Virginia earthquake

MINERAL, Va. (AP) -- A 5.9 magnitude earthquake centered in Virginia forced evacuations of all the memorials and monuments on the National Mall in Washington and rattled nerves from South Carolina to Martha's Vineyard, the Massachusetts island where President Barack Obama is vacationing.

A District of Columbia fire department spokesman said there were numerous injuries, no reports of serious injuries or deaths.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the earthquake was half a mile deep and centered near Louisa, Va., about 40 miles northwest of Richmond. Shaking was felt at the White House and all over the East Coast, as far south as Charleston, S.C. Parts of the Pentagon, White House and Capitol were evacuated.

Two nuclear reactors at the North Anna Power Station in the same county as the epicenter were automatically taken off line by safety systems around the time of the earthquake, said Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Dominion-operated power plant is being run off of four emergency diesel generators, which are supplying power for critical safety equipment. Hannah said the agency was not immediately aware of any damage at nuclear power plants in the Southeast.


Obama and many of the nation's leaders were out of town on August vacation when the quake struck at 1:51 p.m. EDT. The shaking was felt on the Martha's Vineyard golf course as Obama was just starting a round.

At the Pentagon in northern Virginia, a low rumbling built and built to the point that the building was shaking. People ran into the corridors of the government's biggest building and as the shaking continued there were shouts of "Evacuate! Evacuate!"

The U.S. Park Service evacuated and closed all National Mall monuments and memorials. At Reagan National Airport outside Washington, ceiling tiles fell during a few seconds of shaking. Authorities announced it was an earthquake and all flights were put on hold.

Amtrak said its trains along the Northeast Corridor between Baltimore and Washington were operating at reduced speeds and crews were inspecting stations and railroad infrastructure before returning to normal.

In New York, the 26-story federal courthouse in lower Manhattan began swaying and hundreds of people were seen leaving the building. Court officers weren't letting people back in.

More than 12 million people live close enough to the quake's epicenter to feel shaking, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The agency said this quake was in the yellow alert category for economic damage, meaning there was potential for local damage but it would add up to far less than 1 percent of the country's gross domestic product.

East Coast earthquakes are far less common than in the West, but they tend to be felt over a broad area. That's because the crust is not as mangled and fractured, allowing seismic waves to travel without interruption.

"The waves are able to reverberate and travel pretty happily out for miles," said U.S. Geological Survey seismologist Susan Hough.

There was an earthquake 4 miles outside Youngstown Monday at 8 a.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey. At 2.2 on the Richter scale, it went unnoticed by everyone but earthquake watchers.


The Virginia quake came a day after an earthquake in Colorado toppled groceries off shelves and caused minor damage to homes in the southern part of the state and in northern New Mexico. No injuries were reported as aftershocks continued Tuesday.

In Charleston, W.Va., hundreds of workers left the state Capitol building and employees at other downtown office buildings were asked to leave temporarily.

"The whole building shook," said Jennifer Bundy, a spokeswoman for the state Supreme Court. "You could feel two different shakes. Everybody just kind of came out on their own."

In Ohio, where office buildings swayed in Columbus and Cincinnati and the press box at the Cleveland Indians' Progressive Field shook. At least one building near the Statehouse was evacuated in downtown Columbus.

In downtown Baltimore, the quake sent office workers into the streets, where lamp posts swayed slightly as they called family and friends to check in.

Social media site Twitter lit up with reports of the earthquake from people using the site up and down the U.S. eastern seaboard.

"People pouring out of buildings and onto the sidewalks and Into Farragut Park in downtown DC...," tweeted Republican strategist Kevin Madden.

John Gurlach, air traffic controller at the Morgantown Municipal Airport was in a 40-foot-tall tower when the earth trembled.

"There were two of us looking at each other saying, 'What's that?'" he said, even as a commuter plane was landing. "It was noticeably shaking. It felt like a B-52 unloading."

Immediately, the phone rang from the nearest airport in Clarksburg, and a computer began spitting out green strips of paper -- alerts from other airports in New York and Washington issuing ground stops "due to earthquake."


Copied from.......BOB LEWIS,Associated Press

An Earthquake Hit Virginia On August 23, 2011

An Earthquake Hit Virginia On August 23, 2011. The 5.9 Quake Was Felt in DC, New York and Even Boston and North Carolina

A 5.9 earthquake occurred in the US state of Virginia on Tuesday, August 23, 2011.

The earthquake was felt in many major urban areas like Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New York and even Boston. The White House and the Pentagon were evacuated, though neither the President nor Vice President are currently in Washington, D.C.
Virginia Earthquake 2011: Twitter Reaction, Jokes About NYC Quake

The August 23 earthquake was located about six kilometers southwest of Mineral, Virginia at a depth of about 1 kilometer. The magnitude was initially 5.8, but has since been upgraded. This is Virginia's most powerful earthquake since 1897.

There were no early reports of damage or injuries caused by the Virginia earthquake.

However, there are reports that the Pentagon and Capitol Building in Washington were evacuated at 1:51 p.m as were several major buildings in New York.

New York Earthquake 2011

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York said that “there is currently no impact on service as a result of the earthquake felt throughout the metropolitan area.”

A 5.9-magnitude earthquake struck the eastern seaboard of the U.S. just before 2 p.m. (EDT). It was centered in a small town near Richmond, Va., and tremors were felt as far north as Rhode Island and Toronto, Canada.

However, Amtrak reported that rail service along the Northeast Corridor between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. “is operating at reduced speeds.”

“Amtrak crews are working to inspect stations and railroad infrastructure before returning to normal operation,” the rail service stated.
“We have no reported injuries at this time. Passengers should expect delays.”

Earthquakes news today

An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault, or fracture, in the earth's surface. The tectonic plates on the surface are always slowly moving, but they get stuck at their edges because of friction. When the stress on the edge overcomes the friction, there is an earthquake that releases energy in waves that travel through the earth's crust and create the shaking we feel.

An earthquake's magnitude is a measured value of its size and is the same no matter where you are, or how strong or weak the shaking was in different locations. An earthquake's intensity is a measure of the shaking it creates, and varies with location.

A magnitude of 8 or higher defines a "great" earthquake; 7 to 7.9 is considered "major"; 6 to 6.9 is "strong"; 5 to 5.9 is "moderate"; 4 to 4.9 is "light"; 3 to 3.9 is "minor"; and less than 3 is "micro."


Experts have said that a million people died in earthquakes in the 20th century and that this century might see 10 times as many deaths, with as many as a million killed in a single quake. That is, unless major efforts are made to fortify the world’s growing cities, which are expected to be homes to billions of added residents.

Even though the rate of earthquakes over time seems to be more or less unchanging, the world's population explosion means that more people are moving into quake zones, which are often near coasts. The result, the experts say, is the prospect of continuing trauma.

"It is inevitable," Klaus H. Jacob, an earthquake expert at Lamont-Doherty, the earth sciences research center of Columbia University, said at the end of the last century. "More and more people, and more and more buildings, are at stake. As the world gets more populous and richer, allowing a more built-up environment, higher buildings and all the infrastructure that supports our civilization, communications and the like, the risk goes up."

D.C., N.Y. buildings evacuate as quake felt across East

WASHINGTON — An earthquake in central Virginia was felt across much of the East Coast on Tuesday, causing light damage and forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate buildings in New York, Washington and other cities.


No tsunami warning was issued, but air and train traffic was disrupted across the Northeast and mid-Atlantic.

