How junk food can end obesity

[Os Cangaceiros]

Of course the title of the article is just designed to lure the reader in, but the piece itself is an interesting contrarian take on the "whole foods" industry and the "demonization" of "processed food".

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-junk-food-can-end-obesity/309396/?single_page=true

[helot]

I found that a very interesting article particularly the part discussing the McLean Deluxe and the marketing of more healthy foods to those not already sold on it.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Although some of the article seems a tad dodgy, I do understand the overall point.

As I mentioned in another thread, I really hate food nazis, and nothing pisses me off more than when people mix nutrition with bourgeoisie moralism.

Yes, we should have healthier school lunches that kids would actally want to eat. Yes, it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the vending machines at schools. Yes, we should encourage children to eat healthy.

I am not a child. I'm a 27 year old man. Sometimes I gotta have a bag of Doritos for dinner.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Interesting. I've always taken the existence of whole food chain stores to be an indication that the whole food industry was very much of a piece with the junk food industry, and this article seems to bear that supposition out.

The science behind taste, texture and food perception is exciting, but I can't help but wonder how much of it will see successful applications "in the wild", as it were.

[Rafiq]

Dietary purity is a waste of energy. I'm much more simple, eat food but don't be an idiot about it. When it comes to food, you need only common sense. Don't overdo anything is what I say.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Dietary purity is a waste of energy. I'm much more simple, eat food but don't be an idiot about it. When it comes to food, you need only common sense. Don't overdo anything is what I say.

Those are wise words indeed. Unfortunately that's just not enough for some assholes. They gotta save you from yourself, you know.

Because, you know, all of your problems are due to your diet! Nothing about the socio-economic system. Nope. It's all due to that twinkie you're eating, you fat little peasant you.

[Quail]

Interesting article. I don't think the obesity problem can be solved just by telling people to eat more healthily. There are loads of reasons why people eat junk, practical, emotional, etc., and obesity is linked to poverty.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Although some of the article seems a tad dodgy, I do understand the overall point.

As I mentioned in another thread, I really hate food nazis, and nothing pisses me off more than when people mix nutrition with bourgeoisie moralism.

Yes, we should have healthier school lunches that kids would actally want to eat. Yes, it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the vending machines at schools. Yes, we should encourage children to eat healthy.

I am not a child. I'm a 27 year old man. Sometimes I gotta have a bag of Doritos for dinner.

This, though I would say the article is a lot dodgy.

It fails to understand basic nutritional principles - some fats (transfats/saturated fats, i.e. butter, lard, animal skin) are bad, some fats (unsaturated fats e.g. olive oil, those found in nuts etc.) are necessary in small-medium quantities. Likewise, the same with carbs. 300 calories of brown rice will, over the long-term, be less likely to turn quickly into stored body fat as 300 calories of white rice. And so on.

The premise of the article seems to be: "I went to a shop and they served me a smoothie I didn't like that cost a lot and contained a lot of calories, ergo it can't be healthy. In addition, businesses are taking advantage of the market for health foods, ergo, health foods = capitalism = MUST be bad for our health".

Whilst many 'liberal' health-food lovers can rightly be cast with the iron of bourgeois moralism, there is also sometimes this 'socialist' moralism that many on the left seem to fall into the trap of. Whether healthy foods are healthy and processed foods are processed and therefore unhealthy is actually an inanimate, rather dry and scientific discussion. It's not affected by the mode of production. In 1000AD, a carrot was a carrot, and in 2013, a carrot is still a carrot, regardless of whether it is plucked from the ground straight onto the dinner table, or harvested within the confines of some huge multinational vegetable corporation.

The article is dangerous and somewhat mental in trying to downplay the negative health effects of junk food. It seems to have an illogical line of thinking that, because the wholesome foods industry may not be as squeaky clean as some believe, then the answer MUST lie with junk food (as if their image is anything other than that which comes from the gutter!).

