Ronald’s response
I eat McDonald’s. More often than I should, but not as often as they would like.
At least, I thought so until I read their response to Morgan Spurlock’s controversial film, Supersize Me (which I haven’t yet seen). There’s no direct link, as the company’s site is a bloated Flash monstrosity, but it says:
By the end of the 30 day experiment he ate as much McDonald’s as nutritionists say that you should eat in 8 years.
Let’s do the maths:
3 meals x 30 days = 90 meals
8 years x 12 = 96 months
90 meals / 96 months = 0.9375 meals/month
McDonalds is saying people should eat less than one meal per month.
Now, that certainly seems at odds with their famous Happy Meal campaign, which encourages children to collect a new toy — free with a meal — each week. Does that mean McDonald’s is telling kids to eat four times the “safe” level of their product? Makes Labor’s ban on junk food advertising seem like a reasonable course to take.
McDonald’s also seems to miss its target when it proudly announces that:
He super sized his meals only when asked, which ended up being 9 times.
Huh? One of Macca’s main lines is that Australia never sold super-size meals, but here they point out that he rarely ate them anyway!
He ate less McDonald’s than the title of the movie suggests, yet he still got sick. Wow, nice rebuttal.
Update: McDonald’s Australia’s CEO, Guy Russo, who stars in its anti-Spurlock advertising campaign, told Jennifer Byrne:
I eat at McDonald’s — because I work there — at least three times a week, and I’ve done it for 30 years.
Guy, what are you doing?! That’s twelve times the acceptable limit!
Or maybe his ad is full of shit.
If the ‘man-onthe-street’ interviews on the news last night were anything to go by then Howard’s grabbed the wrong end of this issue in the eyes of parents. Go Latham! As for those who cry “NANNY STATE!” I can only say “WELL, DUH!” Kids are supposed to nannied/mothered/guided. Yes it’s the parents job. But it’s also a tough job made tougher by irresponsible advertising practices. A little government help here is fine IMO.
Too generous on the toy rate - required rate of “Happy” “Meal” purchase for complete toy ownership is one every 3.7 days.
The fact that they even bothered to put out a response to this rubbish is confusing to me. Regardless of how many “meals” you should eat a month, A bloke spurlocks size should eat about 2700 calories a day. During his “experiment”, he ate 5000 calories per day, and also gave up exercising.
Eating 5000 calories a day is going to make you fat whether you get it from McDonalds, Mead’s Fish Gallery or the Hare Krishna vegetarian restaurant. The only difference is that McDonalds is a multinational company, and therefore “evil” in the eyes of anti-globo types.
I don’t know what you are trying to convey with your line “not as often as they would like”. Obviously a restaurant, or any business for that matter, would prefer you to give them more money. Why aren’t you attacking Cadbury’s for advertising chocolate, or the Potato Board for advertising potatos?
Sigh. I knew you were going to run that line, Yobbo, and it proves nothing more than that you haven’t paid attention to what Spurlock is trying to achieve. He makes it clear that he is criticising people’s choices:
[…]
He says the same thing in pretty much every interview. Whether it comes out in the film, I don’t know — as I said, I haven’t seen it. But he’s saying people are making the wrong choices.
But what he also says is that companies like McDonald’s have a responsibility to consider the health of their customers. Yobbo denies this, but thankfully Maccas Australia doesn’t. To their credit, they accept their responsibility more than their US parent company.
So should we stop them advertising during kids TV? Yeah, I think we probably should. But should that be a part of a wider program of exercise, changed tuck-shop menus, etc? Absolutely.
Oh, and the comparison between Maccas and the Hare Krishna is a bit silly. By weight/volume of food, Maccas is far less healthy. And sure, you can eat under your recommended calorie intake, but it’s hardly realistic, and it’s unhealthy in other ways, too:
Spurlock should be congratulated for encouraging people to think twice before they shovel the next double quarter-pounder down.
