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 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.

stop eating mcdonalds

In years past, scientists, the media, the healing village as well as the ubiquitous open believed which dietary cholesterol as well as jam-packed fats were during the base of the age associated illness problems, in sold heart mildew as well as the little sorts of cancer.High levels of fats or triglycerides in the bloodstream enlarge the person’s risk of atherosclerosis or hardening of the arteries. Imbalanced cholesterol levels (high LDL as well as low HDL) fool around the purpose in heart disease, age-related eye diseases as well as stroke, between alternative things.

Being overweight or portly is the hazard to the person’s the single after an additional illness as well as longevity. The additional weight puts as well most highlight upon the heart. Central plumpness or abdominal fat puts as well most highlight upon the critical viscera as well as increases the person’s risk of heart mildew as well as sort II diabetes.

Many people have been meddlesome in the latest McDonalds nutrition guide, since they need to remove weight, though they eat out regularly. But, it is not simply the calorie calm which is important.

Calories have been the simple appetite mandate which concede the cells of the physique to function. The standard recommendation for someone which wants to remove weight is to devour fewer calories as well as practice more. In alternative words, bake some-more calories than we consume. But, that’s usually partial of the story, when it comes to great illness as well as feeling confident after the meal.

The calories in the dishes which we eat come from fats, carbohydrates, protein as well as sugars. According to the online McDonalds nutrition guide, the unchanging hamburger, which isn’t really most food when we consider about it, provides 250 calories. 80 of those calories come from fat.One of the renouned diet schemes, for the great most years, as well as the single which is still endorsed by the little sources today, is to extent your fat money coming in to no some-more than 30% of your sum caloric intake. Using which formula, the unchanging hamburger is the not an excusable food item, since some-more than 30% of the calories in it come from fat as well as this is the single of the lowest fat sandwiches upon the menu.

Another regard is which the sandwich contains the half gram of trans-fat. This is where the McDonalds nutrition beam as well as the labels used by alternative manufacturers in the US have been misleading. Manufacturers have been authorised to publicize which their products enclose 0 grams of trans-fat, as prolonged as there is the half gram or reduction in the product. A half gram competence not receptive to advice similar to much, though it can simply supplement up.Trans-fats lift LDL (bad) cholesterol levels as well as reduce HDL (good) cholesterol levels. People which eat the lot of dishes containing trans-fats have aloft levels of C-reactive protein, an additional cause indicating an increasing risk of heart disease.If it were to be all accurate, the McDonalds nutrition beam should contend which eating their hamburgers upon the unchanging basement could enlarge your risk of heart disease. And, that’s only the single of the equipment upon the menu. Think prior to we eat.

If there was ever a time to stop eating McDonalds I think that now is the time, and if you don’t want to then just take a look at this guy. Man this man has been through some Big Macs in his time

STOP going to McDonalds RIGHT NOW!

It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

After watching the documentary Super-Size Me, I stopped eating at McDonald's; mostly because of health reasons but also because I no longer wanted to contribute to a company that causes that kind of damage to people, especially me. I find it kind of like paying your enemy to hurt you. Now as if that were not enough, McDonald's has actually found another reason for me, and many others around the world, to stop eating their food and sponsoring their destruction machine. According to Greenpeace forests campaign co-ordinator, Gavin Edwards, "Fast food giants like McDonald's are trashing the Amazon for cheap meat. Every time you buy a Chicken McNugget you could be taking a bite out of the Amazon." (1)

So what exactly is McDonald's being accused of? Greenpeace, using some mission impossible-style spying techniques, including satellite images, aerial surveillance, previously unreleased government documents and on-the-ground monitoring, says that they have been able to trace the animal feed used for McDonald's chickens to land that was once rainforest.(1)

"Three U.S. commodities giants, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill, which control most of Europe's soya market, are fueling the rainforest destruction to grow feed for animals in Europe," Greenpeace said today.(1) You guys remember ADM and Cargill right? They are two of the three company's who have recently been accused of using slave child labor by the International Labor Rights Funds. It should not come as such a shock to me but it does. I cannot believe that there are companies out there that care so little about life and so much about profits that they condone this type of action. Actually what surprises me more is that we are the ones that help them make such ridiculous profits.

According to Greenpeace, "Cargill has illegally built its own port in the heart of the Amazon, from which it exports the soya to the Cargill terminal in Liverpool, UK. From there, the soya goes to Cargill-owned food producer, Sun Valley, which feeds the soya to the chickens it uses to make McNuggets, which it distributes to McDonald's restaurants across Europe." (1) McDonald's has not denied that its chicken are fed on Amazon Soya even though Greenpeace has asked them to account for their feed three months ago.