In the Washington area, parts of the Pentagon, White House and Capitol were among the areas evacuated. All memorials and monuments on the National Mall were evacuated and closed for inspections. Most areas had reopened after several hours.

At the Pentagon, a low rumbling built and built to the point that the building shook. People ran into the corridors of the government's biggest building and as the shaking continued there were shouts of "Evacuate! Evacuate!"

The quake even broke a water main inside the Pentagon, flooding parts of two floors, NBC reported.

"We were rocking," said Larry Beach, who works at the U.S. Agency for International Development in Washington. "It was definitely significant."

Initial damage reports from Washington included Ecuador's embassy and the central tower at the National Cathedral, where three pinnacles on the 30-story-tall tower broke off.


Centered some 90 miles south of the nation's capital, the quake was a magnitude 5.8, the U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday after an earlier estimate of 5.9.

The quake was tied for third strongest along the East Coast in recorded history, USGS records show. Charleston, S.C., was hit by a 7.3 in 1886 and Giles County, Va., saw a 5.9 in 1897. A 5.8 quake struck New York state in 1944.

Two nuclear reactors near the epicenter were taken offline as a precaution, officials said. No damage was reported at either.

At the U.S. Capitol, light fixtures swung and the building shook for about 15 seconds while the tremor hit, NBC News reported.

"I thought at first somebody was shaking my chair and then I thought maybe it was a bomb," said Senate aide Wendy Oscarson-Kirchner.


At Reagan National Airport outside Washington, ceiling tiles fell during a few seconds of shaking. All flights were put on hold and one terminal was evacuated due to a gas smell.

Mary Altaffer / AP
Children are evacuated from the Jacob K. Javits Federal building in New York on Tuesday after the earthquake.

In New York City, NBC reported debris fell from the attorney general's office, causing a brief panic as people ran from the area.
Quake interrupts Manhattan for a New York minute

Airport towers and government buildings in New York, including City Hall, were evacuated. The 26-story federal courthouse in lower Manhattan began swaying and hundreds of people were seen leaving the building.

Flights from the New York area's John F. Kennedy and Newark airports were delayed while authorities inspected control towers and runways. Philadelphia's airport also halted flights for inspections.

Gas prices fueling spring of discontent with Obama?

No President gains popularity while prices on anything spiral out of control, especially the fuel prices that impact the price of just about everything brought to market. The Washington Post draws a little more data out of their most recent survey — the one with the ten-point edge to Democrats in the sample — and finds that people who have lost a significant amount of disposable income to high gas prices aren’t inclined to view Barack Obama as an economic genius.

And in other breaking news, water is wet:

Soaring gasoline prices are biting into household incomes and nibbling at Americans’ fuel consumption — and support for President Obama, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

About six in 10 respondents said they had cut back on driving because of rising fuel prices, and seven in 10 said that high pump prices are causing financial hardship.

Obama, like previous presidents in times of high oil prices, is taking a hit. Only 39 percent of those who call gas prices a “serious financial hardship” approve of the way he is doing his job, and 33 percent of them say he’s doing a good job on the economy.

The Energy Information Administration said Monday that gas prices climbed last week to $3.88 a gallon, up 81 cents since the start of the year. That is the highest pump price since August 2008, before the financial meltdown.

The EIA’s figures show the political problem for Obama, which isn’t the high price itself but the rapid rate of increase. That 81-cent rise is an increase of 26% over less than four months. That kind of increase would sting even if wages were growing at a normal pace, but wages are shrinking and new jobs are still scarce. Thanks to the multiplier effect fuel price changes have in distribution channels, everything is getting more expensive, especially food, and consumers feeling the pinch are not going to be happy with the status quo.

Not to worry, though. Obama says gas prices have been up and down, and he knows that presidents usually take the blame:

“My poll numbers go up and down depending on the latest crisis, and right now gas prices are weighing heavily on people.”

The “latest crisis” won’t go away any time soon, absent another catastrophic economic collapse or a sudden breakout of pacifist love between all peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. Supplies and distribution look precarious from producer nations like Libya, Bahrain, and other nations with chronic political turmoil. As long as that continues, and as long as the US under Obama refuses to produce from our own resources, prices will rise even if demand slacks a bit, as it will do when gas prices get too high.

We may be reaching that demand-slackening point if the number of AAA rescues provides any indicator:

AAA says the number of motorists running out of gas has been surging. John Townsend, a spokesman for the automobile association, said that cash-strapped members “are pushing the envelope” and that emergency gas deliveries to stranded members jumped nationwide, including by 40 percent in the District.

Either that, or dating has really picked up this spring.

The oil crisis isn’t the only problem that Obama has with his approval ratings, either. In the latest survey, Obama gets his worst marks on Afghanistan in this WaPo/ABC series:

In the Post-ABC News survey released Monday, 49 percent of respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s management of the war and 44 percent voiced approval. The disapproval mark is the highest on record in Post-ABC News polling. Overall, the figures have essentially flipped since January, the last time the poll asked the question. In that survey, 49 percent approved of Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan war and 41 percent disapproved.

The change in public opinion comes at the start of the annual fighting season in Afghanistan, a period that U.S. militarycommanders have warned will probably be more intense than previous ones as the Taliban seeks to retake ground lost to U.S. forces over the past year.

Interestingly, although the GOP remains more enthusiastic about the war (half think it’s worth fighting), two-thirds disapprove of Obama’s handling of it. Despite the opposition on the Left to Obama’s efforts to bolster our presence and fight more aggressively in Afghanistan, only around 30% disapprove of his handling of the war. A majority of independents disapprove, but it’s hard to see how a Republican will win them on this issue, as it appears that independents are skeptical of the war overall, although that’s more from implication in the WaPo’s reporting, as the data doesn’t break that out by affiliation.

Obama’s in a tough spot. If he wants to win re-election, he’ll have to change the market dynamics to relieve the price pressure on fuel. That will either have to come from increased domestic production or an effort to strengthen the dollar to change the import pricing dynamic. The latter would be nearly impossible without serious structural reform in federal spending, and the former is anathema to Obama’s Earth Day sensibilities and political base.

McDonald's Food

McDonald's promote their food as 'nutritious', but the reality is that it is junk food - high in fat, sugar and salt, and low in fibre and vitamins. A diet of this type is linked with a greater risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other diseases. Their food also contains many chemical additives, some of which may cause ill-health, and hyperactivity in children. Don't forget too that meat is the cause of the majority of food poisoning incidents.

McDonald's and McDonald's

According to marketers, one of the draws of fast food chains is familiarity: a traveler can stop into a McDonald's anywhere in the country and know what to expect. The menu items will be the same, the quality will be the same, and the service will be the same. In most cases, even the store will be the same, or at least vaguely familiar, since McDonald's restaurants are usually built with the same exterior look and one of only a few general interior layouts.

That is why it is noticeable when one of the chain's stores breaks the trend, and goes for a different design. Since the restaurants are franchises, individual owners can sometimes express their own creativity when constructing their buildings. Below are some of the more creative McDonald's buildings I have come across. I am sure there are others; let me know if you have any in your area.


Big Mac, Filet-o-Fish, quarter pounder, French fries, icey Coke -- are you singing along yet? While we're all familiar with the generic stable of McDonald's menu items, we continue to be amazed by the crazy stuff you can get at a McDonald's overseas. In fact, we might have to move to Germany. In Deutschland, you can order a beer with your double cheeseburger. (Hello, snack attack!) We asked the experts over at the Medical Insurance site to lay out all our options. After all, eat too much of this stuff and your doctor -- and belly -- isn't going to be pleased.
If you think McDonalds sells the same burgers and fries everywhere in the world, think again – here in Asia they’ve had to make some concessions to local tastes and come up with some peculiar fast food variations on Asian favourites.