I came out of that film not thinking “The idea of eating there now concerns me because of my health” but rather “Fuck McDonalds are cunts. They’re not getting anymore of my money”.
Predictably a week later I am seriously craving a quarter pounder.
Rob: Maybe Spurlock is quite happy to concede in the post-film interview that the problem is consumers making the wrong choices, but the movie certainly doesn’t convey that message.
Actually, I saw the movie on it’s premiere night. It did through interviews say that the problem was choice. In fact, in his closing remarks of the movie he even says that.
“I eat at MacDonalds — because I work there…”
I guess that Guy Russo fellow didn’t come up through the kitchens, eh? One thing I’ve noticed is that friends that go to work at Maccas or Hungry Jacks tend to “go off” fast food very quickly.
(Strangely enough, an acquaintence of mine works at KFC, and still eats the stuff like a pig. Stays thin as a rake, too. Bastard.)
(I worked nights at a 24 hr joint for 2 years and didn’t want to eat our fetid garbage so I ate HJs one a week, sometimes breaking it up with Kentucky Fried Giblets. Those were the days)
Truth is, McDonalds are spooked and should be. Their counter-punching adverts actually make them look silly, which is an expensive mistake. The point of the film was exaggeration for dramatic effect - Spurlock goes on about the exercise issue quite a lot, and ultmately argues that ‘yes - it’s about choice, but kids are making those choices in an environment saturated by propaganda and an overwhelming abundance of shitty options (- like at their school caf.)’
Maccas need to come out and say “We know you shouldn’t eat our food more than once every month - and we’ve been arguing that all along”. Of course they can’t do that for two reaons. The first part would kill them, the second part is bullshit.
(For the record, I love fat. I cook with fat, I eat fat. I love duck - which is one fatty bird. I love mayonnaise and fried just about anything. I also walk everywhere and play soccer at least once a week. It’s about balance, eh?)
mark: Actually all McDonalds employees have to work in a restaurant at some stage. You can’t even buy a franchise unless you sign a contract to work there for a minimum period of time.
I don’t know why they do that, but they do.
I agree with Gio that their advert is stupid. Putting the nutritional information on the wrappers is more than enough response. The simultaneous ad campaign referring to “Super Size Me” is pathetic.
We should distinguish some important threads with this issue. Firstly Spurlock is stating the obvious. Gluttony is not healthy for you and neither is overboarding on a particular diet. I would suggest that if I as an omnivore, pigged out on vegan restaurant fare, for the same time as Spurlock and at the same level of calories and exercise, then I would suffer similarly. This just proves what we know as common sense and is generally the preserve of most university Honours theses. In this case he makes it entertaining and earns himself a good quid and doesn’t indulge himself at the taxpayer’s expense.
Next we should deal with the problem of adult obesity, which is really the symptom of sloth and gluttony. It should be pointed out that, although this raises some social ills and lifespan problems for the culprits, they are the individual choices of supposedly(properly publicly?) educated adults. Here, the left should recognise that they have succeeded in elevating the lot of large numbers of society to the choices of kings, a la Henry V1111. Well done chaps and stop worrying about their gout. Your noble publicly funded education sector has warned them.
Yobbo is incorrect in applying the freedom of adults to the case of children. They cannot make the same rational choices as fully responsible adults. We have many separate laws to deal with this shortcoming among minors. Now Yobbo might say as a libertarian, ‘What’s the harm of the odd advert for a choccy bar for kids?’ Well it is the fallacy of composition problem. One person taking a box to stand on to the footy is not a worry, whereas the whole crowd is. If it can be proved that the combined activity of advertisers is a problem for the health of minors, we as responsible adults may be wise to act in this case. This is the same as the way we deal with film classifications, or age of sexual consent.
But one key difference remains observa. In the case of ratings or tv ratings the program is still available, and they definitley hurt sales, the controversy over the “Explicit Lyrics” labels here in the US. I think the point that yobbo is making and I’m kind of agreeing with is that it’s the parents here. I mean who are we to say that in 10 years people might thing that toy x is bad, but toy a is good, and so toy x is banned from commericals.
