold.

                                          Walking down a supermarket bread aisle is stomach churning for me. There is this weird stale bread smell always there. Wonder Bread and Twinkies may be bankrupt for reasons of changing eating habits but it could be the stuff just tastes like crap now.

                                          Anyway, people can decide if they want to know what is in their food or not. If they want to know, this is some info and then they can make a decision if they care.

                                          You don't care so why don't we leave it as enjoy your chemical cocktail. Cheers.

                                          1. re: rworange

                                            "For all i know your passion for chemicals may be either because you work for one of these companies or simply you just don't think anything that you put in your mouth that doesn't immediately kill you is safe. "

                                            Because those are the only two options, of course. It couldn't possibly be because I try to learn rather than fear?

                                            1. re: ferret

                                              As I said, there are lots studies for either case. You choose to believe those that support the safety of these chemicals.

                                              1. re: rworange

                                                It's not an either/or. It's valid scientific studies vs. alarmist propaganda.

                                                1. re: ferret

                                                  Oh ... now i understand where you are coming from.

                                                  It is the same as the global warming theory. To some people there is no such thing and any scientific study pointing to the possibility is alarmist propaganda.

                                                  I grew up in the time when a good many people pooh-poohed the notion that cigarettes caused cancer. They called that alarmist propoganda as well.

                                                  Then there were the pesticides that have since been banned because people called that alarmist propaganda. We were told that without DDT the entire farming system would collapse. There's alarmist propoganda on any side of any issue.

                                                  A little more alarmist fodder for you about the failure of the government to ensure food safety
                                                  http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp...

                                                  "When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976, it was intended to ensure that chemicals are safe throughout their lifecycle ... When the law was first passed, 62,000 chemicals were allowed to remain on the market without testing for their effects on health or the environment. In more than 30 years, the EPA has only required testing of about 200 of those chemicals, and has partially regulated only five. The rest have never been fully assessed for toxic impacts on human health and the environment'

                                                  1. re: rworange

                                                    "McDonald's buns contain a chemical found in yoga mats" is alarmist propaganda.

                                                    "McDonald's buns contain a chemical additive with no health risks" is based in science.

                                                    1. re: ferret

                                                      No ... that is your spin on it. To be accurate ""McDonald's buns contain a chemical found in yoga mats" Whether or not you believe it has no health risks depends on which studies you look at. Again, enjoy.

                                            2. re: rworange

                                              The human body is made up of chemicals. Number 4 on the list is Nitrogen, the largest component of fertilizer. Most of the other major components of fertilizer are also present in our make up: (phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur)

                                              See below for the human chemical array - which is caused by birth:

                                              Oxygen (65%)
                                              Carbon (18%)
                                              Hydrogen (10%)
                                              Nitrogen (3%)
                                              Calcium (1.5%)
                                              Phosphorus (1.0%)
                                              Potassium (0.35%)
                                              Sulfur (0.25%)
                                              Sodium (0.15%)
                                              Magnesium (0.05%)
                                              Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
                                              Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

                                              1. re: Servorg

                                                Yeah, i don't eat people either.

                                                And if i did, I'm familiar with all those.

                                                From this thread it looks like we've reached the point where people are ready to buy soylent green ... tastes great and is cheap.

                                                1. re: rworange

                                                  "For me they don't add flavor and i don't want to be eating the same thing that is in fertilizer ..."

                                                  I can assure you that both the beef in McDonald's hamburgers, as well as the beef served at the French Laundry, come from animals which contain the same "fertilizer" elements that you and I are both made up of.

                                                  1. re: Servorg

                                                    servorg,

                                                    So you are saying that ammonium sulfate is added to the beef at French Laundry?

                                                    That is interesting since it is not the chemical added to McDonald's beef. It is added to Subway's buns.

                                                    Since you are willing to assure me, please provide the ingredient list for the French Laundry.

                                                    So no difference in quality of ingredients between French Laundry and McDonald's ... interesting.

                                                    1. re: rworange

                                                      No...I'm saying that each time you eat beef (whether at Mickey D's or the F Laundry) you are consuming "fertilizer" components. (but you already knew that)

                                                      1. re: Servorg

                                                        The French Laundry beef is from cattle that is not exposed to artificial fertilizers. There is no ammonium sulfate added to anything at that restaurant. Their marinades are not chemicals.