It all started with the Samurai Pork Burger. I saw this advertised outside a McDonalds in Bangkok back in 2004 and was somewhat perplexed. Why is it a Japanese name when I’m in Thailand? And what do Samurai have to do with pork? Actually, why is it called Samurai at all? Sadly, I never actually found out any of the answers, but it made me start paying closer attention to McDonalds everytime I went to another country in Asia

Finally, on I-44 near Vinita, Oklahoma stands what is billed as the world's largest McDonald's. Correct that: over I-44 stands the world's largest McDonald's. Here the famous golden arches span over all 4 lanes of highway, with the supersized restaurant forming an overpass. You can enter the building from either side of the highway and eat your McNuggets while looking down at the McTraffic below.

McDonald’s fries

French fries (American English, with "French" often capitalized, or chips, fries or French-fried potatoes are thin strips of deep-fried potato. North Americans refer to any elongated pieces of fried potatoes as fries, while in the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, long, thinly cut slices of fried potatoes are called fries to distinguish them from the thickly cut strips called chips.French fries are known as frites, patates frites or pommes frites in French, a name which is also used in many non-French-speaking areas, and have names that mean "fried potatoes" or "French potatoes" in others.

Why McDonald’s fries are Tasty?
An important factor in the success of this fast-food chain is its tasty fries. These are the customers’ favourite item and are more poplar than their burgers. The cooking oil they use adds to the taste of the fries. They cook fries in a mixture of about 7% cottonseed oil and 93% beef tallow. This gives them their unique flavor.


This fast food burger company faced controversies when criticized by the Indian Hindus and the vegetarians alike, regarding the use of beef in their fries and by the health conscious people; the McDonald authorities apologized and admitted using beef fat and proclaimed their switch to vegetable oil which is less cholesterol producing.
healthy. They contain sodium and saturated fats.

Acryl amide is a chemical substance produced when starch rich food stuffs are baked, fried, grilled or micro-waved at very high temperatures. It is carcinogenic; that is, can cause tumor and cancer. French Fries are fried at 190°C.

We have found a trans-fat free oil to fry our fries and plan to use it for our entire menu items by 2008; we are already using it in a large number of our restaurants, claimed McDonald’s. But the critics say that the authorities had instructed their staff not to tell its customers the restaurants they have started using the new oil.

Eating fries fried in saturated oil regularly can increase your bad cholesterol count, thereby risking coronary heart disease , your chances of developing tumors and cancer. It can make you real fat!

It is impossible for a customer to identify fries made in saturated oil and trans-fat free oil, at sight or by tasting or smelling them. The WHO should ban the use of saturated oils, thereby producing healthy and tasty fries for the fry-lovers round the globe.

McDonald’s French Fries Nutrition Facts

As a child and a teenager nothing gave me more satisfaction than McDonald’s French fries. They were warm, perfectly salted potato goodness that I literally could not get enough of. Me, and much of the civilized world as it turns out. McDonald’s French fries have become slightly healthier since my childhood and the world still seems to love them.
So we’ve decided to take a look at the actual nutrition facts of McDonald’s French fries so you know what’s true and what’s not.


Let’s look at McDonald’s French fries nutrition facts.
Even after the makeover McDonald’s French fries are still unfriendly to those of us trying to lose weight and keep it off. A medium fry has 380 calories and that’s without the burger and soda! The fats in McDonald’s French fries should give you pause, at least enough to eat the fries without a sandwich so you can keep the weight off.

McDonald’s French fries are still potatoes however, so you’ll get plenty of fiber with a medium size order of fries. With nearly 300mg of sodium in McDonald’s French fries, you should ask them to “hold the salt” if you really must have them. 

Storing/Selecting

Nothing could be easier than selecting McDonald’s French fries, mostly because they give you whatever they want! But if you are concerned about the amount of salt heaped onto your McDonald’s French fries, you should ask them give you fries without salt. By salting your own fries, you can determine how much sodium you take in.

Storing McDonald’s French fries can be tricky. There was a time I used to think cold McDonald’s French fries was a good idea, but the truth is that these bad boys don’t reheat too well. Spray water on them and microwave them until warm or toss them in the oven until warm.

Eat Them With:

McDonald’s French fries should be eaten with a low-calorie side dish like a side salad, mostly due to its high calorie count. Although it does taste good with a wide variety of foods, you should be thinking about ways to eat things like McDonald’s French fries while also creating a calorie deficit for weight loss.  

Burn Off McDonald’s French Fries

To burn off the calories in a medium order of McDonald’s French fries, you would need to do:
*58 minutes of cycling
*90 minutes of bowling
*47 minutes of high impact aerobics 

McDonald's French Fries Are Made With Beef Extract

SEATTLE - Facing a class-action lawsuit from angry vegetarians, McDonald's this week confirmed that its French fries are prepared with beef extract, a disclosure the company said is not new.


Although the fast-food giant has been saying since 1990 that its fries are cooked in pure vegetable oil, company spokesman Walt Riker said Wednesday that McDonald's never said its fries were appropriate for vegetarians and always told customers that their flavor comes partly from beef.
The list of French-fry ingredients that McDonald's offers at its franchises and on its Web site includes potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and ''natural flavor.'' The list does not mention that the ''natural flavor'' comes from beef. To discover that, one would have to contact a McDonald's customer-satisfaction representative.

Harish Bharti, the Seattle lawyer who filed the suit against McDonald's Tuesday, said the confirmation that the company uses beef extract to flavor its fries validates his case.

Bharti argues that a reasonable person who heard that McDonald's fries are prepared in ''100 percent vegetable oil'' and read the list of ingredients would assume the food is suitable for vegetarians.

Yesterday, after news of his suit spread across the nation, Bharti said he was receiving hundreds of calls from vegetarians who think they were misled by McDonald's and want to join the suit. Some of them, he said, say they were told by McDonald's employees that the fries were vegetarian.

Beef extract, not beef tallow, as the suit alleges, is the only natural flavor in McDonald's French fries, Riker said. Asked why the company simply did not write ''beef extract'' on its list of ingredients, he replied, ''It's a good question. We're sensitive to all our customers' needs and concerns. We try to be as forthcoming and user-friendly as possible. We'll review it. We'll take a look at it.''

He added that using ''natural flavor'' as a synonym for beef extract is within federal Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

McDonald's French fries are essentially cooked twice. Central suppliers wash, steam-peel, cut, blanch, dry, par-fry and then freeze the potatoes that make the famous golden slivers. During the par-frying, ''a minuscule amount of beef extract is added,'' the company said.

Later, after being shipped to McDonald's franchises, the frozen fries are cooked in pure vegetable oil.

However, in countries such as India, where large numbers of people are vegetarian for religious reasons, McDonald's suppliers do not add beef extract to the fries, Riker said. 
Bharti's suit seeks unspecified damages for the ''emotional distress'' caused to vegetarians, some of them vegetarian for religious reasons, who thought McDonald's fries were in line with their strong feelings about not eating meat. Bharti said McDonald's contention that the information was available to people if they had only asked is insulting.

''Not only did they deceive these people,'' he said. ''Now they are claiming that all these people were deceived because they were stupid. This adds insult to injury.''

STOP EATING AT McDonald's NOW!

McDonald's and other "fast foods" are considered "bad" because of specific nutritional content. The foods are higher in fat and sodium than most "home cooked" meals. They also contain numerous preservatives and artificial ingredients that have little or no nutritive value.

