HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

McDonald Internal Website States Hamburgers and Fries are Unhealthy Meals

Chemicalkinetics Dec 25, 2013 10:33 AM

""Fast foods are quick, reasonably priced, and readily available alternatives to home cooking. While convenient and economical for a busy lifestyle, fast foods are typically high in calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt and may put people at risk for becoming overweight," reads one post on the site, which includes a picture of a hamburger and fries, two items that the fast-food giant specializes in selling."


"To illustrate the difference between ‘unhealthy choice’ and the ‘healthier choice’, the website of the food chain that employs some 700,000 people worldwide, for some reason countered graphics depicting a typical McDonald’s meal with graphics very much resembling a meal at the company’s major competitor, Subway: a sandwich with salad and a glass of water. "


"A graphic on the site shows a meal with a cheeseburger, fries and drink under the caption "Unhealthy choice." Next to it is a picture of a sub, a salad and water under the caption "Healthier choice.""


  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. babette feasts RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 25, 2013 10:42 AM

    At least they are being honest. Fast food is fine occasionally, just not as a way of life.

    10 Replies
    1. re: babette feasts
      smoledman RE: babette feasts Dec 25, 2013 03:35 PM

      No it's not fine even once.

      1. re: smoledman
        linguafood RE: smoledman Dec 25, 2013 03:36 PM

        Oh, please. Let's not be hysterical.

        1. re: linguafood
          jrvedivici RE: linguafood Dec 26, 2013 08:21 AM

          I had a Big Mac, once, just once, and my d*ck fell off.

          1. re: jrvedivici
            linguafood RE: jrvedivici Dec 26, 2013 08:28 AM

            Aw, well that 'splains the booze issue, huh?


            1. re: jrvedivici
              Chemicalkinetics RE: jrvedivici Dec 26, 2013 08:29 AM

              Well, at least it won't affect your life expectancy, maybe.

              1. re: jrvedivici
                carolinadawg RE: jrvedivici Dec 26, 2013 12:32 PM

                Your duck fell off what?

                1. re: carolinadawg
                  jrvedivici RE: carolinadawg Dec 26, 2013 01:49 PM

                  Yes, my rubber d*cky we've been attached to each other a long, long time.

                  1. re: jrvedivici
                    Chemicalkinetics RE: jrvedivici Dec 26, 2013 02:03 PM


                    1. re: Chemicalkinetics
                      jrvedivici RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 26, 2013 02:28 PM

                      Yep! That's my d*ck!!!

                      1. re: jrvedivici
                        carolinadawg RE: jrvedivici Dec 26, 2013 02:56 PM

                        Must be one of those cameras that makes objects appear larger than they actually are! :-)

        2. linguafood RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 25, 2013 10:44 AM

          Gosh, who knew!

          1. s
            smoledman RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 25, 2013 03:34 PM

            I'm amazed that McDonald's has the gall to peddle this crap at the public with all those glitzy ads. They never show the diseased person on their death beds because of all the fast food they consumed for 30 years.

            13 Replies
            1. re: smoledman
              small h RE: smoledman Dec 26, 2013 08:25 AM

              I don't think you're cut out for a career in advertising.

              1. re: small h
                smoledman RE: small h Dec 26, 2013 12:03 PM

                Companies can be sued for false advertising.

                1. re: smoledman
                  linguafood RE: smoledman Dec 26, 2013 12:20 PM

                  Like the Nutella people claiming that Nutella is part of a healthy breakfast?


                  1. re: linguafood
                    smoledman RE: linguafood Dec 26, 2013 12:28 PM

                    Exactly. In fact I think the use of certain oils should be banned. Like all vegetables oils, soybean oils. We should strictly use butter, olive, avocado, coconut and palm oils.

                    1. re: smoledman
                      linguafood RE: smoledman Dec 26, 2013 12:32 PM

                      Wait -- olives and avocados aren't vegetables? Oh, wait. Avocado is a fruit, right?

