McDonalds
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: McDonalds

  1. #1
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default McDonalds

    I recently was in McDonalds on Sunday to get breakfast sandwiches for my family. They had a new campaign with all of the calories in each thing posted. I thought this was a good thing and told DH so. He disagreed and felt the Government should not be able to tell McDonalds they have to do that.

    What do you think?

    As an aside, to the other school lunch debate. One sandwich would take the whole calorie allotment for the meal not counting fries, a drink, or anything else.

    ~Bonita~

  2. #2
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    I love that they do it but I don't think the gov't should be involved in forcing them to do so.

  3. #3
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    I love that they do it but I don't think the gov't should be involved in forcing them to do so.
    Just curious, why not? Doesn't a government agency (the FDA probably) regulate the nutrition info posted on packages of food in the grocery store?

    I think it's great, and I don't see why it's a problem that the government is making them do it. The government isn't saying that people can't eat that food, they are just allowing people to be able to make informed choices. How is more information a bad thing?
    ClairesMommy likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  4. #4
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Just curious, why not? Doesn't a government agency (the FDA probably) regulate the nutrition info posted on packages of food in the grocery store?

    I think it's great, and I don't see why it's a problem that the government is making them do it. The government isn't saying that people can't eat that food, they are just allowing people to be able to make informed choices. How is more information a bad thing?
    But where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government should make companies inform people about their food's calorie content?
    mom3girls likes this.

  5. #5
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,433

    Default

    Ditto what Lillie said

    As an aside, I love that they are posting it. We went though the drive thru the other day to get an ice tea and saw all the calorie counts, I was shocked at how high it was and so were my kids. We rarely eat there but now it may be never
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  6. #6
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,470

    Default

    The government had to force them to do it because they weren't going to do it otherwise. I have no problem with that. In California this information has been legally required to be "publicly posted" for many years but it's usually tucked behind the bathroom door or next to the soda machine where you can't stop to look at it because you're blocking everyone, and that's really no better than not posting it at all. I think having it up on the menu board is a great idea and it's good information for the consumer to have. Obviously something with grilled chicken is logically a better choice than something with two full-sized patties, bacon, cheese, and mayo, but the difference between other things might not be so clear cut; a small french fries are only 20 calories more than a fruit & walnut side dish and a small Coke is only 20 calories more than a chocolate milk. That information might help me make the decision to not pay extra for the fruit or to let my child have her only soft drink of the week instead of pushing another serving of milk.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  7. #7
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    But where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government should make companies inform people about their food's calorie content?
    What? So now everything should be in the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say that you can't kill, steal, or run around naked?

    As for the debate, yes, it is a good thing. The government regulates many parts of our food and drugs. For example, formula must have an expiration/use by date. Should we just trust the formula companies to let us know when it will go bad? Or the stores to not sell expired formula? And if they don't, oh well they don't have to.

    As a consumer, this is important information to have. I remember when food products weren't required to be labeled with any information. You had to guess how many calories were in something and how big a serving size was. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this information readily available to them. Every online and in-person diet program I am familiar with tracks food including fiber, protein, fat, and calorie content.

    Like someone else said, this has been the requirement in CA for many years. It's very useful when I am selecting something at Panera or Panda Express. Honestly I had no idea how many calories are in orange chicken and how few are in some of the Subway sandwiches.
    ClairesMommy likes this.

  8. #8
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    What? So now everything should be in the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say that you can't kill, steal, or run around naked?

    As for the debate, yes, it is a good thing. The government regulates many parts of our food and drugs. For example, formula must have an expiration/use by date. Should we just trust the formula companies to let us know when it will go bad? Or the stores to not sell expired formula? And if they don't, oh well they don't have to.

    As a consumer, this is important information to have. I remember when food products weren't required to be labeled with any information. You had to guess how many calories were in something and how big a serving size was. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this information readily available to them. Every online and in-person diet program I am familiar with tracks food including fiber, protein, fat, and calorie content.

    Like someone else said, this has been the requirement in CA for many years. It's very useful when I am selecting something at Panera or Panda Express. Honestly I had no idea how many calories are in orange chicken and how few are in some of the Subway sandwiches.
    To the bolded-No. It does say that the Federal government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into State matters and IMHO, we've gone WAY past what they meant when they wrote it and what is good for us.

    If it's a requirement in CA and it's working, don't you think it makes since to go ahead and follow that little thing called the Constitution (which separates State and Federal rights) and go ahead and let them decide whether it should be the law for a business to post information that negatively affects their bottom line and positively affects the overall health of their citizens?

  9. #9
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    What? So now everything should be in the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say that you can't kill, steal, or run around naked?

    As for the debate, yes, it is a good thing. The government regulates many parts of our food and drugs. For example, formula must have an expiration/use by date. Should we just trust the formula companies to let us know when it will go bad? Or the stores to not sell expired formula? And if they don't, oh well they don't have to.

    As a consumer, this is important information to have. I remember when food products weren't required to be labeled with any information. You had to guess how many calories were in something and how big a serving size was. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this information readily available to them. Every online and in-person diet program I am familiar with tracks food including fiber, protein, fat, and calorie content.

    Like someone else said, this has been the requirement in CA for many years. It's very useful when I am selecting something at Panera or Panda Express. Honestly I had no idea how many calories are in orange chicken and how few are in some of the Subway sandwiches.
    To the bolded-No. It does say that the Federal government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into State matters and IMHO, we've gone WAY past what they meant when they wrote it and what is good for us.

    If it's a requirement in CA and it's working, don't you think it makes since to go ahead and follow that little thing called the Constitution (which separates State and Federal rights) and go ahead and let them decide whether it should be the law for a business to post information that negatively affects their bottom line and positively affects the overall health of their citizens?

  10. #10
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    To the bolded-No. It does say that the Federal government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into State matters and IMHO, we've gone WAY past what they meant when they wrote it and what is good for us.

    If it's a requirement in CA and it's working, don't you think it makes since to go ahead and follow that little thing called the Constitution (which separates State and Federal rights) and go ahead and let them decide whether it should be the law for a business to post information that negatively affects their bottom line and positively affects the overall health of their citizens?
    I would think it would fall under the commerce clause because other food and drugs are regulated by the federal government. There are heavy regulations on the food industry to keep people from getting sick. Federal law places restrictions on purchasing sudafed, yet the constitution does not specifically establish their right to do so.

    Do people really have a problem with the Federal Meat Inspection Act because that regulates the meat industry at the federal level? Or The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) because it requires at the federal level Nabisco to inform consumers how many calories are in Oreos. It would seem their authority has already been established with requiring the nutritional infomation of food. This just extends it to restaurants as well.

    I live in CA, so as a citizen, I'm entitled to know how many calories are in orange chicken, but someone in MS isn't privvy to the information unless their state decides they are? That doesn't seem logical to me.

    Do you have a study suggesting it has had an effect on their bottom line? Many restaurants came out with a lot more healthier options on their menus. A billboard I pass daily advertises McDonald's Egg McMuffin as 300 calories. It's been decades since Oreos were labeled. Did people stop buying them? Don't know. But they also offer 100-calories packs of them. So they find ways to tap into new markets and marketing.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions