MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The problem is this is not something they are doing in response to the consumer demands. It's due to pad publicity from people who do not even eat at McDonald's. It's a token gesture to get the loudmouths off their back and hopefully attack another fast food place.

In the end it changes nothing other than McDonald's being able to say "hey, we got apples in kids meals....see, we are doing something!" to congress or the idiots like the guy that made Super Size Me.

If people really wanted apples, it would have been this way for years or there would be healthy fast food places popping up and flourishing. As shown by their own research, people are not clamoring for apples. This is thanks to pressure from politicians and random loudmouths who have a simplistic world view and force their beliefs on others by pressuring major corporations to make token gestures in order to appease them.

This affects nothing and does absolutely nothing other than give the vocal minority something to crow about.

So you are fine with vocal minorities dictating the marketplace? This is not that big of a deal, but definitely something that is becoming more common place. Sooner or later, it will become something worth crying over.

BTW...apples are not he best idea. When you are dealing with metabolic syndrome and diabetes epidemics, giving people sugar is the not the best answer.

What should they give them? Deep fried potatoes drenched in salt and soaked in sugar water? Don't you want capitalistic choices?

What math am I checking?

In his movie, he goes through all the calories he consumed in a day. It does not add up. He stated he consumer over 5000 calories a day, but only ate 3 meals. Even at McDonald's it's very difficult to reach that calorie number. He would have to super size every meal (plus dessert), but in his documentary he only super sized a small percentage. It's been proven in many places how his numbers don't add up, and much of his tactics were sensationalistic. Sadly people who watched the movie jumped on the anti McDonald's bandwagon instead of pointing out the guy flat out lied.

There is even a decent movie that pretty much rips apart Super Size Me (called Fathead, I think it's still on Hulu). It has it's own ideas, which is mainly carbs are the problem (which is becoming more and more a focus of health related studies), and it's not the best made movie. Yet Spurlock has been shown to be a huge fraud.

edited: added the Super Size math from Fathead

Even if SuperSizeMeGuy did not eat 5k calories and would not have gained 25 pounds, he still would be well over the 2k FDA recommended intake. McDonalds is still not a healthy option for people to eat at for every meal. I have no idea if the guy lied or not. I don't really care if he did or if FatHead the comedian did. It really is not relevant in this discussion or make McDonalds a good decision. Even if the intake was 3k calories a day. It is not smart.

While many on this board will say they do not make the decision to eat at McDonalds for every meal. You have to look at it from a poverty stand point. You can eat incredibly cheap at McDonalds using the dollar menu 2 McDoubles and a large (32oz) coke is only 3.00 plus tax. But once again, McDonalds is not forcing anyone to eat their apple option. I too wish they had much better options with out sugar, sodium, carbs, or calories. But the fact that McDonalds provides this default option is a strong and good move. Are kids going to bitch? Probably. But in 3 years they will probably be out of the happy meal phase anyway. Your outrage is still not really making sense.

You understand that McDonalds is going to provide both options. When a parent orders a happy meal they are given a hamburger, cheeseburger, or 4 piece McNugget and given both fries and apples. You as a parent get to choose what you give your child.

They always have been given the choice. Yet they changed the base option not because of the consumer, but because of outside pressure.

It's a pretty simple concept, the consumer should dictate the marketplace. If the consumer demands something through their purchasing choices, it will come true. This would easily have been done through choices of apples or even simple market research (which they did and it showed people don't want this).

The more pressure we allow from government agencies and special interest groups, the less choices you get to make. We as consumers should not be happy in any way with special interest groups changing the supply side of the equation. I am not saying I am outraged since this is a pretty pointless gesture. Yet this is one more example of special interests making choices for the consumer, not the consumer themselves. I don't know about you, but I think that should be an important ideal. I have no problem informing the consumer, yet I am not a fan of special interest groups pressuring businesses to change the way they run a business.

The only thing I see as a legit point is the whole toy thing. That is an enticement for children that gets them to order something they didn't necessarily want. Of course as long as they are also sold separately I don't really have an issue with that either. Educate the parents and let them decide. Don't choose for them.

Whether we want to admit it or not, kids are fat. Fat, lazy kids become fat, lazy adults. This is a step in the right direction, even if it's just a small one.

Aww gee, the love for forcing people to do what you want. That always works out well.

First of all, attacking the food side of things is ignorant. Exercise is the key. You can eat pretty much anything you want (within some reason) if you exercise regularly. People can be overweight (which BMI is laughable, but I will save that for another time) and perfectly healthy.

Second, you act like the marketplace is evil and so are corporations. Yeah, and the government and special interests are so great. You know why trans fats were introduced? Special interest groups forcing companies to switch. The consumer did not demand it. Same thing with the switch to carbohydrates. Yet amazingly diabetes and heart disease skyrocketed thanks to changing to those types foods per government recommendations. The funny thing is people keep thinking "hey, people must not be listening." In fact they are, but no one wants to admit the huge shift that occurred in the American diet from the 60's and 70's is to blame.

A free marketplace is a very important concept. Too often it is manipulated by the government and special interests, and they screw it up more than they help. Information without bias and programs to promote exercise is the key, not forcing things on the marketplace. It's bad practice, and often leads to worse things. I have no problem protecting people from something harmful through information, but once they know the danger let them be.

BTW...you must have no idea what it is like to be poor. I was poor. I ate healthy. Why do people think the only food poor people can eat is McDonald's or other fast food? When people throw that out there, they come across as ignorant and moronic. Walk into any McDonald's and ask people if they think what they are eating is healthy. They will say no. Then ask them if they could have had a more healthy meal. They will say yes. You don't need to be rich to eat healthy. Plus, McDonald's already had apples. The choice was already there. It's not like there is some apple embargo in the hood.

As for why McDonald's did this, it's the same reason they cave for a bunch of reasons, bad press. It's amazing how many people think corporations are evil and want to kill people. You know what they do? They provide people with want they want. On the other hand, special interests and governments give people what they tell them they should want. That is much worse than those corporations you like to deride. You know what you do if a company does something you don't like, you don't buy it. You know what you do when the government does something you don't like, if you are rich enough, lobby. If you are poor or middle class, you're fucked. I'll take the one where I get to choose.

I am not saying there should not be some regulation, but in this case we are talking about food that is non toxic because people think it creates fat kids. Pretty stupid to think you can force food on people by attacking establishments, but the whole concept is a waste of effort in the wrong direction.

So let's get get this straight responing to bad press is not the free market working? If McD's think avoiding bad press will help their bottom their bottom line that is the very definition the free market. Now you say the problem are "special interest" which must be the consumer groups informing the public about the nutrional value or lack thereof in McDonalds' food. All these "special interest" have done is inform the public about McDonalds food. And cleary McDonalds thinks that the public is less likely to buy there to due the bad press generated about their food quailty and if they do some to improve it or the perception of it so more people will buy that is free market working.

Did I miss the legislation forcing McDonald's to modify their menu?

It's better for the environment and encourages sustainable farming methods, which in turn advances our food security. So yes, there is plenty of evidence that it is "healthier".