                      1. re: linguafood
                        smoledman RE: linguafood Dec 26, 2013 12:41 PM

                        It's about avoiding transfats and oils that have the wrong balance of Omega 3 to 6.

                        1. re: smoledman
                          linguafood RE: smoledman Dec 26, 2013 12:42 PM

                          We're all gonna die of something.

                          1. re: smoledman
                            Scrofula RE: smoledman Dec 26, 2013 06:23 PM

                            This whole mess was caused by people with your kneejerk attitude to nutrition -- as soon as the evidence starts to point in one direction, you want to ban all foods that don't meet your new criterion. Never mind that the evidence is still far from conclusive. A few years ago, saturated fat was the enemy, so everybody had to switch to soy and canola oil. Now soy and canola oil are the enemy.

                            Worse still: by your own criterion, your recommendations don't make sense. Here are the w-3:w-6 ratios of the fats you mentioned:

                            Soy oil: 0.13 : 1
                            Canola oil: 0.46 : 1
                            Butter (conventional): 0.12 : 1
                            (Grass-fed has much better ratio, though)
                            Olive oil: 0.09 : 1
                            Avocado oil: 0.07 : 1
                            Coconut oil, palm oil: 0 : 1
                            (Negligible w-3 content)

                            None of these have significant trans fat content, unless hydrogenated. So by your criteria, all the fats you recommended are objectively worse than the ones you think should be banned. Let's not run around trying to ban things based on a half-baked understanding of an immature science.

                    2. re: smoledman
                      carolinadawg RE: smoledman Dec 26, 2013 12:35 PM

                      McD's has never run advertising claiming their burgers and fries are "good" for you.

                      1. re: carolinadawg
                        davis_sq_pro RE: carolinadawg Dec 26, 2013 07:16 PM

                        But they did tell me that I'd have a good time and experience great taste. They also told me that I'd encounter food, folks, *AND* fun. LIES!

                        1. re: davis_sq_pro
                          carolinadawg RE: davis_sq_pro Dec 27, 2013 03:40 AM

                          Then sue 'em!

                          1. re: davis_sq_pro
                            chowser RE: davis_sq_pro Dec 30, 2013 06:19 AM

                            They also told me I was the one. I haven't eaten there in over a decade so I was not the ONE. Deceits.

                    3. re: smoledman
                      chowser RE: smoledman Dec 30, 2013 06:17 AM

                      Exactly! I think all ads need to show the worst that can happen if you use their products. Alcohol needs to show a homeless person w/ an empty bottle, cars will feature pile ups w/ gory limbs, beach vacations show sun cancer and death, ski vacations w/ acl repair and concussions. They are so irresponsible showing only the rosy side.

                    4. sunshine842 RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 25, 2013 04:27 PM

                      this sounds like a further mess created by whomever generates the content for their internal website.

                      Remember at Thanksgiving when they were giving advice on how much to tip domestic help, right in the middle of the minimum-wage demonstrations?

                      Sounds like somebody need to deep-six the content generators and find someone to actually write content relevant to McD's employees.

                      1. s
                        small h RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 26, 2013 08:24 AM

                        The site's gone now.


                        From the article:

                        McDonald's confirmed the site had been taken down in a statement posted on its website. "A combination of factors has led us to re-evaluate and we've directed the vendor to take down the website. Between links to irrelevant or outdated information, along with outside groups taking elements out of context, this created unwarranted scrutiny and inappropriate commentary. None of this helps our McDonald's team members."

                        1 Reply
                        1. re: small h
                          sunshine842 RE: small h Dec 26, 2013 12:01 PM

                          that's what I figured....

                        2. Veggo RE: Chemicalkinetics Dec 26, 2013 02:27 PM

                          Maybe this same PR firm can work with Smith & Wesson and issue an employee guide booklet recommending that employees not shoot themselves in the foot.

                          Show Hidden Posts