QUOTE
Just do a few months of yoga
Or take out the two lowest ribs
You are viewing a low-graphics version of this page. Click the headline to view full version:
McDonald's admits their french fries...
...contain milk and wheat products
Or take out the two lowest ribs
macdonalds chips
yum scrumbunch!!!
ill keep eating them watever they are made of
lol
yum scrumbunch!!!
ill keep eating them watever they are made of
lol
Marmite on a butterbretze, gonna have to try that!!
QUOTE (don_riina @ Feb 22 2006, 5:03 pm) 
On a lighter note, doesn't the evil pervasive poison that is marmite actually polluzte your body enought o make your skeet taste like yeasty black smeg?
Dunno Donny Boy. How 'bout I load me stomach up with the delicious black stuff and you have a taster for me?
Update: my sister has gotten a lawyer and will take this case to court. This will be on the local news in Knoxville tonight, but it should make the national and international news in the coming days as it hits the AP wires. McDonald's position is that they removed the wheat/dairy proteins so they are "allergen free". I think this is what is pissing my sister off the most. Galactosemia is not an allergy and she has three kids with the disease.
Good for Australia!
QUOTE
According to a source in Australia who wrote to Medical News Today, wheat and milk is not used in the production of McDonald's Australia's French fries. Australia's laws on providing product information is a lot stricter than has been the case in the USA.
Just because wheat and milk has been used in the production of McDonald's French fries in the USA does not necessarily mean this is the case all over the world. It depends on the laws of each country.
It seems Australia is better at protecting the consumer than the USA is.
Just because wheat and milk has been used in the production of McDonald's French fries in the USA does not necessarily mean this is the case all over the world. It depends on the laws of each country.
It seems Australia is better at protecting the consumer than the USA is.
QUOTE
McDonald's Media Statement - 02/20/2006
McDonald's Fries are "Gluten and Allergen Free," According to Expert
"We understand the concern that individuals in the Celiac community and others with food allergies may have regarding foods that meet their individual needs. That is why we are eager to provide them with the most factual information we can.
"Scientific evaluation by one of the world's leading experts on gluten sensitivity and allergenicity, Dr. Steven Taylor of the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program of the University of Nebraska, has confirmed again that our fries are gluten free and allergen free.
"Based on this analysis, we believe the lawsuits filed are without legal merit.", Jack Daly, Senior Vice President, McDonald's Corporation
Original statement can be found here.
THIS PAGE HAS DISAPPEARED ALL OF A SUDDEN!
We had just finished copying, and linking to, this article and found that it had disappeared! We have no idea why. We speculate that it could be that their lawyers told them to remove it.
McDonald's Fries are "Gluten and Allergen Free," According to Expert
"We understand the concern that individuals in the Celiac community and others with food allergies may have regarding foods that meet their individual needs. That is why we are eager to provide them with the most factual information we can.
"Scientific evaluation by one of the world's leading experts on gluten sensitivity and allergenicity, Dr. Steven Taylor of the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program of the University of Nebraska, has confirmed again that our fries are gluten free and allergen free.
"Based on this analysis, we believe the lawsuits filed are without legal merit.", Jack Daly, Senior Vice President, McDonald's Corporation
Original statement can be found here.
THIS PAGE HAS DISAPPEARED ALL OF A SUDDEN!
We had just finished copying, and linking to, this article and found that it had disappeared! We have no idea why. We speculate that it could be that their lawyers told them to remove it.
Welcome to "Food YOU Can Eat!"
I find it very amusing that people who go and eat produce that they know is just total crap and unhealthy try to sue the suppliers for serving them food that is totally crap and unhealthy.
They're not, Crawlie. They're suing them for false advertising - read Eurovol's posts.
I was just generalising. I have read all of the posts thanks
The point is that if you have any medical conditions that eurovol was talking about then the last place I would go to is a fast food restaurant where the food has more additives than Lance Armstrong's diet. That is the point. Yes, they should say exactly what goes into the food but you get what you pay for. You want unhealthy junk then that is what you get.
The point is that if you have any medical conditions that eurovol was talking about then the last place I would go to is a fast food restaurant where the food has more additives than Lance Armstrong's diet. That is the point. Yes, they should say exactly what goes into the food but you get what you pay for. You want unhealthy junk then that is what you get.
I don't really think thats fair - there is a difference between unhealthy food and food that is poisonous.
