hi
 

i think this is an interesting topic(s).

I think even if you choose a fruit and walnut salad with all the calories and everything it is still better than eating the greasy fried options they offer too. by no means is this better than preparing you're own homemade fruit and walnut salad (& preservative free) at home, not to mention cheaper, but if your going to use the drive thru or have to stop somewhere to eat because you won't have access to food or time to stop at a grocery store. The healthy fats in the walnuts, the fiber and vitamins in the fruit are totally going to win over any fried or burger option anyday. :cbg:

I don't know if it's just me or what, but I am very confused as to why there are quotes from someone and references to posts that aren't on this thread? are they posted somewhere else??? I don't get it :chin:

Anyways, I'm glad I read this, I never new lemon or lime juice keeps apples from turning brown! You learn something new every day! :lol:

I have a problem eating fast food myself... I even saw the SSMe movie and still think their french fries are good. It didn't have the impact on me that I had hoped. It was quite unrealistic in that, of course your going to blow up if you eat it 3 meals a day for 30 days. It just was silly to me. Sooo, I have to look to other reasons not give in and resort to convenience.

...mmm... I forgot what else I was going to say but now I remembered! I know you can definetly tell that Dasani is just plain ole tap water just from the taste, it's kinda nasty. But I heard that the Dasani tap water comes from a river that has a (human) waste treament plant dumped into it upstream. I know, I know the waste water is treated before its put into the river, but that's just kinda sickening to me. I know some cities get their water from rivers, where I live we are fortunate enough to have a large underground lake with water filtered through many layers of limestone or whatever, but that is so nasty to think about it's basically sewer water. eww! Anyway I'm really picky about my water and I only drink Evian (I like the minerals) or Aquafina, while I don't know where they come from I think they both taste good. The Aquafina has a really clear pure taste to it. I love it! It's probably filtered tap water but at least it doesn't taste like it. I try to drink tap from home sometimes because bottled water, isn't fluorinated and therefore no good for your teeth. But our tap water tastes pretty good here.

I have a sister with a severe allergy to preservatives and additives, and I can say that most of the food we eat in this country contains preservatives. She cannot shop at a regular grocery store, because even fruits and vegetables contain pesticides, wax and preservatives, and chemicals to make the produce grow larger and shinier.

Most organic produce at health food stores are now grown in a portion of Mexico and California that is known for organic produce. The stuff from Mexico is shipped over the border and must be sprayed with sulphites to preserve and other things to ensure that there are no insects. Most of the organic produce farms in California have been bought out by big business and now use chemicals that are considered "organic" by CA and national standards. It was recently ruled by the FDA that it is up to farmers to decide what "organic" is, and that's bad news for us consumers who buy organic expecting it to be natural produce. In fact, she only knows of 3 farms so far that are actually organic, meaning nothing-added to the produce. Many say that they are until you contact them directly, and some of them only admitted so when she called them because she had a reaction.

All of this contributes to the fact that 99% of what we eat contains additives in some form. If you buy a thing of oatmeal and read the ingredients they might read "Ingredients: Rolled oats" What they DON'T have to list or tell you about are the preservatives and chemicals that they put in the packaging to ensure that the product stays fresh. The labelling system in this country is incredibly misleading.

So the fact that McDonald's is open in listing that they use a preservative is actually a positive step. Most companies and farms don't.

Dasani water (as well as Aquafina and other brands of purified drinking water) generally is bottled from LOCAL water sources - e.g. if you live in the UK, the water came from the UK; if you live in California, the water is from California, and so on. It's really not a big secret.

You might want to check out this Consumer Reports article titled "What's in That Bottle?" for more info, particularly this part:

I think I referred to this FDA article earlier: Bottled Water - Better than the Tap?

It's basically a personal decision, whether to purchase bottled water and if so, what water to buy. As I've stated, our tap water tastes like ca-ca, so we have Arrowhead delivered monthly.

