Chewing the fat-Fast "food" JoeMaggard Jan 30, 01:51 PM [ Reply ]
Jan. 29, 2005. 01:00 AM
Chewing the fat about what's really in fast food
JENNIFER WELLS
It wasn't my fault. An evil temptress who also happens to be an excellent friend hauled me into a Mickey D's and made me do it. Made me, I say.
Before I could pin her shoulders to the wall and wrest her pocketbook, she had hydroplaned to first place in front of the Mickey D's cash person and uttered the fateful words: "Two sausage, egg and cheese McGriddles, please."
She had clearly gone absolutely mad, and intended to take me to the nut house with her. We were in cottage country, for God's sake. We should have been lounging on the porch with stout coffee and smoked trout and baguette and...oh lord.
The griddle things arrived in a flash, as they are wont to do, and my friend proudly transported her tray to a table for two as if she were bearing the gift of the Magi. She had a look of transcendence about her. Clearly, possessed.
The griddlers were unwrapped with the speed of a young child laying waste to a pile of birthday gifts. Frighteningly, they were stamped with the golden arches — edible branding. Worse, they had been injected with a synthetic-tasting substance, which, I was informed, was syrup. The item itself did not appear to be particularly large, which may explain why we shamefully consumed the griddlers darned quickly, leaving a look of contentment on my friend's face akin to a cat licking the last spatterings of cream from her whiskers.
What I did not know then but what I know now: Calories: 680. Grams of fat: 33. That's way more than a bacon double cheeseburger! More fat than a Big Mac!
I know this now because I have been trolling the nutrition facts of McDonald's fare, about which the company offers much disclosure. I can tell you that a 32-ounce strawberry triple thick shake is freighted with 1,110 calories. Which raises the question: why are people drinking two-pound milkshakes?
I know what you're thinking. It's a free world. If someone wants to consume a heavy mixture of sucrose mixed with corn syrup mixed with milk mixed with carrageenan (I think it's a thickener) and more than 25 other ingredients (I counted), then he or she is perfectly within her rights to do so. End of story.
Or is it? As you may have heard, the so-called Big Fat lawsuit against McDonald's was resuscitated this week in a New York court, just when everyone thought the idea of suing a company for shilling fattening fare was a dead-ender.
I have followed this suit from time to time and, when it was first struck down in January, 2003, it seemed there had already been a big win for consumers. McDonald's sales were suffering and the company, along with other fast-food operators, had reached the inevitable conclusion that keeping millions of customers a day happy entailed offering a broader menu, including more nutritional fare.
The evolution continues. Wendy's is advertising its new combos, offering consumers the choice of saying "salad" instead of "with fries." In its most recent annual report, McDonald's artfully graced the cover with a photo of a yogurt parfait, with granola (two grams of fat), a startling visual transformation for a company so associated with the burger.
In the January '03 decision, rendered by Judge Robert Sweet, there was an interesting nugget. Or, more precisely, McNugget. In considering the complaint against the company, launched on behalf of two teenaged girls who essentially argued that Mickey D's made them obese, Judge Sweet pondered the plaintiffs' allegation that McDonald's products have been "so altered that their unhealthy attributes are now outside the ken of the average reasonable consumer." Sweet specifically pondered the chicken McNugget and went so far as to itemize the full list of ingredients in that product. Beyond chicken the list extended to water, cornstarch and chicken broth powder, into the more scientific sounding "dimethylpolysiloxane," an anti-foaming agent. "Chicken
Article continued JoeMaggard Jan 30, 01:54 PM [ Reply ]
McNuggets," wrote Sweet, "rather than being merely chicken fried in a pan, are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook." He went on to note that while McNuggets are "seemingly a healthier option than McDonald's hamburgers because they have `chicken' in their names, (they) actually contain twice the fat per ounce as hamburger." (A regular McDonald's burger has about 2.4 grams of fat per ounce; McNuggets have approximately 4.3 grams of fat per ounce.)
If, said Sweet, the plaintiffs were able to flesh out their argument in an amended complaint, "it may establish that the dangers of McDonald's products were not commonly well known and thus that McDonald's had a duty toward its customers."
Sweet ultimately dismissed the amended complaint in a second ruling. The plaintiffs, he said, "failed to draw an adequate causal connection between their consumption of McDonald's foods and their alleged injuries." But then came this week's news that an appeals court judge has reinstated the lawsuit and has allowed it to go forward.
What does it mean? John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., was quoted widely in the media trumpeting the appeals court decision. Banzhaf is most well known for his central role in the fight against Big Tobacco. This week, he drew a comparison between the two, suggesting that what the suit against McDonald's could achieve is the opening of a treasure trove of internal memos and correspondence about additives and processing techniques and what desired effects the company hopes to achieve when it makes its products. Lawyers for Ashley Pelman and Jazlyn Bradley, the plaintiffs, are now free to request materials from the company to help make their case.
Personally, I would like to know why it's necessary to add high fructose corn syrup to a burger bun.
A McDonald's spokesperson was quoted calling the lawsuit "frivolous" and predicted the case would be dismissed. "The key issue," said the spokesperson, "remains personal responsibility and making informed choices."
On that note, I decided to inform myself of the nutritional value of McDonald's "Chicken Selects," those premium breast strips that, at least outwardly, appear a healthy, or healthier, alternative. Here's the dope on a small serving (three pieces). Calories: 450. Fat: 24 grams. Up to 25 per cent of the chicken is composed of a "solution" of water, sodium phosphates, chicken broth, autolyzed yeast, chicken fat and other stuff.
I know what you're thinking: no one's making me eat any such poultry offerings. Quite right. But it's consumers and nutritionists and health officials and the threat of a lawsuit or two, not to mention the documentary Super Size Me, that have helped prod fast-food companies into changing their ways. And I'd like to think that that story is a long way from being over.
Email: jwells@thestar.ca.