Yet in typical McDonald's fashion, the company is doing everything it can to turn oatmeal into yet another bad choice. (Not only that, they've made it more expensive than a double-cheeseburger: $2.38 per serving in New York.) "Cream" (which contains seven ingredients, two of them actual dairy) is automatically added; brown sugar is ostensibly optional, but it's also added routinely unless a customer specifically requests otherwise. There are also diced apples, dried cranberries and raisins, the least processed of the ingredients (even the oatmeal contains seven ingredients, including "natural flavor").

A more accurate description than "100% natural whole-grain oats," "plump raisins," "sweet cranberries" and "crisp fresh apples" would be "oats, sugar, sweetened dried fruit, cream and 11 weird ingredients you would never keep in your kitchen." ...Incredibly, the McDonald's product contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than a McDonald's cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin. (Even without the brown sugar it has more calories than a McDonald's hamburger.)

STOP EATING AT MCDONALD'S TODAY

 Junk food or clean food? The dog knows what to choose. What about you? Do you know?


I think you do. You realize what's best for your health. However putting it into practice is often a different story. If you have problems keeping away from junk food, your approach is wrong. Eating junk food is a habit that you can't quit using willpower.

You see, there are two ways that McDonalds destroys the environment (btw, some of this information is copied off of other, reliable, sources).




1) They get beef raised in the rainforest to be delivered directly to your BigMac. You may be thinking to yourself, "Well, why is that bad? They only take away part of the rainforest and then that's it." Incorrect. They use parts of the rainforest for only 2 years at the maximum because the soil quality is so poor there that they clear-cut another area once the soil cannot sustain the grass and grain that the cows eat. So what's so wrong about that, won't the forest regrow? Wrong again. The moisture in a rainforest is what makes it a RAIN forest, and since about 70% of all moisture comes from transpiration from the trees - No more trees, no more rainforest. It will not regrow, ever, even if it is replanted.


2) The other way has to do with just the grain being shipped from the rainforest to the US or other countries to feed cows that will eventually end up on your BigMac. Put simply, for every pound of beef you eat, 55 acres of rainforest were destroyed.


In order to keep up with the huge demand for McDonalds burgers all over the world they require vast areas of land to raise cattle for their burgers. Ever year, over 30 million acres of rain forest are lost. Of course, it would be unfair to blame this loss solely on McDonald's, and I don't intend to do that. There are plenty of other reasons why we are losing our rain forest land at such an alarming rate, but I'm not here to discuss those reasons. In order to produce 1 million tons of meat, 7 million tons of grain must be fed to livestock. This use of precious resources is not even for the betterment of anyone’s health given the unhealthy nature of food from McDonalds. But again, I don't argue that people shouldn't eat their food because it's so unhealthy for you.


On the official corporate webpage for McDonald's, they claim that "the preservation of tropical rain forest land is a top priority McDonald's DOES NOT, HAS NOT, and WILL NOT purchase beef from rain forest or recently destroyed rain forest land." BULLSHIT I say!


McDonald's is one of many multinational companies which use (or have used) crops, beef, or both, raised on ex-rainforest land in South America. What companies basically do is cut down rainforest - which as you probably know is essential for absorbing carbon dioxide, helping to prevent global warming. It is also one of the world's most diverse areas and home to indigenous populations. They then plant crops or grass and in the latter case bring on herds of cattle which eat all the grass. But because rainforest land is not suitable for growing grass or any other sort of crop it soon becomes sterile. Nothing can grow there for years, the forest is destroyed and the companies move on to another piece. In the meanwhile the cattle are emitting methane which is a major cause of global warming.


STOP EATING AT MCDONALD'S TODAY

McDonald's raising prices

McDonald's affordable food drew even more customers in its fourth quarter, but the burger chain said it may raise prices this year as its own food tab rises.

Worries about rising costs at the world's largest hamburger chain gave some investors pause even as McDonald's ended a banner year in which it outperformed its competitors. Its emphasis on low-priced items and an expanding menu, including the limited-time McRib and its McCafe coffee line, helped sales grow all year.


McDonald's Corp., based in Oak Brook, Ill., reported that its net income rose 2 percent to $1.24 billion, or $1.16 per share, for the quarter. That's up from $1.22 billion, or $1.11 per share, a year ago.

Revenue climbed 4 percent to $6.21 billion.

The results met the expectations of analysts surveyed by FactSet.

However, the company said it expects food cost will rise 2 to 2.5 percent in the U.S. and 3.5 to 4.5 percent in Europe during the year.

McDonald's has already raised some prices in the United Kingdom to cover higher costs. The company said as prices for beef and other ingredients and other cost pressures in the U.S. become more pronounced throughout the year, it will likely increase prices to offset some, but not all, of its higher costs.

However, McDonald's management said it would raise prices selectively to avoid compromising the popularity it has gained with diners looking for low-priced meals during the down economy.

The company said the commodity cost increases still keep it below its 2009 levels, when it coped with increased prices on a number of ingredients. But it still expects some pressure on profit margins.

In its fourth quarter, sales at U.S. stores open at least 13 months increased 4.4 percent as the company rolled out its Caramel Mocha and customers participated in its perennially popular Monopoly promotion. Worldwide, the figure rose 5 percent on strength in Asia.

The increases were smaller than in the third quarter, when the figure rose 5.3 percent in the U.S. and 6 percent worldwide.

This figure is a key indicator of a restaurant operator's health because it measures results at existing locations instead of newly opened ones.

McDonald's said bad weather in December hurt U.S. sales. It expects global sales at stores open at least 13 months to rise 4 percent to 5 percent in January.

Investors had a mixed take on the quarter with the commodity news as well as strong sales that were hampered in December by the bad economy.

Shares of McDonald's dipped in the morning but rose 12 cents to $75.13 by midday trading. They hit an all-time high of $80.94 in early December.

For the year, McDonald's net income climbed 9 percent to $4.95 billion, or $4.58 per share, from $4.55 billion, or $4.11 per share, in the prior year. Revenue rose to $24.07 billion from $22.74 billion.

McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner said in a statement that in 2011 the company plans to use about half of its $2.5 billion in capital spending to open about 1,100 new restaurants. It will spend the rest improving existing locations.

McDonald's coffee

According to AdAge, McDonald's (NYSE:MCD) broadside at the battleship Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) has been delayed by the credit crunch. The chain's plans to build coffee bars in its 14,000+ locations won't meet its previous deadline of April 2009. The delay means the ad campaign planned to accompany it will also be postponed, to the disappointment of the media world.

The magazine reports that in an internal memo the company explains that the program it runs through Bank of America to loan franchisees development funds has been tapped out earlier than expected. Franchisees are expected to resort to local funding sources for operational and development loans, in the short term.

The coffee bars are expected to cost each outlet around $100,000. A later launch could result in the bars landing in the hot summer months, not prime time for coffee drinks.

Too bad for McDonald's, since the economic uncertainty of the moment would provide a wonderful marketing platform for lower-cost, boutique coffees. Perhaps the government will include a little taste of TARP money to compensate Mickey D's for this loss of business. Crazier ideas have been floated.

McDonald’s story

The McDonald’s “french fry” lawsuit has become one of the biggest stories in the vegetarian movement, yet very little about it has appeared in vegetarian publications. The class action suit originated after it was discovered that the fast-food chain had not told vegetarians that its french fries and hash browns had beef in them, contrary to the impression some had after a company press release of July 23, 1990, which stated that McDonald’s fries were cooked in 100 percent vegetable oil. But alas, many unfortunate vegetarians did consume McDonald’s french fries or hash browns after July 23, 1990, and in doing so unwittingly consumed minuscule amounts of beef.

A lawsuit was filed against the company and a $10 million settlement was agreed upon, with $6 million going to vegetarian groups. But then disputes erupted, not only with McDonald’s, but within the vegetarian community as well, over which groups should get the money—probably the most serious and most public division in the history of the modern vegetarian movement. The divisions resulted in accusations against some vegetarian groups of “sleeping with the enemy” and unethical conduct. The case is being appealed, millions of dollars are at stake, and the outcome is in doubt. What’s the story?

 

The controversy began with Eric Schlosser’s book Fast Food Nation, published in 2001. Schlosser, not himself vegetarian, noted the source of some of the so-called “natural flavors” in much fast food, remarking that the “natural flavor” in McDonald’s french fries was derived from beef. Ironically, in light of subsequent developments, Schlosser got his information from Vegetarian Journal, a publication of the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG).

One of Schlosser’s readers was a Jain who asked McDonald’s whether the company’s fries contained beef. McDonald’s confirmed Schlosser’s information by email, and on April 6, 2001 the information was published in India-West, a California-based weekly targeting Asian Indians in North America. Harish Bharti—a Seattle lawyer and a native of India—then filed a lawsuit on May 1, 2001 in King County, Washington, claiming that McDonald’s hadn’t told the truth about their ingredients; he cited this email and Schlosser’s book as evidence. McDonald’s quickly issued a denial, saying it had never claimed its fries were vegetarian and that they had always contained beef flavoring.

But this denial provoked another unexpected development. Hindu nationalists in India, upon hearing about McDonald’s statement, were furious, and protests were launched at various McDonald’s restaurants. At some sites, the protests were peaceful; at others, they turned ugly, with windows broken and a statue of Ronald McDonald smeared with cow dung.

McDonald’s backtracked, explaining that french fries sent to India (unlike its North American fries) were free of beef products. When laboratory tests revealed that no animal fat was in the french fries, the issue receded in India. But in the United States, additional lawsuits were filed in Texas, New Jersey, California, and Illinois, where the lawsuit was finally negotiated.  

McDonald’s denies lying about its french fries. The list of ingredients provided for their fries (before the lawsuit) included “natural flavor.” As many veteran ingredient-readers could quickly tell you, “natural flavor” can legally include animal products, including beef—as it actually did in this case. But more than that, some McDonald’s employees said that the fries were vegetarian. The most incriminating evidence was a 1993 letter written by a company employee stating that there were a number of items which “vegetarians can enjoy at McDonald’s” — specifically mentioning the french fries and the hash browns.

However, the question of liability for a few specific cases of misinformation to a small number of individuals would be different from a systematic advertising campaign. The judge in this case, Hon. Richard Siebel, did not believe the plaintiff’s case was very strong. In his order of October 30, 2002, he remarked: “Proving liability on the merits is problematic. The Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of obtaining no relief if litigation against McDonald’s were pursued.”

On the other hand, the plaintiffs had one practical advantage: the area of public relations. McDonald’s had already received stunningly bad publicity in this case. They may have calculated that they could ill afford another “victory” like the infamous “McLibel” lawsuit in England. In that case, while McDonald’s successfully sued two anti-McDonald’s campaigners for libel, the case boomeranged into a constant stream of negative publicity about the corporation.

The plaintiffs initially demanded $75 million; McDonald’s offered $5 million. After negotiations, a proposed $10 million settlement was announced on April 26, 2002, with $6 million assigned to “vegetarian groups.”

No sooner had the proposed settlement been announced than questions began to be raised about who would receive the money. At a preliminary hearing in May 2002, Greg Khazarian represented Muslims who objected to the settlement. Khazarian stated to me that “the fatal flaw in the structure of the settlement is that Muslims are included in the class, but excluded as one of the groups receiving benefits in the settlement.” Several hundred Muslims filed objections.

Muslims usually eat meat, but the meat must be slaughtered in accordance with “halal,” a procedure roughly similar to kosher. Clearly the McDonald’s beef was not “halal” (or kosher, either). There are roughly 7 million Muslims in the United States, compared to about 6 million adult vegetarians. While vegetarian groups were slated to get 60 percent of the settlement, there was no category for Muslim groups.

At the preliminary hearing on May 1, 2002, the judge said that the Muslims “could be accommodated within the parameters of the proposed settlement,” according to Khazarian. In the final settlement approved by the judge, Muslims were included in the vegetarian category.

Khazarian disputes the logic that lumps Muslims and vegetarians together. “The McDonald’s argument was that a Muslim who is in McDonald’s will be looking for food that is vegetarian, so they should be included in the vegetarian category,” explains Khazarian. “My clients don’t buy that argument.”
Vegetarian Objections

When the proposed list of recipients was released in September 2002, there were further objections, but from vegetarians rather than Muslims. The proposed money for “vegetarian groups” was to be divided not only among traditional vegetarian groups, but Muslim groups and organizations which might carry an anti-vegetarian agenda. Eight months later, on May 19, 2003, a revised list was approved by the judge over the objections of many vegetarians (see sidebar).

This list was surprising to many vegetarians. Many well-known organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM), Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), and EarthSave were missing. Why were these and many other groups omitted?

We don’t know what went on in the attorney’s negotiations, but by the terms of the agreement, McDonald’s had to have a hand in the allocation process. So McDonald’s attorneys may have vetoed some groups. Moreover, animal rights organizations were also specifically excluded by the court, as the treatment of animals was never an issue in the lawsuit—only the treatment of the humans who were deceived by McDonald’s publicity.
What about the groups that are on the list?

Two of them, the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) and the Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products, don’t seem to fit any conceivable definition of a “vegetarian group”; they are concerned with “halal” or the foods (especially slaughtered animals) which Muslims are allowed to eat. Evidently they were included as a concession to Muslim objections.

Four other “research” groups also attracted the particular notice of opponents of the allocation: Tufts University, Loma Linda University, the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group (VNDPG) of the American Dietetic Association Foundation, and the Preventive Medicine Research Group run by Dean Ornish (PMRI). (A fifth “research” group, the University of North Carolina Department of Nutrition, was initially proposed but later disqualified by the judge on technical grounds.)

While all four of these research groups face some vegetarian opposition, three of them (VNDPG, PMRI, and Loma Linda) also appear to have strong support in the vegetarian community. VNDPG has done much valuable work promoting vegetarianism among nutrition professionals, and many regard it as a bona fide vegetarian group; some of the most pioneering research on vegetarianism has come out of Loma Linda University; and PMRI and Dean Ornish have done much research supporting the thesis that a strict vegetarian diet can actually help reverse heart disease.

Tufts, however, has drawn the special ire of vegetarians. John McDougall, among others, is unstinting in his criticisms of Tufts. “In my own personal experience [Tufts] is, in fact, a notorious anti-vegetarian organization.”
Jeff Nelson Intervenes

The proposed allocation of money has created passionate opposition among some vegetarians. Among these, none has been more passionate or as outspoken than Jeff Nelson, who heads VegSource Interactive and the website vegsource.com.

Declarations objecting to the settlement were collected and filed at least as early as October 2002, and Nelson’s role in these objections was central. Howard Lyman, the author of Mad Cowboy and himself a past target of cattle industry lawsuits, said, “Jeff Nelson went out and recruited most of the people who opposed the settlement [the allocation of funds]. If there was anyone else who was active in that effort, I never heard about it. He attempted to recruit me, but I said that I didn’t have a dog in that fight and that it would be counterproductive.”