In response to the original comment and others' comments on Supersize Me, there is an extra on the DVD showing a demonstration Morgan tried. He took food from McDonalds and other restaurants (local hot dog stand-type places) and put them in jars on a shelf. He checked back on the food over a period of time. The food from the non-chain quickly rotted, as expected. The McDonalds food took a much longer time to rot. And the McDonald's fries? They didn't change in appearance over the demonstration, aside from getting wilted. They were still that golden brown color weeks later, whereas he had to toss the non-chain's fries weeks earlier. Check that out sometime if you're concerned with preservatives!

Someone else said that the movie inaccurately portrayed McD's because he "always" ordered the supersized portion, and someone else corrected that misconception (it's a good idea to watch a movie before you rip on it). I've also heard about the woman who lost weight by eating at McD's all the time, and I can certainly imagine how that's possible. If you watch your portion sizes and caloric intake, you lose weight.

It should be noted that Morgan Spurlock said that the movie was not only about how McDonald's is to blame for Americans becoming supersized. He always claimed that it was ALSO about personal responsibility. The idea is that knowing that McD's will always try to make a bigger sale (being a business), it is up to individuals to say "No thanks, the Happy Meal will be enough!" (My personal favorite because it's perfectly portioned).

Do you have a link to this?

From what I've read, it is not the FDA but the USDA who runs the National Organic Program.

Also, apparently each state creates its own State Organic Program (SOP) which must be approved by the USDA. Here's the homepage for California's Organic Program.

Actually I don't believe that is specifically correct. According to the FDA's Food Labeling Requirements preservatives (and the reason for adding them) MUST be included on the packaging:

For folks who are having difficulties deciphering the "Nutrition Facts" label, here is the FDA's consumer page on "How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label".

I'll have to get the link to the new (or just ruled on; I don't believe that they had strict standards imposed in the first place, but left it up to the states and farms to coordinate*) organic standards from her, but I know it was a very big deal for those with similiar allergies to hers.

Also, they do have to include every ingredient that is added to the food, but they do not have to include all of the chemicals that are contained in the packaging, which in this case would be the cardboard that the oats come packaged in. Some companies will knowingly put preservatives into the packaging instead of the product, and they can then call their product "all-natural". They have to prove that the amount absorbed by the food is less than a certain percentage, but it doesn't help her to not have that info when she has a reaction to very small amounts.

It's not that big of a deal for most of us who can tolerate these things, and with sulphites and such it actually helps us by keeping things fresh and preventing spoilage, but Americans are notoriously bad for having incorrect or misleading labelling.

*Edited to add: Beyond a few guidelines. I understand that "Organic" is somewhat standardized and controlled on a national level as well, but the standards are very general and leave a LOT of room for interrpretation. While researching farms, we called a few companies and I was pretty surprised to see what they considered organic and natural. They are within the law, but the laws were never all that strict to begin with, and testing standards remain lacking.

So you're saying that you think the ingredients of the PACKAGING should be included on the Nutrition Facts label?

Actually...the FDA does have the Food Contact Substance Notification Program in effect - this is basically at the premarket level, but so far other than the occasional paper cut, I've yet to be harmed by any food packaging.

If your sister has severe allergies to chemicals or whatever, then it's really up to her to monitor what she purchases and uses, IMO. (that all goes under the topic of personal responsibility)

Comes down, to my mind, what people expect of the government and how much the gov't should be involved. I don't know if you live in California, but if you do, you might be aware of Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986:

So we do have laws...are you saying there should be *more* laws (and more public money spent to enforce said laws?) The regulations are written for the general public - if someone has an allergy to certain chemicals (keeping in mind that "chemicals" are present in everything - artifical or natural) then THAT person needs to be more diligent in selecting what he or she buys and uses. The regulations and laws are written to protect the general public; but the governmental agencies aren't there to hold our hands and guide us - it's up to us, using our brains and freedom of choice, to decide what we want and don't want in our bodies. IMO.

Actually, I would just be happy if they tightened the standards for TESTING of the food. They already test it, and it would be no additional cost to them to set the standard a bit higher so that everyone could be reassured that they are getting what they think they're getting. If you put it in there, label it clearly so that we know. With each new incarnation of additive or preservative it seems the standard is set lower. I personally don't happen to care what they use for packaging, but if it is being absorbed by our food then we should be aware of that fact, if the food happens to fail the standard set in place for preservative and additive free food.