Making the Twitter rounds on a super-sized scale over the weekend (under the hashtag of #seriouslymcdonalds) was this obviously fake sign that’s allegedly in a McDonald’s restaurant. It claims that “African-American customers are now required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction.” The picture originated on twitpic and has gone viral from there.

A tipoff that this is a fake? We called that 800 number you see at the bottom of the sign, and it connected to the KFC Customer Satisfaction Hotline. But really, think about it: Would any McDonald’s franchisee or employee tape such a sign on the door of a McDonald’s restaurant? It would be career suicide.

Mcdonald's really bad for you!

if you personally think Mcdonald's is sooo good, you really need to open up your ears and eyes as to how it can have a negative impact on your health!

25,000th Big Mac in one man’s belly. A Wisconsin man is going to eat, yes that number you read is correct, his 25,000th Big Mac today — the 39th anniversary of his very first Big Mac. Don Gorske sometimes has two Big Macs a day. Gorske rose to “fame” from the documentary movie Super Size Me. The movie followed director Morgan Spurlock as he ate nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days. Though Spurlock came down with a host of health problems eating nothing but McDonald’s, Gorske is living the McDonald’s dream. Unbelievably, he still has low cholesterol. Some people are just genetic marvels, but for a majority of the U.S. population, cholesterol is a major issue.

Fast Food Chains Offering Statins

Someday soon we could see fast food chains dishing out statins, cholesterol lowering drugs, with meals. Researchers studied risk reduction strategies for people with high-fat eating habits from a new angle. They looked at seven randomized control trials (a total of 50,000 participants) that had previously examined the ability of a daily statin medication to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by virtue of lowering cholesterol. Statins are medications that are used to lower cholesterol, such as Lipitor. What they found was that using a daily statin demonstrated a risk reduction comparable to (and in many cases more powerful than) the potential increased risk of consuming a Quarter Pounder® with cheese and a small milkshake.

Of course, what a free cholesterol-lowering statin can’t do is take away the toxic consequences of the other components of regular fast-food meals. Fast food contains excess calories, which lead to obesity and increased risk for type 2 diabetes, as well as high amounts of sodium, which contribute to high blood pressure, a risk factor for stroke.

Herein lies the danger. If we placate the desire for fast foods with a pill — or “sprinkle-on statins,” as the researchers suggest — we neglect to address the inherent problem.

If you want low-calorie fast food, which chain do you choose: Subway or McDonald’s? While most people would undoubtedly choose Subway, that could be a very fat answer.






A team of researchers found diners underestimated calories in food from Subway – a fast food restaurant that markets itself as a “healthier” alternative — by 35 percent more than they did from comparable choices at McDonald’s, which does not claim to be healthier. The researchers hypothesize consumers were prone to a phenomenon known as a “health-halo,” which caused them to underestimate calories from restaurants they perceived to be healthier. They ultimately consumed more calories at the “healthy” restaurant than they would have otherwise.


Welcome to the new enemy in the battle of the bulge — the health halo. If we think our main course is good, we are more likely to order a side of very bad. Hence, the Subway diners in the study were more likely to justify ordering desserts, such as cookies. Seemingly influenced by the health halo, consumers believed that a 1,000-calorie meal at Subway actually contained 21.3 percent fewer calories than a 1,000-calorie meal at McDonald’s.

As we reported recently, similar research found foods labeled “organic” were mistaken by consumers to be lower in calories. Don’t be fooled into letting the “health halo” ruin your dieting efforts.

As the researchers point out, eating just 160 extra calories twice a week can amount to a 5 lb. annual weight gain. And, while it’s okay to indulge in a high-calorie meal from time to time, balancing it out with lighter meals or more exercise for the rest of the day is key to preventing unintended weight gain.

Check out this guide on 6 Tips To Choosing Healthy Fast Food.

People who regularly eat a diet based on vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, healthy unsaturated fats and fruit will be healthier than individuals who “neutralize” their regular fast food habit with statins. These researchers have proven that they understand the plight of those who love fast food, but their cheeky recommendation is one that may help win an individual battle — but still lose the war.

Let stop eating fast food now!

Do you know the  MCDONALD’s BURGER DOES NOT ROT!