                                                        You want to use straw man arguments.

                                                        For thousands of years people have grown and eaten food without additives. Artificial chemical additives are a development of the past few decades. There is no track record of their safety and I'm not understanding their benefit.

                                                        If there wasn't something inherintly wrong with this there would be no organic movement. Chemical additives created in the lab are not the same as cheicals occurring in nature.

                                                        You can point to things like arsenic in apple seeds but agian that is ... well, comparing apples to oranges. Not the same thing in the least and you know it.

                                                        Maybe ignorance was bliss, but knowing yoga mat chemicals are in buns or the burger I am eating started as pink slime ... is repulsive and stomach churning to me. I'm not trying to ... I guess given the level of discussion about this an appropriate phrase ... yuck your yum.

                                                        If you know this and want to partake ... enjoy

                                                        Hmmm ... i wonder if this will be the first chains thread to actually be locked ... Folks, everything that can be said has been said.

                                                        1. re: rworange

                                                          "The French Laundry beef is from cattle that is not exposed to artificial fertilizers. There is no ammonium sulfate added to anything at that restaurant. Their marinades are not chemicals. "

                                                          The inherent make up of beef (or the human body) cotains most all of the major (and many of the minor) chemical elements which make up fertilizer. So when you eat beef, any beef from any source, you are consuming most all of the elements found in fertilizer.

                                                          1. re: Servorg

                                                            No. That is not true. The elements of natural and chemical fertilizers are two different things.

                                                            1. re: rworange

                                                              "The elements of natural and chemical fertilizers are two different things."

                                                              That is true. Chemical fertilizers are much less prone to causing life threatening illnesses in human beings than "natural" ones.

                                                              1. re: Servorg

                                                                And your proof is?

                                                                My proof is that natural fertilizers have been used for thousands of years.

                                                                1. re: rworange

                                                                  The number of ecoli born illnesses which occur in countries which still use "natural" fertilizer on their crops..

                                                                  1. re: Servorg

                                                                    And your backup statistics?

                                                                    And your proof of the safety of chemical fertilizer?

                                                                    servorg, you can read between the lines on this. I am aware of your stand that as long as it tastes good, what is in food is irrelevant. That is fine for you.

                                                                    However, if the thought of how my food is made makes me want to throw up, I can't get past that. Oliver had the same take or he would not have called it pink slime. McDonalds realized what a potential PR disaster this could be or they would not have discontinued this practice.

                                                                    IMO, it is good to call attention to practices like this. Then people can decide for themselves if this is what they want to put in their body ... despite the taste or whether it is inepensive.

                                                                    1. re: rworange

                                                                      Emotion vs Science. I come down on the science side every time. If you start thinking about risk, and what we eat vs slipping in the shower I have a feeling we would smell a whole lot worse as a community and not overly worry about what we consume as it impacts our health.

                                                                      1. re: Servorg

                                                                        Again ... straw man

                                                                        I can produce as many scientific report\ links as your can.

                                                                        But yes, it is something that is personal. McDonald's stepped over a line for me.

                                                                        I'm not someone who cares much about eating organically always. I try to when I can.

                                                                        Although I accepted, as most people on this thread without an agenda, that there were preservatives added to this food, it never occurded to me that a company could have so little concern for their customers unecessarily.

                                                                        You can eat whatever you like. Just don't try to convince me it is healthy, tasty or safe. That is not my experience J.

                                                                        1. re: rworange

                                                                          How do you know it's not safe based on "your experience?" (or for that matter healthy). Taste is totally subjective.

                                                                          1. re: rworange

                                                                            From a National Geographic article on this subject:

                                                                            "When this water (with human or animal waste discharge) is used for agricultural irrigation, farmers risk absorbing disease-causing bacteria, as do consumers who eat the produce raw and unwashed. Nearly 2.2 million people die each year because of diarrhea-related diseases, including cholera, according to WHO statistics. More than 80 percent of those cases can be attributed to contact with contaminated water and a lack of proper sanitation."

                                                            2. re: rworange

                                                              "If there wasn't something inherintly wrong with this there would be no organic movement. Chemical additives created in the lab are not the same as cheicals occurring in nature."