Numerous well-known vegetarians, including T. Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Jack Norris, and VegNews editor Joseph Connelly, submitted declarations to the court questioning the allocation of funds. However, there was considerable divergence of opinion as to which were the “good” and the “bad” groups. For example:

— John McDougall objected only to Tufts.

— Colin Campbell, a professor at Cornell, objected strongly to VNDPG and Tufts but suggested that $1 million should be given to Cornell University for their Program for Lifetime Nutrition.

— Rhoda and Stan Sapon objected to VRG, but asked that $100,000 be given to the Maimonides Project (a vegetarian hunger relief group which they founded).

Tufts University was the subject of last-minute negotiations when hearings were being held in early 2003. The university had proposed that its money be spent on a scholarship fund for Vegetarian and Plant-based Nutrition Studies. Cory Fein (one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys) said, “we tried to open a dialogue with them [Jeff Nelson and his allies]. We said that we would be willing to work with them to form a committee that would screen applicants for the scholarships at Tufts so that only students committed to vegetarianism would receive them. But they weren’t interested in working with us, and the next day Jeff Nelson attacked us on his web site.”
“Sleeping with the Enemy”?

Nelson’s tactics in opposing the settlement have provoked intense feelings. In December 2002, Nelson attacked the two most important vegetarian groups that were slated to receive settlement money, the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) and the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS), in an explosive article titled “Sleeping with the Enemy.” VRG and NAVS are both older and well-established vegetarian organizations.

These comments — prominently featured on the VegSource web site for many months — are unprecedented in the history of the western vegetarian movement. While there have been vehement disagreements before, they have usually remained at the level of private disagreements, and even when public have seldom, if ever, involved charges of immorality, deception, betrayal, and hypocrisy.

The effects of these accusations have been very significant. Sharon Graff [of NAVS], in an email sent to FARM president Alex Hershaft in February 2003, stated that “NAVS and Brian [Graff, an NAVS director and vice president] have been under attack since early December [2002] from Jeff’s declaration, articles and the spin-off reaction.” Graff cited numerous examples of angry emails that NAVS had received.

What were Nelson’s accusations, and are they true? It is beyond the scope of this article to consider all the issues involved, but there are four broad claims made in Nelson’s rhetoric.

1. The refusal to support the lawsuit initially.

Since VRG and NAVS rejected the lawsuit, Nelson argues, why should they now reap the benefits? “In their magazine, VRG also disparaged this lawsuit and people who sue fast food chains, asserting in their editorial that such lawsuits do harm to the vegetarian cause,” commented Nelson. “Like VRG, [Brian] Graff did not support the filing of the lawsuit.”

What VRG does say—and Nelson actually cites this in his declaration to the court, apparently oblivious to the fact that it disproves his claim—is that “the approach of many people quickly attacking a company for what they’re not doing, rather than giving assistance and encouragement for what they are doing, can be counterproductive at times. Think through your strategies. Sometimes protest is called for, at other times encouragement” (emphasis in original). This reply implies only that lawsuits may be a bad tactic, and counsels caution. Moreover, this editorial was certainly not a comment on this particular lawsuit, since it went to press before the lawsuit was filed.

The source of the statement that Brian Graff did not support the filing of the lawsuit is apparently an off-hand private conversation that Brian had with vegetarian activist Lige Weill in which Weill urged Graff to support the lawsuit financially. Even if true, this comment was not a public position, was not a position of NAVS, and only rejected financial support for the lawsuit, not the lawsuit itself.

2. VRG’s “cozy” relationship with McDonald’s.

Nelson states: “[VRG] has a close relationship with McDonald’s, promoting their products.” Moreover, “VRG has the same public stance on ‘natural flavors’ for which McDonald’s was sued.”

Vegetarian Journal did publish an article by Davida Gypsy Breier and Sarah Blum which lists “vegetarian” items in fast food restaurants and states “we’ve labeled items as vegetarian when there could be a few ‘maybe’ ingredients, such as mono- and diglycerides and/or natural flavors … everyone draws the line as to what he or she will eat in a different place.” Whether this article constitutes an official “stance” of VRG, or just the opinion of the authors, is not clear. The question of how strict vegetarian advocacy should be is often discussed in the movement, with some vegetarians using references to the “vegan police” to make a case for a more casual approach.

VRG did issue a press release devoted to promoting McDonald’s breakfast options in 1996, before they knew of the problem with McDonald’s french fries, and did mention McDonald’s favorably in one Vegetarian Journal article. But does one press release about McDonald’s in 1996, out of the many dozens that VRG has issued, justify the description of VRG’s relationship with McDonald’s as “cozy”? When asked about this, Freya Dinshah, president of the American Vegan Society, commented “this is silly.”

3. NAVS’ failure to report the lawsuit to other groups.

Nelson wrote: “Brian Graff of NAVS kept to himself his special relationship in the case… This is more than unethical; it unfairly takes advantage of privileged information. He had a moral responsibility to the class of plaintiffs to share this information, but his failure to disseminate it made it very difficult, if not impossible, for other vegetarian organizations to apply.”

Sharon Graff commented, “We were willing to place the [legal] notice [from the court] and apology [from McDonald’s] in Vegetarian Voice. However, it was never submitted to NAVS… We most certainly had not been provided information pertinent to others, so there was nothing for us to conceal.” The legal notice was eventually published in VegNews and Satya.

4. The “aiding and abetting” of McDonald’s by VRG and NAVS and the suggestion of “sleeping with the enemy.”

The problem here is, what is the nature of “aiding and abetting” and what form did it take? What does “sleeping with the enemy” mean? Nelson does not make it clear, nor does he provide any particular evidence to support any interpretation of his conclusions.

Nelson’s statement that McDonald’s proposed to “reward” NAVS with $1 million for its “unethical” complicity with McDonald’s certainly suggests the possibility, if not the probability, of a quid pro quo as part of an explicit deal. “Sleeping with the enemy” implies joint, coordinated activity of a secret, consensual, and traitorous sort—in short, it implies collusion. And though Nelson gives no evidence for this and never uses this word, above one of his stories attacking VRG and NAVS, there was a picture of a devil figure, smiling and burning money.
Vegetarian Leaders’ Reactions

A number of prominent vegetarians declined to comment on Nelson’s tactics or any other aspect of the case, including the leaders of VRG and Jeff Nelson and many of his allies. Several prominent vegetarians, however, were willing to speak, and their comments were interesting and revealing.

John Robbins said:

"With all the legal wranglings and obvious misunderstanding and turbulence, I really am not informed enough to offer anything worthwhile by way of comments. Sue Havala [Hobbs] is a friend of mine, and I know she has a lot of integrity. Jeff Nelson is also a friend of mine, and also has a lot of integrity. These two people, and many of the others who are involved in this conflict, have all contributed enormously to the veg cause and movement. I am sorry to see things have become so divisive."

John McDougall was emphatic in saying that “my only beef is with Tufts.” In comments to me, he specifically declined to make criticisms of any other groups except Tufts—whether VRG, NAVS, or any of the other groups slated to receive money, even the Muslim groups. “I have nothing to do with it, no interest, I know nothing about it,” he said in response to questions relating to the charges concerning NAVS and VRG. “My only interest is that Tufts not get any of the money.”