Of course. And she does that. But there is the problem of her not knowing what she can and cannot use due to labels being misleading. Labels change all of the time because testing was not accurate in the first place. It happens with nutritional info, it happens with ingredient lists. Companies will also mislabel a product or call something a "flavoring" or other innocuous name when they think it will negatively impact their product sales to have full disclosure on their packaging. I don't think that's fair to the consumer, but they get away with it all the time.

And if something is being absorbed enough to impact those with allergies then you bet I want it on the label. She dropped down to 105 pounds because of inaccurate labels that caused her to get sick just when she was tolerating things a little better, and while she's in the minority it is a problem for people out there who are sensitive to certain chemicals or additives. If a company states that their product does not contain that additive and then knowlingly adds it to the packaging to be absorbed into the food in an attempt to mislead the consumer then they are at fault, not the consumer.

It's not a matter of enforcing stricter laws, it's a matter of closing up loopholes in the current laws that are in place to protect us. Why shouldn't a company have the obligation to disclose what is in our food? Who else would that be left up to? We as consumers cannot monitor what we don't know about. I don't believe that people realize how many companies are getting away with misleading labelling.

It wouldn't necessarily be left up to the government to enforce if people knew about these issues. In fact, now that the organic issue is becoming more widely known there are consumer watch groups that are certifying farms and companies and forcing them to stand by a higher standard to be able to use their seals on their packaging. The truly organic farms can then reach out to the consumers and the consumers can feel safe knowing that they are buying what has been advertised. I fail to see how that is a BAD thing.

Also, for those with peanut and other severe allergies, we know that even having products manufactured in the same facilities can cause a severe reaction. A person with these allergies may take precautions to prevent it, but up until recently no one had any real way of knowing if there was cross-contamination, or if there were traces in the food they were eating. This caused some people to have some life-threatening close calls.

Consumers reacted, and now companies put that info clearly on their labels so that there can be no mistake. If you're allergic to peanuts and smart, you avoid those foods that carry that warning on the label. I happen to see that as a case of consumers becoming aware of a problem that companies didn't want to address and pushing the issue until there was change. It's that kind of thing I'd like to see here, with products that contain amounts high enough to cause reactions. If you know your food can make people sick and potentially cause death, label it.

Just keeps adding onto the cost of food so fewer and fewer can afford good organic products.

Now that I've veered this thread completely off-topic (apologies to the OP), I just want to mention that if it's not something that you feel strongly about then you can always purchase from one of the companies that aren't independantly certified. They're not too expensive. And it's cheaper to use less chemicals at times, so I think you'd be surprised at how it affects the cost. I used to work in a health food store, and most produce was pretty comparably priced. Stores will carry 2 and sometimes 3 brands of a certain type of organic produce, at the same cost. Check the stickers. The stuff from mexico is about the same as the stuff from southern california. Prices are mostly determined by availability due to weather and growing conditions, not certification.

Apparently Congress passed - and President Bush signed into law last year - the The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act - to be enforced starting January 2006 - so that ought to cover most of your issues, IMO.

(incidentally, the text of the entire act can be seen at this FDA page.)

As far as companies/manufacturers not complying with the current FDA/USDA labeling standards - the best message to send is with your wallet - if you don't like a company, don't buy their products. ;)

Now that is fantastic news, and something I hadn't seen before. It unfortunately doesn't cover MSG and other secondary but severe allergies, but it's a definite step in the right direction. And it makes my life a whole lot easier as well ;)

local?
 

WOW! Politics always start a verbal war! Whether it's Water Politics or Gun Politics or ANY Politics! :D Too bad people don't feel passionate enough about things like poverty and famine and AIDS! But I love political debates, its so fascinating! I am totally serious!

I didn't think its a secret, I just don't know where it comes from.

I also highly doubt the water is bottled here locally, cuz why would Pepsi owned Aquafina taste so good and Coke owned Dasani taste so bad! I guess if they bottled the Aquafina here it would probably taste good and if they bottled Dansani somewhere say, like Iowa City, it would probably taste bad! Cuz Iowa City water tastes like poopy-ca-ca! They get their water out of the Cedar River which our Waste Treatment Plant dumps our crap into and about a dozen other communites north of Iowa City!