At some point you have to let parents take control, 10 year olds don’t walk themselves to the McDonalds.
And from the movie one of my favorite quotes: “Everytime I drive my a McDonalds with my kid I’m going to punch him in the face, that way he’ll never want to eat it”
forgive the spelling errors, I’m still pretty drunk
Gary is correct in implying that the Latham view of advertising is skating on thin ice. One immediate problem is that Latham must prove that an advertising ban would produce desirable results, otherwise all he will succeeed in doing is to remove the economics of children’s programs. Apparently a ban on such advertising in Sweden, has produced no noticeable improvement in obesity levels. The interventionists must prove their case here. Latham and Labor have not thought this through and are knee-jerking to the gallery. It’s a bit like their latest take on forcing banks to reduce fees and open more branches. A bit like the Rann govt telling South Australians what they can do with the water in their rainwater tanks. This sort of communard crap is a worry for intelligent voters.
Actually, I made no reference to children in relation to this post. However, I contend that the responsibilities for what children eat rests with parents, not the government.
If a child is eating too much McDonalds, then it is because his parents are letting him. Although some kids might live close enough to ride or walk to a McDonalds store, children do not have disposable income with which to buy McDonalds with unless their parents give it to them.
Besides, the really obese kids probably arent riding their bikes or walking to McDonalds against their parents’ wishes. More likely, they are sitting around playing playstation while mum goes down and buys it for them.
The personal choice line only tells one side of the story. Civilised societies work on more than the onus on being informed paranoia and function better on trust and good faith. In advertising the choices are informative/hyperbolic-wishful thinking/and taking the piss. McDonald’s, and this is what I think gets it singled out, is renowned for taking the piss and sending mixed messages. It took abnormal food and tried to make it seem as normal as possible.
I think McDonalds is at a crossroads, it’s now being expected to provide “food” and has to meet these standards (and I think McDonalds OZ are heading this way) or re-invent themselves as Ronald’s House O’ Grease and Sugar. KFC realised this, went the latter and probably feel a lot better about themselves making ludicrously unhealthy packs. All power to them. I’d actually like McDonalds more if they were more up-front.
BTW Managers working on the floor is a brilliant idea - Japanese have been doing it for years.
PS There’s a special place in hell for the makers of Nutri-grain.
PPS McDonalds did get to make their own movie - Mac and Me (1988). It’s pure movie evil.
Wow there sure are a lot of tinfoil wearing nutters here convinced that eating McDonalds is right up there with sniffing glue in terms of health.
Rob and myself both eat it, we’re healthy. There’s nothing wrong with the food they serve there.
It’s just that its easy, convenient, and cheap, and people tend to pig out when that’s the case.
Tinfoil (really aluminium foil) can be used to wrap a fillet of fish, sprinkle a bit of olive oil on it, maybe a slice of lemon and tomato and bung it in the oven for about 15 minutes. There’s a nice little independent fruit and vege shop and a fish-shop just next to McD Innaloo.
Now yobbo, you’re familiar with the expression “in spite of”. No?
Oooh…an independent vege shop! Independent of what? The great supermarket apple flouridation conspiracy?
Your real agenda is showing anthony. It’s not really McDonalds food you don’t like, it’s just how much money they make.
Why then, do you continue to argue on a basis of the quality of their food (for which you have no supporting evidence) instead of a good Marxist attack on capitalism and the corporation?
Thanks also for your handy explation of tinfoil. All this time, I thought it was real, actual TIN! Thank heavens we have smart cookies around like you to show us how smart you are by explaining things everyone already knows.
What’s up next, are you going to tell us that those little men in the TV aren’t really midgets at all, but that it’s really some kind of magic picture thats being beamed into our houses from space?!?!
Well there goes my post “Subiaco Car Park Markets - What Vegetables Would Lenin Have Bought”.