It seems in this case McDonalds said there was no wheat or milk in their french fries, when in fact there was. This can kill people with Galactosemia.
Its not like they are suing them because they got fat eating their fries. They are suing them because they said there was no (effectively) "poisonous" products in their fries, and there actually was.
It seems in this case McDonalds said there was no wheat or milk in their french fries, when in fact there was. This can kill people with Galactosemia.
Its not like they are suing them because they got fat eating their fries. They are suing them because they said there was no (effectively) "poisonous" products in their fries, and there actually was.
QUOTE (Hutcho @ Mar 14 2006, 3:12 pm)
This can kill people with Galactosemia.
That is the crux of the problem. This is not known. They know that while the patient is an infant being exposed to galactose is very detrimental. However, no long term older child/adult studies have been done to compare small dosages of galactose vs. the naturally synthesied levels. Thus, the detrimental effects are still unknown. But I agree that if they state that these items do not contain something, they bloody well shouldn't. But if they don't say anything, then caveat emptor. So Filthy Ron's should be penalized, but the true danger is not known.
QUOTE (brokenm @ Feb 22 2006, 10:49 am)
Consistent with the notion that strict dietary treatment after early childhood may not be needed, a recent, somewhat controversial case report [87], [88] and [89] described an adult galactosemic on a normal diet since age 3 years, with only mild cognitive impairment and ovarian failure. This outcome lies within the range of outcomes of patients on life-long galactose restriction. If typical neurologic outcomes may occur despite being untreated with dietary restriction since childhood [87], then the role of galactose restriction after infancy on neurologic outcomes may be less important.
Because dietary galactose restriction has been the standard of care, and is without a doubt lifesaving during early infancy, performing a randomized controlled trial to assess the influence of dietary treatment in early infancy on chronic neurologic outcomes is not possible. A randomized study of graded amounts of galactose in later childhood or adulthood could possibly be safe, but institutional review boards might be unlikely to approve this, and families unlikely to participate in controlled studies where some patients are randomized to not receive standard galactose restriction. However, several alternative quasi-experimental study designs could provide useful information."
Because dietary galactose restriction has been the standard of care, and is without a doubt lifesaving during early infancy, performing a randomized controlled trial to assess the influence of dietary treatment in early infancy on chronic neurologic outcomes is not possible. A randomized study of graded amounts of galactose in later childhood or adulthood could possibly be safe, but institutional review boards might be unlikely to approve this, and families unlikely to participate in controlled studies where some patients are randomized to not receive standard galactose restriction. However, several alternative quasi-experimental study designs could provide useful information."
GALACTOSEMIA
QUOTE
Type I Galactosemia (Galactose-1 Phosphate Uridyl Transferase deficiency): The most common initial clinical sign is failure to thrive. Vomiting or diarrhea starts in a few days with milk ingestion. Jaundice presents in a few weeks and is initially unconjugated. Untreated it may progress to liver disease and cirrhosis. Ascitis may be a prominent early finding. Histopathology of liver reveals fatty infiltration and inflammatory changes at an early stage. As the disease progresses, bile stasis, pseudoacinar formation and partial fibrosis is seen eventually leading to cirrhosis. Cataracts can be observed within a few days of birth. Mental retardation becomes apparent after several months of life. There is a high frequency of neonatal death due to E.coli sepsis.
Diagnosis: Deranged liver enzymes, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, aminoaciduria, hypoglycemia is common. Renal dysfunction may present as albuminuria. Preliminary diagnosis is demonstrated by presence of reducing substance in urine while patient is receiving milk-containing lactose. The reducing substance can be identified by chromatography or by an enzymatic test specific for galactose. Enzyme analysis of transferase deficiency in red blood cells is confirmatory and red cells show increase in galactose-1 – phosphate.
Treatment:The mainstay of therapy is lactose free diet as failure to eliminate galactose results in progressive liver failure and death. In infants with manifestations of toxicity, the galactose free diet results in regression of all symptoms and signs – nausea & vomiting cease, weight gain ensues, liver abnormalities clear, galactosuria & albuminuria clear, and cataracts regress. In infants soy milk is beneficial. Milk restriction is to be maintained life-long. Assay of RBC galactose – 1 – phosphate is used for monitoring adherence to the diet. In well treated galactosemics, RBC galactose – 1 – phosphate should not exceed 100 umol/L.
Diagnosis: Deranged liver enzymes, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, aminoaciduria, hypoglycemia is common. Renal dysfunction may present as albuminuria. Preliminary diagnosis is demonstrated by presence of reducing substance in urine while patient is receiving milk-containing lactose. The reducing substance can be identified by chromatography or by an enzymatic test specific for galactose. Enzyme analysis of transferase deficiency in red blood cells is confirmatory and red cells show increase in galactose-1 – phosphate.
Treatment:The mainstay of therapy is lactose free diet as failure to eliminate galactose results in progressive liver failure and death. In infants with manifestations of toxicity, the galactose free diet results in regression of all symptoms and signs – nausea & vomiting cease, weight gain ensues, liver abnormalities clear, galactosuria & albuminuria clear, and cataracts regress. In infants soy milk is beneficial. Milk restriction is to be maintained life-long. Assay of RBC galactose – 1 – phosphate is used for monitoring adherence to the diet. In well treated galactosemics, RBC galactose – 1 – phosphate should not exceed 100 umol/L.
QUOTE
Another source.
Treatment
Galactosemia I and II are treated by removing galactose from the diet. Since galactose is a break-down product of lactose, the primary sugar constituent of milk, this means all milk and foods containing milk products must be totally eliminated. Other foods like legumes, organ meats, and processed meats also contain considerable galactose and must be avoided. Pills that use lactose as a filler must also be avoided. Soy-based and casein hydrolysate-based formulas are recommended for infants with galactosemia.
Treatment of the severe form of galactosemia III with a galactose-restricted diet has been tried, but this disorder is so rare that the long-term effects of this treatment are unknown.
Prognosis
Early detection in the newborn period is the key to controlling symptoms. Long-term effects in untreated babies include severe mental retardation, cirrhosis of the liver, and death. About 75% of the untreated babies die within the first two weeks of life. On the other hand, with treatment, a significant proportion of people with galactosemia I can lead nearly normal lives, although speech defects, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems are common. In addition, cataracts due to galactosemia II can be completely prevented by a galactose-free diet.
Treatment
Galactosemia I and II are treated by removing galactose from the diet. Since galactose is a break-down product of lactose, the primary sugar constituent of milk, this means all milk and foods containing milk products must be totally eliminated. Other foods like legumes, organ meats, and processed meats also contain considerable galactose and must be avoided. Pills that use lactose as a filler must also be avoided. Soy-based and casein hydrolysate-based formulas are recommended for infants with galactosemia.
Treatment of the severe form of galactosemia III with a galactose-restricted diet has been tried, but this disorder is so rare that the long-term effects of this treatment are unknown.
Prognosis
Early detection in the newborn period is the key to controlling symptoms. Long-term effects in untreated babies include severe mental retardation, cirrhosis of the liver, and death. About 75% of the untreated babies die within the first two weeks of life. On the other hand, with treatment, a significant proportion of people with galactosemia I can lead nearly normal lives, although speech defects, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems are common. In addition, cataracts due to galactosemia II can be completely prevented by a galactose-free diet.
QUOTE
It seems Australia is better at protecting the consumer than the USA is.
Who isn't?
It's all lies!
The US FDA has gotten much better over the years in requiring proper labeling of food products in stores. Yet there are still many "fake" ingredient names like "natural flavor" which usually means some sort of processed glutamate. Restaurants are not really required to reveal their ingredients.
I'll bet all the money I have that McD's fries do NOT actually have wheat or milk protien, rather they have "Hydrolized wheat/milk/yeast protein extract" which is in the family of processed glutamats with all the great benefits of good ol' MSG. Dramtically increased consumption. Who care's about the side effects McD's? Yeah, greater profit margins.
Years ago, the fast food chains were compelled to create a nutrition brochure for their menu. I read all of them from the local places, McD's was a real disaster, the best line in the brochure explained the soft drinks: "The only nutritional value in softdrinks is carbohydrates, and carbohydrates are neccessary to sustain life!" I kid you f*cking not!
OK so the chips (fries) at Mc D's contain other ingredients to those they show on their advertising? Funny that, I saw on German TV a couple of weeks ago a bit about how those nice Mc D people pick only the freshest, eyeless potatoes for their chips and how they are prepared with care so that we the customers get the best tasting, healthiest product we could wish for.
Maybe I've only been to the "bad Mc Ds" (very, very seldom, only after cannabilism is no longer an option) because I'm sure they were all ex-army chefs working there. Who, in the same way they can turn a piece of prime steak into a grey, tasteless bit of gristly material that even pigs wouldn't touch, can turn a fresh potato into lots of pieces of salty cardboard.
Maybe I've only been to the "bad Mc Ds" (very, very seldom, only after cannabilism is no longer an option) because I'm sure they were all ex-army chefs working there. Who, in the same way they can turn a piece of prime steak into a grey, tasteless bit of gristly material that even pigs wouldn't touch, can turn a fresh potato into lots of pieces of salty cardboard.
QUOTE (Fuchs66 @ Mar 15 2006, 9:26 am)
OK so the chips (fries) at Mc D's contain other ingredients to those they show on their advertising?
That is not what Eurovol is upset about. It is that McDonalds said they did not have an ingredient when they di. That is different from not listing an ingredient. One is deceptive, the other is a lie.
no shit, mcdonalds lies!! of course they lie. if they told the truth no fucker'd eat there.
Thank you grazzenger. That is the point I was kind of trying to make. Eurovol, I understand your anger as this sort of thing poses an extreme health risk to your family and, of course, others who have this condition. McDonalds lies. We all actually know they do but because the food tastes quite nice after a few beers we take the risk and eat it. It is processed crap that is anything but healthy. They put salads in the menu just to give an impression that "they care for our health" but who goes to McDonalds for a salad? It would be like trying to get david Hasselhoff to star in the new A-Team movie - it just does not seem right at all
The composition of the fries is no news to me. My Ph.D supervisor goes to public schools once per year to do some demonstration science for the kids. His trick is to take commonly eaten starchy foods (potato chips, McD's fries and white bread), biochemically separate the fat and the starch, and perform a couple of colourimetric tests on the starch to determine it's origin. He was always amused when the fries would give a reaction consistent with the bread, but inconsistent with the potato chips, proving that the starch in McD's fries was derived from wheat and not from potato.
QUOTE (Fuchs66 @ Mar 15 2006, 9:26 am)
OK so the chips (fries) at Mc D's contain other ingredients to those they show on their advertising? Funny that, I saw on German TV a couple of weeks ago a bit about how those nice Mc D people pick only the freshest, eyeless potatoes for their chips and how they are prepared with care so that we the customers get the best tasting, healthiest product we could wish for.
QUOTE (grazzenger @ Mar 15 2006, 9:46 am)
no shit, mcdonalds lies!! of course they lie. if they told the truth no fucker'd eat there.
Do you people have any idea what you're talking about? I can guarantee you that McDonald's has extremely strict requirements of its suppliers. They accept only the best quality and local suppliers are in constant competition with each other to meet these requirements. In fact, speaking as a supplier, McDonald's has higher standards than any of our other customers.
The brands you are buying in the supermarkets are exactly the same as those used by McDonald's.
@ER
You are right. The more multinational a company becomes the more scruntiny they will have.
You are right. The more multinational a company becomes the more scruntiny they will have.
yes, so the more they weill do to cover up. coca cola anybody?
QUOTE (Eleanor Rigby @ Mar 15 2006, 10:09 am)
Do you people have any idea what you're talking about? I can guarantee you that McDonald's has extremely strict requirements of its suppliers. They accept only the best quality and local suppliers are in constant competition with each other to meet these requirements. In fact, speaking as a supplier, McDonald's has higher standards than any of our other customers.
The brands you are buying in the supermarkets are exactly the same as those used by McDonald's.
The brands you are buying in the supermarkets are exactly the same as those used by McDonald's.
That was my main point, the raw material may be fantastic, but Mc D's have a knack of turning it into a shite product. Or maybe my taste isn't attuned to the finer side of American cuisine.
I find it hard to believe that an American corporation would lie.
Off tangent: I was at Burgerking the other night after midnight( I was supporting a local buisness *bar*) when I came upon three german intellectuals. I of course had my trademarked hat scarf on and they inquired if I was from Mexico. Isaid yes and no of course explainig I was raised in the U.S. They retorted hostile wise they hated everything American. To which I retorted "Why are you in BurgerKing?". No response from them in fact conversation ended ironic...
Off tangent: I was at Burgerking the other night after midnight( I was supporting a local buisness *bar*) when I came upon three german intellectuals. I of course had my trademarked hat scarf on and they inquired if I was from Mexico. Isaid yes and no of course explainig I was raised in the U.S. They retorted hostile wise they hated everything American. To which I retorted "Why are you in BurgerKing?". No response from them in fact conversation ended ironic...
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.