But I really don't think either is bottled in the state of Iowa, they probably come from other regionally larger communities like the Twin Cities in MN or Chicago or Omaha or somewhere.

So I really don't know and don't care, I think maybe Dasani taste's like crap because Coke tastes like crap and they don't know how to make anything taste good! Ha-Ha! Ha-Ha! I figured it out! :crazy:

Taste is a really personal thing though...I personally prefer Diet Coke over a Diet Pepsi any day... :lol:

i have not tried the fruit and salad at mac dolands . i usaully stay away from the fast food places. i go to ryans steakhouse and i stay on my low carbing there mosat of the time. i go to bob evans alot. i am tending to stay home and cook alot now and say my money to pay my credit cards off. sue

I'm with you! I think Diet Pepsi tastes like medicine. :dizzy: But one of my coworkers drinks 6 - 8 DP's each day, so go figure.

Both Dasani and Aquafina are bottled at Pepsi's (Aquafina) and Coca-Cola's (Dasani) regional bottling plants.

If you live in Iowa, your Pepsi products most likely came from their plant in Greenwood Village, Colorado or Troy, Michigan.

The closest Coca-Cola bottling plants in your region are located in Mission, Kansas; Niles, IL; and St. Charles, Missouri (no Coke bottlers listed in Iowa City).

The Dasani and Aquafina websites state that the water comes from the 'local water supply' in the bottlers' area (the same source where the water for ALL their beverages comes from), which is filtered, purified, minerals added for taste and then bottled. It's not like they're keeping it a secret or anything.

(We're fortunate in my town to have a great water source; it comes from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park. However, the pipes in our place are old and that affects the taste of our home tap water, so we opt for delivery).

I don't like the Fruit & Walnut salad being presented as a healthy snack option. Anything that has 310 calories and 32 grams of sugar isn't a decent snack. A cheeseburger has the exact same number of calories. For that matter you could have two of their low-fat vanilla cones for fewer calories than one Fruit & Walnut salad, and there is so little actual fruit in the blasted thing you're not getting much in the way of nutrients from there, methinks. Heck, if you really want the fruit serving, have a hamburger (260 calories) and a package of Apple Dippers without the caramel dipping sauce (35 calories), and you'll still have consumed fewer calories and less sugar .

The Fruit & Walnut salad is only a good option when compared to their specialty burgers & fried stuff. (Though I am compelled to note it is actually higher-calorie than even a 6-pc order of McNuggets.) It does not fare so well when stacked up against their other "healthy" options. A bacon ranch salad with grilled chicken is 260 calories, if you top that with the low-fat balsamic vinaigrette dressing they offer, you can get something resembling an actual meal for 10 fewer calories than that "healthy snack."

Not exactly on topic but I saw Super size me last night. WOW. Great film presented extremely well. One of the things that was mentioned was a company called natural ovens and their fantastic work with providing better school nutrition. I went to their website and they have a health article section. I have looked through about 8 or 10 and they are all really good.

HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommended for anyone with kids. Lots of great articles.

http://www.naturalovens.com/Better_H...p?PHPSESSID=77

BTW I went to the whataburger website. Place out in Texas. It says you can get a special request bun w/o oil. Makes their grilled chicken sandwhich about 8 grams of fat. Not too bad.

Sabra, I am SO in total agreement with you. It bothers me that Mickey D is able to get away with hoodwinkin' the public (sorry, this is my opinion) by making some of their menu items (like the fruit 'n walnut salad) sound like Nirvana-style healthy choices and that people then line up and pass the word how great it is that MD is at least TRYING to offer some real choice for the health crowd. IMO, what they are trying to do is LOOK like they are tryin' :) ... but they have a ways to go. Your post is a breath of fresh air and common sense.

Diamond, thanks for the info on the Whataburger offering ... I wouldn't even have known they put oil on the bun ...