Actually, the your cite mentions that nutritionists are claiming that you should eat less than one Macca’s meal a month (or, a maximum of 90 meals over a period of 8 years).
I’m surprised that nutritionists allow this much :-)
Interesting argument that of course if you eat the same of everything that is nutritious and stuff yourself over and over again you will get fat.
In fact, a lot of diets work on that principle. Eat a steak. Fine. Eat another one next meal. Not quite… etc etc until you are hardly eating anything and get thin.
The human body naturally seeks culinary variety. But not, seemingly, with Maccas. I do wonder why.
(ps - my main objection with Maccas is the taste. There isn’t any. its just not food. And as for the bloody bun - its no wonder they are technically called baps.)
As a parent I enjoy spoiling my kid but saying no to McDonald’s isn’t something I have trouble doing. And there doesn’t seem to be a consensus how much fat is un healthy. I wounder if this obsession can be blamed for future bulimic/anorectic sufferers.
“McDonald’s Australia’s CEO, Guy Russo, who stars in its anti-Spurlock advertising campaign, told Jennifer Byrne:
I eat at McDonald’s — because I work there — at least three times a week, and I’ve done it for 30 years.
Guy, what are you doing?! That’s twelve times the acceptable limit!”
Well, there’s a certain irony to the fates of John Cantalupo and Charlie Bell:
Anybody who knows Charlie Bell will tell you that he has a good sense of humour. Right now, he needs one. In April, the Australian-born Bell, 43, was appointed president and chief executive of the McDonald’s Corporation, responsible for 30,000 restaurants around the world.
Nine days later Mr Bell, who started his career behind a McDonald’s chip fryer in Sydney, was diagnosed with colo-rectal cancer, which has spread to some lymph nodes. His diagnosis came just days after the man he replaced, a long-time friend, Jim Cantalupo, died of a heart attack while attending a McDonald’s meeting in Florida. [My bold]
About the same time, a 33-year-old documentary maker, Morgan Spurlock, released Super Size Me, a film which says that eating too much McDonald’s can make you sick.
The film has taken the world by storm, pulling in almost $15 million at the US box office, despite costing just $95,000 to produce. In Australia, it broke a box-office record for a documentary on its opening weekend. To say that Spurlock’s film has outraged the McDonald’s company is to put it mildly.
Nevertheless, Mr Bell kept his sense of humour when asked whether he thought there was a link between his own health problems, Mr Cantalupo’s heart attack and a diet of McDonald’s. He replied that his cancer was “an act of God”.
He is fighting it not by changing his diet, but with a new form of chemotherapy that will allow him to keep his hair. …..
Oh my god, McDonalds causes cancer too! Thank you Helen for your very revealing reposting. I now plan to spend the rest of my days hurling rocks through McDonald’s windows thanks to the illumination given to me by a movie critic from The West.
‘Tis quite ironic that many of the types who are critical of McDonalds are overweight themselves and have certainly never missed a meal due to the injustices of the system which they hate. Not only that, many are quite partial to consuming half a wheel of Brie and a bottle of Merlot in an evening session reading the latest work of Noam Chomky or Michael Moore, which would certainly contain at least as many calories as a quarter pounder, fries and coke. I cannot help but notice that it’s all got more to do with attempting to disassociate themselves with the common plebs than anything do to with actual concern about the general health of the population.
On the contrary murph, books by Chom(s)ky and Moore contain hardly any calories, and are high in fibre.
True.
“I cannot help but notice that it’s all got more to do with attempting to disassociate themselves with the common plebs than anything do to with actual concern about the general health of the population.”
You hit the nail on the head right there.
Yobbo, are you all werkt up and engry about this?
ps: “Rob and myself both eat it, we’re healthy. There’s nothing wrong with the food they serve there. “
Big, loud, TV game show, incorrect answer, buzzer type noise: “Bar Barrp!” How old are you, sizzlechest?