Howard Lyman had a different response to Jeff Nelson’s suggestion that VRG and NAVS were “sleeping with the enemy.” “Every person within the movement could be accused of that. I spent the majority of my life in that camp. This statement really concerns me. Are there people who are really giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Yes, there are—it is those who are stirring the pot.”

And who, I asked, was “stirring the pot”? “It was Jeff Nelson; I think that I would not label all the people on his team as tainted with the same brush. They are good people; they got a sanitized version of events from Jeff. But no matter how well-meaning Jeff was in his actions and intentions, in what he did he was absolutely wrong.”



Bruce Friedrich (right) responds to questions from Keith Akers (left) about the lawsuit

When I asked Bruce Friedrich if he thought that the “sleeping with the enemy” suggestion had any validity, he responded simply “No … I adore Jeff Nelson, and he’s been a huge boon to the animal rights movement … [but] over the years I’ve had differences of opinion with Jeff.”

Author Carol Adams said, “the reactions to the settlement have been cruel. Challenging nonvegetarian groups that got the money is one thing, but going after other vegetarian groups is another. I’d like to think that we wouldn’t engage in horizontal hostility. Who is any of us to be the arbiter? I was very upset when he [Jeff Nelson] set himself up in this way.”

Freya Dinshah agreed. When I asked, was VRG “sleeping with the enemy,” she replied, “No. I don’t think NAVS is either. I think it’s horrible the hurt that has been done, it’s despicable.”
A Shift in Strategy

The judge approved the settlement on October 30, 2002, and the allocation of funds on May 19, 2003. Two appeals were filed shortly thereafter (one by Muslims, the other by vegetarians). In between these two events, the strategy of the vegetarians objecting to the allocation appears to have shifted in several ways.

The first change is embodied in the vegetarian appellants’ brief filed by Michael Hyman and received by the court on December 11, 2003. In contrast to the wide diversity of views expressed by vegetarians submitting declarations to the court previously, it objects not only to the two Muslim groups receiving money, but to all of the “research” organizations—Tufts, Loma Linda, VNDPG, and PMRI. The brief also argues that the amount of money given to the vegetarian organizations such as VRG and NAVS is excessive as well.

The second substantial change was the disappearance of Jeff Nelson as the key figure among the vegetarian objectors. When the vegetarian appeal was filed on June 16, 2003, Nelson was not one of the appellants. While Nelson clearly has close ties to several of the vegetarian appellants, not all of them share Nelson’s views about NAVS and VRG “sleeping with the enemy.” At least one of the appellants, Alex Hershaft, made behind-the-scenes attempts to effect a reconciliation between Nelson and NAVS and get NAVS to join the appeal, affirming that NAVS had indeed acted ethically. But no reconciliation occurred.

The argument of the appellants’ brief is straightforward. Discussing the definition of “vegetarian group,” it says:

“The settlement does not define “vegetarian organization,” nor does it need to… A vegetarian organization… is an association of persons organized around the idea of vegetarianism.”

The brief also argues against giving so much money to NAVS because it is “a pint-sized organization.” It also argues against giving so much money to VRG, repeating arguments used against VRG in Nelson’s “Sleeping with the Enemy.” The brief does not specify what the correct allocation should be, but asks that the allocation should be reversed and sent back to the circuit court for further action.

Cory Fein had a different view of things. When I asked why “vegetarian” money was given to the Muslim “halal” groups, he said, “Muslims were also offended by McDonald’s conduct. Because beef served at non-Arab restaurants is not prepared in accordance with Halal rules, all Muslims who follow the Halal dietary rules function as vegetarians when they eat at a fast food restaurant, or any non-Arab restaurant.” Others who are not strictly vegetarian would be offended by beef in McDonald’s french fries—those “who eat fish but don’t eat beef… people who have no moral objections to eating beef but are avoiding it for health reasons… Muslims who follow halal dietary rules. The money does not belong to any organization; it belongs to a class of people.”

But how could Tufts be considered a “vegetarian organization”? Fein responded: “Most of the money went to fund projects administered by organizations that most people would consider to be vegetarian groups, like the Vegetarian Resource Group, North American Vegetarian Society, the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group of the ADAF, Vegetarian Vision, and the American Vegan Society. However some of the money went to vegetarian projects administered by Preventive Medicine Research Institute, Loma Linda University, and Tufts University. Tufts is nationally known for its nutrition program. They're committed to objective scientific research. … The money will not go to Tufts’ general fund. It will go to a Scholarship Fund for Vegetarian and Plant-based Nutrition Studies.”
The Future?

The last chapter of the McDonald’s saga has yet to be written. Appeals are in process. Millions of dollars are at stake, which could conceivably benefit one or another of very different vegetarian groups, some of which seem to be at each others’ throats.

The real news is neither the beef in the french fries, which now seems like a distant memory, nor even the question of who should get the money, which could be endlessly debated and never resolved. What is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the modern vegetarian movement is the charges made by some vegetarians against others. As Freya Dinshah comments, “McDonald’s is probably laughing at the whole bunch of us. It has been very divisive of the vegetarian community.”

Keith Akers is the author of The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity 

How Bad Is McDonald’s ?

Morgan Spurlock sought to find out in his 2004 documentary Super Size Me. In his film, I was interviewed and spoke about the role McDonald’s food is playing in our epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

For 30 days, Spurlock ate only McDonald’s food. All of us involved in the film, including Spurlock’s doctors, were shocked at the amount that his health deteriorated in such a short time. Before the 30 days started, we each predicted what changes we expected to see in his weight, cholesterol levels, liver enzymes and other biomarkers, but every one of us substantially underestimated how severely his health would be jeopardized. It turned out that in the 30 days, the then 32-year-old man gained 25 pounds, his cholesterol levels rose dangerously as did fatty accumulations in his liver, and he experienced mood swings, depression, heart palpitations and sexual dysfunction.

Some have said Spurlock was an idiot for eating that way, and it’s true that he did himself some major damage in those 30 days. But I’ve always felt the suffering he took upon himself by eating all his meals for that month at McDonald’s was admirable, because it served to warn millions of the all too real health dangers of eating too much fast food.

Super Size Me struck a chord for a lot of people, as it became one of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time, and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. And more importantly, it changed the eating habits of millions.

Now a group of physicians and other health professionals have produced a short (39 second) ad that may be one of the more controversial in advertising history. The Washington, DC-based group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)’s new “Consequences” ad takes dead aim at McDonald’s high-fat menu. The provocative ad has become a story unto itself, because it has in only a few days generated nearly one million views on YouTube, and has been covered by newspapers and broadcast media around the world, including the Wall Street Journal, U.K.’s The Guardian, CNN, the New York Times and hundreds of other media outlets.


What do you think? Is the ad a contribution to public health, or does it go too far? Even if the underlying critique of the dangers of hamburgers and other fast food is valid, does the ad accomplish its purpose, or is it too emotionally manipulative?

The ad ends by telling us to “make it vegetarian,” making it obvious that PCRM has a pro-vegetarian orientation. But with good reason. The evidence is consistent and compelling that vegetarians suffer less from the diseases associated with the typical Western diet. Vegetarians have repeatedly been shown to have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, hypertension, type II diabetes, diverticular disease, constipation and gall stones. They also have lower rates of many kinds of cancer, including colon cancer and the hormone dependent cancers such as prostate cancer, breast cancer, uterine cancer and ovarian cancer.

Do you have to be a strict vegetarian to enjoy the considerable health benefits of a vegetarian diet? No, you do not. What’s important is to eat a plant-strong diet, with a high percentage of your calories coming from whole foods such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and a low percentage coming from processed foods, sugars, unhealthy fats and animal products.