I needed something on my way up north and got the fruit salad from McDonalds. I thought it was really good and for a meal replacement the calorie count wasn't bad either. Also agree with whoever said we have been eating preservatives all our lives and we are still alive and kicking. I would buy it again and probably still enjoy it, crisp apples and all....lol

I found this out looking for information for another site: If you go by calories alone, you're better off eating a 3 Musketeers (260 cal.) than a Fruit & Walnut Salad (310). Heck, for that matter, the candy bar also has less fat than the salad! (8g vs 13g) The only place the salad wins if you look at where the calories come from is that it has less sugar, 32g instead of 40g.

If you treat it as a meal replacement, it'll work well if it's within your calorie range, but I think a grilled chicken bacon ranch or grilled chicken Caesar salad with one of their low-fat dressings would be much more filling. It's a matter of personal taste, of course. I just object to McDonald's seemingly marketing it as a snack.

Well, the fat comes from the bag of walnuts-which are in a separate package-they are not already on the salad. If you don't throw the nuts on, then the fruit salad loses well over 100 calories, and most of the fat content.

But you still have to pay for the nuts, so I just don't see the point of this salad. :)

Why not go to the 7-11 and buy an apple?

The Undead Scary Fruit Salad Thread... it just will not die! :joker:

I find it funny that there needs to be a point to this fruit salad. It's just a menu item on a fast food restaurant, ya know? Sure, there are healthier choices out in the big wide world, and there are worse ones too. The people buying it by the bushel seem to dig it. Heck, at least one of my coworkers buy it a day ;)

Sometimes people are in a hurry for something sweet, a bit tarted up, and heavily marketed :lol:

Amen Sistah!!!!!!!! My husband gets them now and then for lunch (he is trying to eat healthier) on his break at work, and I have to say that I would much rather him eat this, walnuts and all, than the cheesburger value meal with fries and Coke topped off with a cigarette like he was 6 months ago. (He recently quit smoking as well.)
No one is saying that the salad is the most nutritious thing in the world, but it is better than what you could be ordering at the drive thru window. ;)

My comment was just a comment, no real need to make fun of it. :)

The only fast food I do is Wendy's. Generally a salad and plain potato with brocoli or a small chile. However, was out with my sister and BIL last weekend and they just stopped at the closest place...Hardees. I don't know about fast food, but greasy, green, icky-looking, and just plain disgustingly fattening might describe their menu. I got an order of chicken strips that were probably 5,000 calories. God only knows what they cook them in...or if they even contain real chicken.

Make "fun of it"? Aw, Poopyschnitzel! :lol:

I just think the McDeath fruit salad toxicity idea has been ridden into the ground here. Would an apple picked from an organic orchard 5 minutes ago be better for you? Sure! Have at it! I'm all for the natural good-for-you stuff too.

But as far as Fast Food goes... Is McDonalds sowing the seeds of health destruction by offering a fruit salad complete with sugared nuts and (vitamin C) preserved apples? I don't think so. I think harping on that angle is (pun intended) fruitless.

As my sister says, rub some dirt on that thar wound... walk it off ;) :dance:

And... McDonalds good? :angel:
Originally Posted by Amarantha
But I agree it's a good move on McDonald's part. Maybe someday they'll come up with a McRealFood burger, followed by a McRealFruit salade with McReal walnuts. Sorry, I digress. It's good of them to try.

Or... McDonalds eviiiiiiiil? :devil:
Originally Posted by Amarantha
It bothers me that Mickey D is able to get away with hoodwinkin' the public (sorry, this is my opinion) by making some of their menu items (like the fruit 'n walnut salad) sound like Nirvana-style healthy choices and that people then line up and pass the word how great it is that MD is at least TRYING to offer some real choice for the health crowd. IMO, what they are trying to do is LOOK like they are tryin' ... but they have a ways to go.

This thread has had so many ups and downs, including quite a few edited or deleted posts. I think it's time to put it to rest. In the end, it all comes down to personal choices and what you feel comfortable with. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Fortunately, our food choices are 100% our own and are not forced on us. You can eat McDonalds salad if you wish, or you can buy the ingredients (organic or not) and put it together yourself.


It's just a salad :)