Really, they get it wrong on a number of levels:

a) generally, 'wholesome' foods, whilst overpriced and of course calorie dense (because they contain proper, 'wholesome' food and not added salt/chemical additives, in general), are generally healthier through being fresher, containing natural ingredients and being more filling, because they are not merely mountains of fat, sugar and salt that, after filling you with 1000+ calories, still leave you wanting more, as the junk food establishments' meals do;

b) an argument against wholesome foods as an industry, based on a few handpicked studies and some anecdotal evidence, neither consigns the whole of wholesome foods industry to the rubbish bin, nor does it provide any advertisement whatsoever for the junk food industry;

c) healthy eating goes beyond choosing between one industry or another. One can easily ignore both, and go to the supermarket and shop as healthily (or as unhealthily) as one likes for a relatively low price. Fresh poultry, some fresh fish, skimmed milk, fortified cereals, common fruit and vegetables etc. are all pretty damn cheap in the supermarket. Likewise, if I want to indulge a bit, I can pick and choose if I want a chocolate bar, or some cheese, or a roast chicken or whatever at the supermarket, where there is ample choice and you can see what is in the food and how many calories it contains, and you can pick something like a 150 calorie chocolate bar; if junk food was the answer, then whenever we felt like indulging we'd go and eat a multi-hundred calorie burger filled with crap;

d) it's incredibly condescending to peddle the line that 'the only way to get the masses to eat healthily is to lure them with greater advertisement of the unhealthy aspects of food'. This is precisely what is wrong with nutrition today. Nobody is brave enough to say: "hey, i'm not a health freak, but I actually like a fresh salad rather than a Big Mac, and I prefer fresh fruit juice to a McFlurry most of the time and yeah, steamed veg actually tastes great once you try it and there's nothing like grilled fish, brown pasta, brown rice etc." Yes, we all need a kick of fat, sugar, or salt every so often, some of us more than others, but let's not get away from it: a diet filled with natural, un-processed, steamed/grilled/fresh food is more satisfying in the medium- long-term than a processed diet of fried food can be.

e) as for being conned by things like the McLean Deluxe - get real. What sort of socialist really falls for the notion that McDonalds would have been able to improve the diet and the health of the world, if only the wholesome foods advocates hadn't sabotaged its attempts? :lol::lol::lol: It failed because, at the same time, McDonalds et al. were causing an obesity epidemic through serving some of the worst foods imaginable - chips with so much salt your mouth burns, burgers that contain 1000+ calories, supersize fizzy drinks and more. It's the hypocrisy of these fast food outlets that prevents them from becoming public health advocates - you wouldn't go to a McDoctor, or a Kentucky Fried Dentist out of pure suspicion, why would you suddenly let them become your nutritionist?

f) The article quotes 'Chef Dan' of McDonalds as saying: Some want us to have healthier food, but others want us to have minimally processed ingredients, which can mean more fat,” he explained. “It’s becoming a balancing act for us.” The only reason it's a 'balancing act' is because McDonalds is a corporate entity: profit first, public health wayyyyyy later. Junk food establishments can never take on a public health role, because first and foremost they are concerned with profit. So is the wholesome foods industry, you may say. Fine. So is any industry. The point is, again, as I said above - don't go in tow to any industry, or fad, or whatever. The point of this article is to advertise junk food establishments as having the potential to improve public health; I say, the only way to improve public health is to allow individuals to make better choices about what they eat - through educating, through price incentives to better food (i.e. natural foods in the supermarket), through coming down hard on the junk food establishments that are so much to blame for obesity.

A realistic solution to public health is to have a realistic public health solution, not a hopeful, naive, private sector health non-solution. No corporate entity will ever put public health before profit; if they would, then McDonalds' menu would be full of McLeans Deluxe's. But they chose - consciously chose - to bin the healthier route in search of profits. Thus I do not know why the author has placed so much faith in them. They may have been dragged into labelling the calories on their foods and making some small improvements but one only has to look at documentaries like Supersize Me to see the obvious negative health effects of junk food. I'm really sick of all this anti-scientific bullshit parading to be a solution to the public health crisis of obesity; it's really not rocket science - in terms of diet, the solution to obesity must be to encourage people to eat more healthy food. And we already know what foods are healthy, so let's not pretend otherwise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This, though I would say the article is a lot dodgy.

It fails to understand basic nutritional principles - some fats (transfats/saturated fats, i.e. butter, lard, animal skin) are bad, some fats (unsaturated fats e.g. olive oil, those found in nuts etc.) are necessary in small-medium quantities. Likewise, the same with carbs. 300 calories of brown rice will, over the long-term, be less likely to turn quickly into stored body fat as 300 calories of white rice. And so on.

You also seem to fail to understand the basic principle that if one consumes more energy than one is expending, one will get gain weight, regardless of whether it's greasy hamburgers or vegan cakes one is eating.


The premise of the article seems to be: "I went to a shop and they served me a smoothie I didn't like that cost a lot and contained a lot of calories, ergo it can't be healthy. In addition, businesses are taking advantage of the market for health foods, ergo, health foods = capitalism = MUST be bad for our health".

Don't forget the liberal use of sea salt and the fattening recipes being promoted by "wholefood" chefs.


Whilst many 'liberal' health-food lovers can rightly be cast with the iron of bourgeois moralism, there is also sometimes this 'socialist' moralism that many on the left seem to fall into the trap of. Whether healthy foods are healthy and processed foods are processed and therefore unhealthy is actually an inanimate, rather dry and scientific discussion. It's not affected by the mode of production. In 1000AD, a carrot was a carrot, and in 2013, a carrot is still a carrot, regardless of whether it is plucked from the ground straight onto the dinner table, or harvested within the confines of some huge multinational vegetable corporation.

It's not that simple (http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html) though, is it? Even in 1000AD people didn't just eat carrots, they ate carrots that were part of a diet and activity level peculiar to their time, place, and social position, assuming that they ate carrots at all since in the 1000s they hadn't quite reached Europe or were at least rather new to the area.


The article is dangerous and somewhat mental in trying to downplay the negative health effects of junk food.

How exactly is it doing that?


It seems to have an illogical line of thinking that, because the wholesome foods industry may not be as squeaky clean as some believe, then the answer MUST lie with junk food (as if their image is anything other than that which comes from the gutter!).

That's simply not true. Are we even reading the same article? The article is saying that since junk food isn't going away any time soon, improvements to junk food will translate into improvements for general public health.


Really, they get it wrong on a number of levels:

a) generally, 'wholesome' foods, whilst overpriced and of course calorie dense (because they contain proper, 'wholesome' food and not added salt/chemical additives, in general), are generally healthier through being fresher, containing natural ingredients and being more filling, because they are not merely mountains of fat, sugar and salt that, after filling you with 1000+ calories, still leave you wanting more, as the junk food establishments' meals do;

Where does the article deny this?


b) an argument against wholesome foods as an industry, based on a few handpicked studies and some anecdotal evidence, neither consigns the whole of wholesome foods industry to the rubbish bin, nor does it provide any advertisement whatsoever for the junk food industry;

I don't get the impression it was meant to. The offerings of the wholefoods industry may be healthier in general, but they have other issues not related to their nutritional content.


c) healthy eating goes beyond choosing between one industry or another. One can easily ignore both, and go to the supermarket and shop as healthily (or as unhealthily) as one likes for a relatively low price. Fresh poultry, some fresh fish, skimmed milk, fortified cereals, common fruit and vegetables etc. are all pretty damn cheap in the supermarket. Likewise, if I want to indulge a bit, I can pick and choose if I want a chocolate bar, or some cheese, or a roast chicken or whatever at the supermarket, where there is ample choice and you can see what is in the food and how many calories it contains, and you can pick something like a 150 calorie chocolate bar; if junk food was the answer, then whenever we felt like indulging we'd go and eat a multi-hundred calorie burger filled with crap;

Your statement is based on the assumption that the author thinks junk food is "the answer" when they don't think that - they're saying that improvements to junk food should be part of the equation.


d) it's incredibly condescending to peddle the line that 'the only way to get the masses to eat healthily is to lure them with greater advertisement of the unhealthy aspects of food'. This is precisely what is wrong with nutrition today. Nobody is brave enough to say: "hey, i'm not a health freak, but I actually like a fresh salad rather than a Big Mac, and I prefer fresh fruit juice to a McFlurry most of the time and yeah, steamed veg actually tastes great once you try it and there's nothing like grilled fish, brown pasta, brown rice etc." Yes, we all need a kick of fat, sugar, or salt every so often, some of us more than others, but let's not get away from it: a diet filled with natural, un-processed, steamed/grilled/fresh food is more satisfying in the medium- long-term than a processed diet of fried food can be.

Speak for yourself! I enjoy a salad every now and then, but I eat shit like burgers and chips more often and even my salad is often augmented with dollops of salad cream and a couple of pieces of southern fried chicken. It doesn't take much bravery to boast of one's moral rectitude through one's diet when there is an entire subculture as well as at least two chains of stores catering to that kind of elitist mentality.


e) as for being conned by things like the McLean Deluxe - get real. What sort of socialist really falls for the notion that McDonalds would have been able to improve the diet and the health of the world, if only the wholesome foods advocates hadn't sabotaged its attempts? :lol::lol::lol: It failed because, at the same time, McDonalds et al. were causing an obesity epidemic through serving some of the worst foods imaginable - chips with so much salt your mouth burns, burgers that contain 1000+ calories, supersize fizzy drinks and more. It's the hypocrisy of these fast food outlets that prevents them from becoming public health advocates - you wouldn't go to a McDoctor, or a Kentucky Fried Dentist out of pure suspicion, why would you suddenly let them become your nutritionist?

How the fuck can their slightly improving their dishes be remotely equivalent to letting McDonald's become your doctor, dentist, or nutritionist?


f) The article quotes 'Chef Dan' of McDonalds as saying: Some want us to have healthier food, but others want us to have minimally processed ingredients, which can mean more fat,” he explained. “It’s becoming a balancing act for us.” The only reason it's a 'balancing act' is because McDonalds is a corporate entity: profit first, public health wayyyyyy later. Junk food establishments can never take on a public health role, because first and foremost they are concerned with profit. So is the wholesome foods industry, you may say. Fine. So is any industry. The point is, again, as I said above - don't go in tow to any industry, or fad, or whatever. The point of this article is to advertise junk food establishments as having the potential to improve public health; I say, the only way to improve public health is to allow individuals to make better choices about what they eat - through educating, through price incentives to better food (i.e. natural foods in the supermarket), through coming down hard on the junk food establishments that are so much to blame for obesity.

Please point out where the author said that sort of stuff shouldn't also be part of the solution.


A realistic solution to public health is to have a realistic public health solution, not a hopeful, naive, private sector health non-solution. No corporate entity will ever put public health before profit; if they would, then McDonalds' menu would be full of McLeans Deluxe's. But they chose - consciously chose - to bin the healthier route in search of profits. Thus I do not know why the author has placed so much faith in them. They may have been dragged into labelling the calories on their foods and making some small improvements but one only has to look at documentaries like Supersize Me to see the obvious negative health effects of junk food.

The guy in that documentary ate junk food, specifically McDonald's, for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. How representative is that of the majority of junk food consumers' eating habits?


I'm really sick of all this anti-scientific bullshit parading to be a solution to the public health crisis of obesity; it's really not rocket science - in terms of diet, the solution to obesity must be to encourage people to eat more healthy food. And we already know what foods are healthy, so let's not pretend otherwise.

And let's not pretend that people are going to stop or significantly reduce their junk food intake without some major changes in how food is produced as well as consumed.

Improving the public diet will also require solutions that go beyond merely what people are eating, such as addressing the situations of those who work long hours for little pay, especially if they're holding down two or more jobs because travelling between them cuts into time that could otherwise be use for shopping and food prep, around which they will also have to fit inconsequential things such as their leisure time and social life.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It fails to understand basic nutritional principles - some fats (transfats/saturated fats, i.e. butter, lard, animal skin) are bad, some fats (unsaturated fats e.g. olive oil, those found in nuts etc.) are necessary in small-medium quantities. Likewise, the same with carbs. 300 calories of brown rice will, over the long-term, be less likely to turn quickly into stored body fat as 300 calories of white rice. And so on.


People who want to lose weight and keep it off are almost always advised by those who run successful long-term weight-loss programs to transition to a diet high in lean protein, complex carbs such as whole grains and legumes, and the sort of fiber vegetables are loaded with.

Sounds like pretty sound advice.

[Sea]

You also seem to fail to understand the basic principle that if one consumes more energy than one is expending, one will get gain weight, regardless of whether it's greasy hamburgers or vegan cakes one is eating.He understands damn well. One consumes many more calories filling up on greasy hamburgers than on vegan cakes.
Don't forget the liberal use of sea salt and the fattening recipes being promoted by "wholefood" chefs.Oh, he didn't forget. The post explicitly stated that picking one industry over another is a dumn way to go about things for this very reason.
It's not that simple (http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html) though, is it? Even in 1000AD people didn't just eat carrots, they ate carrots that were part of a diet and activity level peculiar to their time, place, and social position, assuming that they ate carrots at all since in the 1000s they hadn't quite reached Europe or were at least rather new to the area.You do realize that the carrot was merely used as an example, don't you? There's no need to go to the trouble of consulting the carrot site just to be an ass. The point is that it's not the food itself that changes.
How exactly is it doing that?Oh, I dunno, by pushing the "improvement" of junk food as a possible solution, beacause...
That's simply not true. Are we even reading the same article? The article is saying that since junk food isn't going away any time soon, improvements to junk food will translate into improvements for general public health....you can't simply un-junk junk food. The McFuckwich is so very bad for a reason. It's designed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53528/) to be alurring to the slops that run after it. It's cheap, so it can be sold at low cost while maintaining decent profits too. It's not going to change. It got that way for a reason and it would be utterly utopian to think that, starting over, it would suck any less.
Where does the article deny this?Where does the boss claim that the article denies this?
I don't get the impression it was meant to. The offerings of the wholefoods industry may be healthier in general, but they have other issues not related to their nutritional content.The whole "we can make the junk food industry better" thing doesn't give you a clue?
Your statement is based on the assumption that the author thinks junk food is "the answer" when they don't think that - they're saying that improvements to junk food should be part of the equation.The author is a crock and a shill either way.
Speak for yourself! I enjoy a salad every now and then, but I eat shit like burgers and chips more often and even my salad is often augmented with dollops of salad cream and a couple of pieces of southern fried chicken. It doesn't take much bravery to boast of one's moral rectitude through one's diet when there is an entire subculture as well as at least two chains of stores catering to that kind of elitist mentality.Just beacuse you don't like to eat your veggies doesn't make me or anyone else an elitist. Also, wow. Fried chicken and cream on salad? Would you be offended if I asked how much you weigh?
How the fuck can their slightly improving their dishes be remotely equivalent to letting McDonald's become your doctor, dentist, or nutritionist?Because both involve putting trust in these capitalist establishments. I mean, you are advocating that McD's should be making nutritional choices for the public. Also, when they start improving their dishes, let me know. :rolleyes:
Please point out where the author said that sort of stuff shouldn't also be part of the solution.The public already can make these choices and it doesn't. Please tell me where the boss said that the article says that that sort of stuff shouldn't also be part of the solution.
The guy in that documentary ate junk food, specifically McDonald's, for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. How representative is that of the majority of junk food consumers' eating habits?The guy in that documentary did indeed eat junk food, specifically McDonald's, for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. Doesn't it follow that, when Jane or Joe replaces a good meal with salad-topped-with-globs-of-fat and a burger on the side, that they'd gain weight? Obviously it's to a lesser extent. That doesn't deny that McFood is way fattier.
And let's not pretend that people are going to stop or significantly reduce their junk food intake without some major changes in how food is produced as well as consumed.It's always consumed the same way. You put it into your mouth, usually having stabbed it with a fork for your convenience. Most people cook it first too, but I won't judge. Then you do this thing where your jaw starts going up and down and your tongue is having a good time rolling around in the chewed food like a kid at a water park, and then you swallow it. The last part is how it gets into your stomach. Food is also, as are many things, often produced in whatever way is best and most economical for that type of food.
Improving the public diet will also require solutions that go beyond merely what people are eating, such as addressing the situations of those who work long hours for little pay, especially if they're holding down two or more jobs because travelling between them cuts into time that could otherwise be use for shopping and food prep, around which they will also have to fit inconsequential things such as their leisure time and social life.Uhh... all those things go back to the "what people are eating" part.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He understands damn well. One consumes many more calories filling up on greasy hamburgers than on vegan cakes.

It doesn't matter what one eats, if one consumes more calories than they spend then one will gain weight.


Oh, he didn't forget. The post explicitly stated that picking one industry over another is a dumn way to go about things for this very reason.

He did forget, because he seems to think the premise of the article is based on calorie-laden smoothies, when in fact the article author pointed out that there were other issues both nutritionally and in other respects.


You do realize that the carrot was merely used as an example, don't you? There's no need to go to the trouble of consulting the carrot site just to be an ass. The point is that it's not the food itself that changes.

That's nonsense. Carrots and other cultivated plants are subject to artificial selection, which changes the plant according to the whim of the grower. How can an organism be modified without also modifying the food it is made into?


Oh, I dunno, by pushing the "improvement" of junk food as a possible solution, beacause...... you can't simply un-junk junk food. The McFuckwich is so very bad for a reason. It's designed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53528/) to be alurring to the slops that run after it. It's cheap, so it can be sold at low cost while maintaining decent profits too. It's not going to change. It got that way for a reason and it would be utterly utopian to think that, starting over, it would suck any less.

It's clear you didn't actually read the fucking article. You clearly missed the bits where food scientists explained current and future methods for making foods taste and feel like they have more fat and sugar than they actually have. Making food like that can actually be cheaper because the required chemicals can be produced on an industrial scale.

Further, the idea that junk food producers will never change their ways at all is patent nonsense. Quite apart from the pressure they will be getting from the increasing prominence of the wholefoods industry, the problem of obesity is widely recognised and other interests of capital (e.g. insurance companies, plus anyone who needs workers that aren't obese) stand to lose if it continues or worsens.


Where does the boss claim that the article denies this?

The Boss said the article "gets it wrong".


The whole "we can make the junk food industry better" thing doesn't give you a clue?

Not in the slightest, because the author makes the quite reasonable point that people will not stop eating junk food any time soon, so therefore improvements to junk food will have improvements for public health.


The author is a crock and a shill either way.

Looks like your mind is already made up. It must be good to never be wrong at all.


Just beacuse you don't like to eat your veggies doesn't make me or anyone else an elitist. Also, wow. Fried chicken and cream on salad? Would you be offended if I asked how much you weigh?

Not at all. Last time I checked I was about 65kg. Given my height of 188cm (6'2"), that gives me a BMI of 18.39, which makes me slightly underweight, actually.


Because both involve putting trust in these capitalist establishments. I mean, you are advocating that McD's should be making nutritional choices for the public. Also, when they start improving their dishes, let me know. :rolleyes:

If you're eating at McDonald's, then you're already putting some degree of trust in that establishment, at least as far as trusting that the food you get served won't actually kill you on the spot.

As for making nutritional choices, McDonald's already do that by selling food. Why shouldn't they be encouraged/forced to make better ones?

They already have made some improvements. If you had actually read the article instead of giving this idiotic knee-jerk response, you would have found the following: "McDonald’s has quietly been making healthy changes for years, shrinking portion sizes, reducing some fats, trimming average salt content by more than 10 percent in the past couple of years alone, and adding fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and oatmeal to its menu. In May, the chain dropped its Angus third-pounders and announced a new line of quarter-pound burgers, to be served on buns containing whole grains."


The public already can make these choices and it doesn't.

Can they really? You've never heard of food deserts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert)? Even putting those aside, how much time for shopping for and preparing meals made with fresh produce do you imagine people holding down two or more jobs have?


Please tell me where the boss said that the article says that that sort of stuff shouldn't also be part of the solution.

Again, because The Boss said the article "gets it wrong".


The guy in that documentary did indeed eat junk food, specifically McDonald's, for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. Doesn't it follow that, when Jane or Joe replaces a good meal with salad-topped-with-globs-of-fat and a burger on the side, that they'd gain weight? Obviously it's to a lesser extent. That doesn't deny that McFood is way fattier.

Doesn't answer my question about how representative a McDonald's-only diet is.


It's always consumed the same way. You put it into your mouth, usually having stabbed it with a fork for your convenience. Most people cook it first too, but I won't judge. Then you do this thing where your jaw starts going up and down and your tongue is having a good time rolling around in the chewed food like a kid at a water park, and then you swallow it. The last part is how it gets into your stomach.

Chewing and swallowing is only part of the consumption process, you idiot. How food is processed and/or prepared is also important. Or do you think that boiled sausages have exactly the same nutritional content as ones that have been deep-fried in animal fat?


Food is also, as are many things, often produced in whatever way is best and most economical for that type of food.

So you think that there are no improvements to be made at all in that respect?


Uhh... all those things go back to the "what people are eating" part.

So it never occurs to you to wonder why people eat the way they do? You think that lifestyle doesn't factor into it?

[Vanguard1917]

Because both involve putting trust in these capitalist establishments. I mean, you are advocating that McD's should be making nutritional choices for the public. Also, when they start improving their dishes, let me know

No one is forced to eat at McDonald's. Surely people are capable of making their own 'nutritional choices'.

[Solarstone]

This article tries to make a countercultural point that the much hated fast food industry COULD provide healthy eating choices, especially for poorer people, especially since the wholesome food industry has totally become corrupt and by and large does NOT serve the public interest by emphasizing truly healthy food, because selling unhealthy processed food and overpriced organic foods is more profitable.