25
   

McDonald’s announces new Sad Meals

 
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 07:54 am
@Linkat,
Common Linkat...you know NO ONE here can stay on topic. LOL Wink
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 07:54 am
@Bella Dea,
well...
if i REALLY wanted too...
maybe.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 07:57 am
@Bella Dea,
Love this comment (and how true)

Quote:
The parents who think that McDonalds "lures" kids in are the ones who can't say no.


I look at something like this (of course adjusting conversation to the age) as a "learning tool." You can point out the advertisements and how it tries to entice them. You can point out how unhealthy the food is - for my kids where they love to play on sports team I use this as pointing out if they eat healthier they will perform better in sports. I do let them know that an occassional non-healthy meal or snack isn't going to kill them, but they need to balance.

Of course at 4, you need a simpler explaination. But it does teach children to make good decisions as they will need to learn this skill.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 08:18 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
The question was more centered around - was this a marketing decision/was it pressure from healthy advocates/is this a good business decision, etc.


Pressure from healthy advocates? Even if it were, would adding apple slices make any difference? Seems like they would be better off trying to re-educate the people who actually view mcdonalds as a valid source of nutrition.

Is it a good business decision? I don't think it would really effect much if anything at all especially when it still remains optional according to the source I spoke to. She says that on average one or two customers a day opt for the apple slices over the fries. But the interesting thing she added was that the apple slices come with a caramel dipping sauce. After I was finished laughing I added that if the two options were available it would be better to eat the fries over the caramel dipped apple slices.
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 08:19 am
Aside from the earlier mentions by many that the parents have a responsibility to raise the child in a healthy manner, I have added thoughts.

What blasted kind of apple is being used? I don't like macintosh so that wouldn't work well. As a child I didn't like apples in general. Many children don't as can be seen by the children trading an apple for almost anything in another kids lunchbox. Need more proof? Why do you think so many apples magically appear on the teacher's desk? Students need to get rid of them.

The happy meal will now be the Waste Meal, as millions of children don't eat the apple slices and throw them away. What was accomplished by this? Certainly didn't improve the eating habits.

Perhaps different kinds of Happy Meals. A choice of regular...with the fries as they have been, Apple and fries or Carrots and fries...I mean what child doesn't simply love munching away on carrot sticks? (well, I'd have gone for it as a child)

Eating healthy begins at home. Those who are taking the changed meal as a sign that they can now race to McDonald's more often are doing a disservice to their child. As I indicated to a poster earlier, this will send a message to the child that McDonald's is good food and one day when the parent or guardian isn't there, little Penelope or Reybert will be with their friends and order the Big Mac, the large fries and the large shake or soda and think nothing of it. Soon they'll be there 4 and 5 times a week after school and soon they'll get their first car and drive there, no longer skateboarding or bicycling over, thereby using less calories but still recalling that they were told McDonald's served healthy food and a vision of the putrid apple slices will race through their heads as they get a second Big Mac and wonder why they've gained 100 pounds in less than a year.

shewolfnm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 08:23 am
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Those who are taking the changed meal as a sign that they can now race to McDonald's more often


yup.
That right there is part of their underlying idea, and why they are making it public and drumming it into peoples heads.

Just because a place 'offers healthy ' products, many people go there and some where in their mind feel better about eating there no matter what they may have actually consumed.

A great example, souper salad.
A salad buffet with soups, breads, pizzas and nachos ...all buffet style.

I have seen people fill their plate with salad stuff, coat it with TONS of salad dressing and feel good because they 'ate a salad'. Yet, that dressing alone was probably about 500 calories.. lets not go there on the fat content.

0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:09 am
@Sturgis,
Quote:
The happy meal will now be the Waste Meal


Damn I could have used that as my title!
0 Replies
 
sharonpustejovsky
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:43 am
It's really a pretty brilliant marketing strategy on McDonald's part, because when the parent orders the HM for a child who is used to getting only fries with the HM, the child is getting 1/2 the portion of fries that he/she got before - since everyone knows how addicting McD's fries can be, there are some parents out there who will order extra fries, when the child cries that the 1/2 order isn't enough. McDonalds stands to make more money by offering fewer fries in the HM, along with giving them the apples, too - it pleases the more health-conscious parents and gives McDs the potential of selling extra orders of fries.

I do hope they haven't eliminated the option of only getting the apples with the HM with no fries at all. My children don't tend to miss what they can't see. More healthy choices would be great, too - carrots, mandarin oranges, fruit salad, etc. But this might cut their profit margin and it's all about what brings in the most money in the end.

I really like that Wendy's offers slightly healthier fries (with the skins still on them and cooked with no trans-fats). If we are going to eat fries we will do it there, although I have always loved McD's fries the best. I hate that Wendy's no longer offers the option of mandarin oranges with their children's meals. We used to love those.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:50 am
@sharonpustejovsky,
sharonpustejovsky wrote:
I really like that Wendy's offers slightly healthier fries (with the skins still on them and cooked with no trans-fats). If we are going to eat fries we will do it there, although I have always loved McD's fries the best.


a recent report i saw said the new Wendy's fries with the skin on and sea salt are actually higher in sodium than the old fries

but the skin on sea salt thing makes folks think they're healthier
sharonpustejovsky
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:51 am
@Krumple,
Great point! Remove the caramel - it does defeat the purpose of trying to eat healthier. But then, the apples would get thrown away by the majority of children/parents. It's pretty sad... and the obesity rates in children (and adults) continues to rise.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:53 am
Sturgis, this is brilliant.
Quote:
The happy meal will now be the Waste Meal, as millions of children don't eat the apple slices and throw them away. What was accomplished by this? Certainly didn't improve the eating habits.