In 2008, Karen Hanrahan posted in her blog Best of Mother Earth this picture of a McDonald’s burger that she’s kept for 12 years! The burger on the left is the burger from 1996 and the one on the right was a newly bought burger. They sure look quite similar…

Let do it now and stop eating to junk food!
When soft drinks are concerned, we should understand that they are just water with a lot of sugar in it. And drinking too much of soft drinks does not do any good to our body, as well as our health. From the above we should understand that fast food and soft drinks are not really something good for us. Unfortunately, most of us just love this kind of junk food and eating fast food has become a kind of urban lifestyle. This will just mean that we will be taking more calories than we needed and eventually they will be stored as fat!

In fact, there are also snacks which are just like fast food. A lot of people nowadays will take things such as French fries and potato chips as snacks. Again, you will just taking too much fat and calories in this case. They are not something healthy when snacks are concerned.

From the above, we should know that we need to eat something healthier. Yes it is very true that we should try to live a healthy lifestyle. This is the way to prevent us from gaining too much weight. Taking the idea of snacks for example, we should try to take fruits as snacks instead of fries or chips. A banana and an orange will certainly be a lot healthier than fries and chips!

 What all this does to your body is it increases your fat storage, especially if you lead a sedentary lifestyle.

It places you at risk of strokes from high blood pressure, type II diabetes from irregular blood sugar levels, heart attacks from raised LDL cholesterol levels, cancer of the colon because it cannot process the waste products properly, more frequent illness as your immune system is compromised and a greater chance of contracting other cancers as your levels of antioxidants is so low.

It increases your chances of contracting arthritis and other inflammatory diseases at an increasingly younger age as your overall body acidity rate increases, lowering your ability to process and remove excess uric acid from your bloodstream.

It also leads to weight gain and obesity, further increasing the likelihood of strokes and heart attacks.

All in all, it paints a pretty gloomy picture. So what can you do to redress the balance?

You need to cut out most of the fast, processed food from your diet food delivery system and replace it with traditional, home cooked meals prepared and made from fresh vegetables, meat and fish. You should include fresh fruits and berries in that diet and switch to wholemeal bread and pasta to increase your body's intake of the all-important dietary fiber.

You may have spent years doing untold amounts of damage to your body, but that damage can be undone and fixed by switching your diet. Its never too late, unless you're about to check out of the hospital in a wooden box. So don't let it come to that and make the change now!

If you don't care about doing it for yourself, at least do it for your children. Show them you love them and give them a chance at living a healthy and long life by cooking them good wholesome food like your grandmother used to make for your parents and if you were lucky enough, like your parents did for you.

Stop Eating Fast Food And Start Cooking At Home

  “How could you eat that junk? It’s so bad for you!” (nag, nag). “Don’t you know those fries will give you a heart attack?” (nag, nag). “You have to stop eating all that fast food, it’s going to make you fat!” (nag nag). “You have to eat more healthy food like fruits and vegetables – they’re good for you!” (nag, nag). Your friends nag you, your family nags you, your doctor nags you, the health newsletters, websites and magazines – they all nag you, and of course, your personal trainer nags the heck out of you, to stop eating all those BAD FAST FOODS. But does all that nagging you and bad-mouthing the fast food industry really help anyone stop?

While you may be hearing that fast food is unhealthy all the time, it still may not be enough to make you stop eating fast food. Many people choose this option because it is convenient and fast. Some do not like cooking or do not feel like cooking after working hard all day, so they go with this food choice. There are even some that believe that fast food is a cheaper option as well.

When soft drinks are concerned, we should understand that they are just water with a lot of sugar in it. And drinking too much of soft drinks does not do any good to our body, as well as our health. From the above we should understand that fast food and soft drinks are not really something good for us. Unfortunately, most of us just love this kind of junk food and eating fast food has become a kind of urban lifestyle. This will just mean that we will be taking more calories than we needed and eventually they will be stored as fat!

In fact, there are also snacks which are just like fast food. A lot of people nowadays will take things such as French fries and potato chips as snacks. Again, you will just taking too much fat and calories in this case. They are not something healthy when snacks are concerned.


Quick and Easy Chinese Stir Fry Recipe

What You will Need:

1 cup of dry brown rice, cooked
1 bag of frozen stir fry vegetables
1 pound of chicken breast, grilled
1/4 to 1/2 cup of low sodium soy sauce
Olive Oil

How to Make It:

Start the rice first. Put the cup of dry rice in a rice cooker and cooking according to directions or cook on the stove top by following the directions on the packet. Meanwhile, use a Foreman grill to grill your chicken or you can grill it on a grill. (To make this faster, buy chicken already grilled and ready to go). Add a small amount of olive oil to a wok or a large frying pan. Begin sauting frozen vegetables. Add in the cooked rice and grilled chicken breast. Add soy sauce. Cook until rice and chicken are warmed through and veggies are crisp tender. Serve immediately.