                                                              Much like if there isn't a god there wouldn't be so many religions?

                                                              Just because people choose a way of life doesn't mean it's the only valid one. People choose organic because they find fulfillment in doing so. It doesn't make them healthier or live longer or eliminate diseases like cancer, heart disease or strokes. It's a lifestyle choice, not a scientific confirmation of anything.

                                                      2. re: rworange

                                                        Your argumentation style reminds me a bit of my mother. :)

                                                        My father once said that she had used too much black pepper in a dish, so she filled both sides the salt and pepper shaker with salt - on the assumption that he did not like pepper at all. When asked why she didn't use garlic, she explained that once she and her sisters had used too much and didn't like it.

                                                        It is possible to object to some of the connections that you make without being a shill for the big-bad-guys or the fan of a fictional food.

                                                        1. re: paulj

                                                          Comparing pepper to what makes your paint and fertilizer isn't quite the same thing.

                                                          Is it possible to acknowledge that I just think they are disgusting and that is all this is about. Is that it? People see this as me going "eeeewww" and are offended that I think the food they are eating is gross?

                                                          1. re: rworange

                                                            this has officially gone far beyond the point of being unproductive and is now just silly.

                                                            1. re: mattstolz

                                                              Other than someone with an agenda, I take the majority of this as silly and posters having their fun. When the absurd comments of comparing McDonalds to French Laundry or pepper preferences one would hope it is just people being silly. Othersie, it is just plain sad if people would be so unaware of what they are putting in their mouths or if they were just not caring. While I realize the chains board is like the relative people are ashamed of, one would hope that there are still some standards.

                                                              Unfortuantely no one answered the question in the OP which I had hoped to get more info about. Are there other fast food joints like IN-N-Out that aren't shooting up their food.

                                                              1. re: rworange

                                                                in general, id say if you can tell the pieces of meat are ACTUALLY pieces of meat, you're in good shape. for example, if you bite into the chicken and it still has fibers instead of a smooth texture, youre (more likely to be) in the clear.

                                                                at least thats my strategy

                                                            2. re: rworange

                                                              You seemed to have missed the point of my example. I wasn't comparing pepper to chemicals. I was interested in the reasoning process, which takes a focused objection, and generalizes it into an all-or-nothing one.

                                                              In the context of this thread, a person can object to some of the conclusions that you draw, without being opposed to everything that you value or like. I've never had McRib, and can't recall when I last ate at the Golden Arches.

                                  2. This is silly. How many years have you eaten McDonalds? I treat this info with a grain of salt. Every week there are new things that are good and bad for you. Barbeque, coffee, tea, fat, sugar. Then you hear the stories about people living to 100. When they are asked their secret, they eat the "worst" things, drink alcohol and smoke! Moderation in everything.

                                    1 Reply
                                    1. re: Jerseygirl111

                                      Longevity owes more to genetics than organic eating. That doesn't mean you don't need to do anything to protect your health, but most people are kidding themselves if they think that "pure" food will help them live longer (or better).

                                    2. I wonder how many years worrying about such minutiae takes off ones life?

                                      3 Replies
                                      1. re: joe777cool

                                        Don't worry about it. Don't eat it anymore.

                                        McDonalds certainly knows its customers. Give them them food that many other countries only see fit for animals (there's more than one), shoot it up with chemicals to let it last and last and put it on the value menu ... and what's wrong with that if that's what the crowd wants. Better living through chemistry. Like i said, enjoy.

                                        1. re: rworange

                                          Moderation is the key. I had one, yes one, mcburger in the last year. People who make a regular diet of this stuff are one thing and that is an issue. But if a CHer wants a mcburger a few times a year, so what? What about alcohol? Think about what that can do to your body. But there's a whole board dedicated to it here on CH. Like I said...moderation is the key.

                                          1. re: ttoommyy

                                            Man trains for and runs a marathon while relying on McDonald's:
                                            http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/11/c...

                                            Fit guy eats the same diet as the infamous "Supersize Me," but stays healthy:
                                            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

                                            McDonald's food is neither healthy nor unhealthy, but can be part of either a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. All things, even moderation, is relative. In this case, moderation (the calories/amount consumed) is relative to one's level of activity.

                                            But, why bother with things like personal responsibility when you can point fingers, right?