It doesn't mean **** to anyone if they don't eat the healthy option! Fries in the past, now apple slices? I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
sharonpustejovsky
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:54 am
@djjd62,
Well, I admit that it fooled me. I didn't even think about the sodium factor and I figured there was a little more fiber in the new fries, too. The extra sodium might be okay in the summer when everyone is sweating out a lot of their salt outdoors, but knowing this, it makes me want to write to Wendy's and ask if they could offer lower sodium fries for the many people whose health is at serious risk if they eat too much sodium.
0 Replies
 
sharonpustejovsky
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:56 am
@Sturgis,
Yes! I'm with you on the kids throwing the apples away anyway. Even with the caramel sauce, which has the dreaded high fructose corn syrup and other nasties in it, it just isn't going to cut it for the kids who are addicted to the fries.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:59 am
@djjd62,
http://www.dailytech.com/Wendys+New+Natural+Fries+Caught+Using+Chemical+Stew/article21394.htm

from this article
Wendy's New "Natural" Fries Caught Using Chemical Stew

Quote:
But a BNET blogger has poked a hole in Wendy's claims of the fries being "natural". According to the report, the fries use a stew of exotic laboratory chemicals to improve the fries' appearance, flavor, and ease of cooking.

The fries do away with the steam skinning -- ironically, one of the most "natural" parts of the average fast food company's fry manufacturing process.

Chopped, the fries begin their chemical journey with a dip in sodium acid pyrophosphate. They're also powdered with slightly more natural D-glucose (crystallized from corn). Together the two components prevent the fries from browning during their first fry at the factory and their second fry at the restaurant.

As BNET points out, this makes Wendy's fries less "natural" than some competitors. For example Five Guys' fries are only fried once and are made from fresh potatoes -- thus they don't suffer from the same browning issues, eliminating the need for the chemical dip.

Five Guys and pretty much every other large chain burger joint use a special chemical called dimethylpolysiloxane that prevents the oil from foaming, even after countless batches of fries. And guess what? Wendy's "natural" fries use this non-naturally occurring chemical, as well.

Wendy's emphasizes that the fries are made from "100% Russet potatoes." But according to John Keeling of the National Potato Council, "Virtually all processed French fries are Russets."

Even Wendy's Chief Market Officer, Ken Caldwell, so much as admits the "natural" fries aren't 100 percent natural. He states in an interview with BNET, "People are saying they want high integrity ingredients, things their grandmother would have used, that don’t look like they came out of a chemistry lab. But they’re also saying I’ve got a family to feed and can only afford to spend about $4 on my lunch, and I’ve only got about a minute or two to eat it."

"We’re taking it product line by product line to make our food closer to this real ingredients story. Over time, you’ll see our ingredient labels getting shorter and more of those high integrity ingredients. It just takes time."

Health-wise the fries are a mixed bag. They add a grab of dietary fiber -- which promotes good digestion. But they also bump sodium content 43 percent. That's a bit problematic -- excess sodium can cause heart problems, and Americans tend to get too much in their diet already.

Will Wendy's misleading labeling, though, lead to yet another class action lawsuit? You never know, but Wendy's customers may be less likely to push the point. After all, the fries may have been exposed for not being "as real as it gets" like Wendy's claims, but -- according to most -- they make up for it in taste.
0 Replies
 
sharonpustejovsky
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 10:02 am
@Linkat,
I just mentioned this myself and read your post. So true. On the now rare occasions that we go to McDonalds (we used to sadly go 1-3 times a week or more when they were really small because I put convenience at a higher priority than I should have a the time), my girls order Quarter Pounders separately with no cheese and no fries. Sometimes they will get a side salad. It's so funny - once I took away the privilege of them getting fries, they stopped begging to go to McDs and other fast food places. What's so great about eating a regular 'ole hamburger when you don't get the fries? Whatever works!
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 10:16 am
@sharonpustejovsky,
mmm...
they DO have good fries... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 10:36 am
Quote:
Moreover, the fast-food giant will tinker with its grown-up menu as well, with the aim of cutting (for example) salt content by more than 15% by 2015.


does anyone else find this statement...odd?
Why will it take several YEARS to remove salt? What are they going to replace that salt with since that will change how the burgers taste?

Lowering the salt content is easy. STOP adding it while it is cooking. Leave that to the customer. In fact, doing so would appease even the extremists who bash them at every turn for sodium content.

In fact, why do they not do that ANYWAY? They dont add ketchup to your fries for you... they dont automatically add cheese to all burgers, they dont pour your salad dressing for you. Salt is a condiment too. Leave it up to the person eating it to dress it how they want it.. Then, Mc is not responsible.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 10:37 am
@shewolfnm,
they have to ween off the heavy duty eaters off slowly, or else they get cranky.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 10:38 am
@hamilton,
good point...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 10:40 am
@shewolfnm,
have you ever heard of John Pinnette?
if not, then look him up. he's fat, and funny about it. great comedian.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 03:01:27