The standard American diet — in which 62 percent of calories come from processed foods, 25 percent from animal products and only 5 percent from fruits and vegetables — is nothing less than a health travesty. Our fast-food culture has produced a population with widespread chronic illness and is a primary reason that health care costs are taking a devastating toll on just about everyone.

The annual health insurance premiums paid by the average American family now exceed the gross yearly income of a full-time minimum wage worker. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy due to the costs of treating a health problem. Starbucks spends more on the health insurance of its workers than it does on coffee.

Medical care costs in the U.S. have not always been this excessive. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on medical care. But in 1950, five years before Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald’s restaurant, Americans only spent $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today’s dollars). Even after adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950.

Has this enormous increase in spending made us healthier? Earlier this year, when the World Health Organization assessed the overall health outcomes of different nations, it placed 36 other nations ahead of the United States.

Today, we have an epidemic of largely preventable diseases. To these illnesses, Americans are losing not only their health but also their life savings. Meanwhile, the evidence keeps growing that the path to improved health lies in eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, and eating far less processed foods, sugars and animal products.

It’s striking to me that in all the heated debates we have had about health care reform, one basic fact has rarely been discussed, and that is the one thing that could dramatically bring down the costs of health care while improving the health of our people. Studies have shown that 50 to 70 percent of the nation’s health care costs are preventable, and the single most effective step most people can take to improve their health is to eat a healthier diet. If Americans were to stop overeating, to stop eating unhealthy foods and to instead eat more foods with higher nutrient densities and cancer protective properties, we could have a more affordable, sustainable and effective health care system.

Is it McDonald’s fault that more than 63 percent of Americans are overweight or obese, making us the fattest nation in the history of the world? I don’t think so, because each of us is responsible for what we put in our mouths and in the mouths of our children. Plus many other fast food chains serve food that is just as harmful. But the company is playing a significant role in generating our national appetite for unhealthy foods. McDonald’s is by far the largest food advertiser in the country, spending more than one billion dollars a year on direct media advertising.

Much of McDonald’s advertising is aimed at children, and it’s been effective. Every month, approximately nine out of 10 American children eat at a McDonald’s restaurant. Most U.S. children can recognize McDonald’s before they can speak. Tragically, one in every three children born this year in the U.S. will develop diabetes in their lifetime.

Of course, fast food is not the only cause of the tragic rise of obesity and diabetes in our society. Our culture has become pathologically sedentary. Watching television and sitting in front of computer monitors for hour upon hour doesn’t help. But the high sugar and high fat foods sold by McDonald’s and the other fast food restaurants is certainly a major part of the problem. You would have to walk for seven hours without stopping to burn off the calories from a Big Mac, a Coke and an order of fries.

gasoline prices

The nation has entered uncharted waters as gasoline prices rise, and some experts say that could spell trouble for consumer spending that's helping fuel the economic recovery.

The price of a gallon of gasoline has never approached $4 a gallon in April, and if the historical pattern holds, prices are likely to continue to climb through mid-July, when prices historically peak during the summer driving season.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, which surveys fuel prices nationwide for AAA, expects gasoline prices to peak in the coming months between $3.75 and $4 a gallon.

And should gasoline stay at $4 a gallon for an extended period of time, Kloza predicts a big pullback by consumers, because they will have about $12 billion less to spend each month than they did last year, when fuel prices were more moderate.

Those who will be hurt most "of course are the people who can least afford it," said Bill Sirakos, chief economist at Frost Bank in San Antonio.

"Think about the poor guy driving a dump truck for $12 an hour. It's just destroying his household budget."


In Houston, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded gas has climbed $1.01 a gallon, to $3.74, according to AAA. And in San Antonio, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded gas has jumped almost 99 cents a gallon in a year, to $3.67, AAA surveys show.


But on the flip side, higher oil prices — the main contributor to rising gas prices - help spur job growth in Texas.

When oil prices are high, job growth in Texas historically has exceeded that of the nation by a percentage point, said Keith Phillips, senior economist at the San Antonio branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

"When energy prices are high, the relative growth of Texas is greater than that of the nation," Phillips said.

Rising oil prices also will contribute to more exploration in Texas, including in the Eagle Ford shale south of San Antonio, a 400-mile-long swath where drilling has boomed in just two years' time.
Bigger royalties

And higher oil prices would mean greater royalty payments to landowners who've leased land in the Eagle Ford shale, Phillips said. San Antonio could benefit from their increased spending.

While gasoline prices today "are a hurt," said economist Travis Tullos of the Austin-based consulting firm TXP, he believes oil and gasoline prices won't stay high for a sustained period.
A temporary thing?

"Supply and demand don't seem out of whack," Tullos said. "Almost all of OPEC's top command is saying there's no problem meeting demand. So I think this situation is temporary."

A Federal Reserve survey released Wednesday indicated that the nation's economy improved in every part of the country this spring. Factories were busier, consumers spent more and companies boosted hiring in all 12 of the regions the Fed surveyed.
Retail sales up

And so far, higher gasoline prices haven't put a big dent in retail spending.


In March, retail sales rose 0.4 percent, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. In addition to spending more on gas, consumers shelled out more for furniture, electronics and at restaurants, Commerce said, and marked the ninth consecutive monthly gain.

Americans have made changes in their driving habits, at least in the last six weeks. That may have helped spending in other areas.

Purchases of gasoline fell for the sixth consecutive week for the seven days ending April 8, according to data from MasterCard SpendingPulse, which estimates spending across all payment forms, including cash and check.

Gas Prices Rising

Like it or not, gas prices are on the rise, and some experts predict we could see $5-per-gallon gas before summer. But why?


Offset high gas prices by saving money on auto insurance.

There are a number of different reasons.

First, Americans are driving again. The Department of Transportation reports that Americans drove nearly 3 trillion miles in 2010—the most since 2007 and a 0.7 increase over 2009. As gas prices rise, expect that number to fall once again.

Second, anti-government protests in the Middle East have hurt supply. It’s no coincidence that gas prices spiked as unrest in Egypt swelled in January. With major uprisings in Libya and a mood of dissent spreading across the Middle East, supply interruptions may persist indefinitely.

Third, global demand for oil is on the rise. Nations like India, China and Indonesia are booming economically and are buying up a greater share of the world’s oil. Unfortunately, the major oil-producing nations of OPEC haven’t significantly increased supply since the 1980s. And when supply doesn’t increase along with demand, prices increase.

Finally, a weak U.S. dollar is making oil cheaper for other nations. Oil is priced in U.S. dollars, so a weak dollar gives foreign countries more buying power. The value of the U.S. dollar has dropped nearly 40 percent since 2001.

In an effort to offset rising gas prices, many drivers are looking to make their vehicles more fuel-efficient. Despite the many fuel-saving myths circulating—e.g., chemical additives—there are a few tried-and-true methods to boost fuel economy. These include:
Slowing down on the highways. Driving at 55 mph instead of 65 mph can reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent or more.
Avoiding stop-and-go driving. Accelerating and braking cause your engine to expend more fuel. If you can't avoid driving in the city, accelerate slowly.
Getting rid of “junk in the trunk.” An extra 100 pounds of weight can reduce your fuel economy by 2 percent.  

Maintaining your vehicle regularly. Keep your tires inflated, get a regular tune-up and use the correct grade of motor oil.

Another way to offset high gas prices is to save money on car insurance. Shop and compare car insurance quotes for free with InsWeb—doing so could save you hundreds each year.