There are 19 ingredients in McDonalds French Fries – The Washington Post
This article examines McDonalds marketing strategy to advertise the ingredients found in their french fries. Ferdman suggests that most people going to McDonalds are not concerned with their health when eating there and that McDonalds taking the enjoyment out of fast food by providing too much information.
Survey: consumers still stocking up on highly processed food – Consumer Affairs
This article surveys Americans about why they chose to indulge or abstain in processed food such as french fries. Huffman looks at how the average citizen defines processed food and the common stigmas associated with them. He then discusses Market incentives as a possible solution.
Why the FDA doesn’t really know what’s in your food – Huffington Post
This article explores the risk in consuming any food, not just french fries or high fat foods. Even with an extensive list of ingredients, the FDA does not have to approve GRAS (generally recognized as safe) food additives, and as a result many questionable food additives slip by the FDA’s sensors.
‘Messy good’: Carl’s tests Pepperoni Pizza Fries – USA Today
This article looks into the emerging trend of ‘loaded’ or gourmet french fries through Carl’s Jr. premiering their new Pepperoni Pizza Fries. The market for french fries is still growing and this market of loaded fries appeals to the younger, “mash-up culture” generation.
Mariah Bellamoroso says
I thought that this article was an interesting expression of some of the ideas we talked about in class. It definitely enforces the perspective that those who choose McDonald’s food do so deliberately in full conscience of its health risks:
“people visit cheap burger chains for a respite from their…dietary regimens, not for yet another reminder that they could be eating something better for them.”
If that is true, then it seems reasonable to assume people wouldn’t want to see that information However, following the same free consumer choice neoliberal model, why would this imply that consumers shouldn’t be allowed access to the information, if they desire it?
Also, what would the author say about more recent campaigns to include salads/”healthy” items in the menu?
Eric Sauer says
While I think it’s great that McDonald’s is detailing what exactly is in their food, I also think it is purely a marketing scheme. McDonalds has taken a lot of heat over the years about what goes into their food, and the series of videos they produced are their response to the criticism. I find it strange that they are celebrating the fact that their fence fries can be traced back to potatoes, because french fries, by definition, are fried potatoes. It really makes me wonder. Another thing is that McDonalds doesn’t address in their videos is that the ingredients they do list are inherently unhealthy. They list all their ingredients, but give no mention as to the potential negative health implications of consuming them. I see this as a ploy by McDonalds to change the topic of conversation and put a positive spin on their product in the midst of the obesity epidemic.
Bee Kelsch says
I think this article really ties in really well to the discussions we had in class about neoliberalism. We can see, quite clearly through the FDA, that a lot of government programs are lacking the funding to do the amount of regulation needed to make sure our food is safe. There has been a jump lately in a privatized regulation of food, and although the takeover of the private sector in food regulation really worries me, I don’t see how the FDA is going to be able to safely monitor food regulations without more funding.
Mino Giunta says
Bee, I think that’s a great point. Neoliberalism creates the image that we shouldn’t even want the State interfering in these matters, as if the interests of health are going to supersede the interest in capital as corporations make decisions. Yeah right. Also, I think it is interesting that our domestic policy’s seem to follow an “innocent until proven guilty” logic when deciding what is okay to put in food. I wonder what social/cultural influences have made Europe more likely to go the opposite way, requiring food manufacturers to prove something is safe?
Parker Nichols says
The growing lack of funding to the FDA as the privatization of food increases is worrying. The public has a right to know whats being put into our food so that people can make informed decisions about what to eat. I think that often information regarding the long term effects of fast food is often overlooked due to our trust of the private sector and our distrust of the government. Even armed with the knowledge that french fries for example have been proven to cause long term health issues, people still go to fast food everyday.
David Lovitz says
These sound pretty bad. “The ingredients: Fries (natural cut with the skin on), pepperoni, pizza sauce and mozzarella cheese.” It’s kind of funny that they specified natural cut with teh skin on. I also liked this line in the article : “”Younger generations – especially young men – like to try new food experiences, because it gives them a story to share with their friends,” Oches says.” Sounds like maybe french fries are losing their appeal so restaurants and fast food places are having to spice things up by making things like the pepperoni pizza fry. This could be a sign of polarizing nutritional values – some people are eating less things like french fries and others would eat things like the pizza fry.
Maya Gotzsche says
This article mostly brings up points we have discussed in class, but with more of a statistics emphasis. One thing that bothered me was the predictable ending to the article, in which they made the point that everything can be okay, if consumed in moderation. Even though I tend to agree with this idea, I’ve started to feel that it has become overused, and a way to cleanly wrap up an article or discussion. We already know that moderation can be effective. But can people really achieve it? I think this is an especially important question to ask since many people don’t have the option for moderation in highly processed food consumption.
Gabby Francolla says
It is cool that McDonald’s is trying to have more transparency in there products, especially because they have been in the news so many times when what they put in their food gets exposed, like “pink slime.” However, I think there is something wrong with a system where restaurants have this large public statement when they announce to the world whats in the food that everyone has been eating for decades. Consumers should have always had this knowledge, and it shouldn’t have been this huge source of news when it was revealed.
Torreyana Carl says
McDonald’s advertising campaign reminds me of the attitude behind TGAL. Here McDonald’s “fesses up” to the 19 ingredients that go into their signature french fries, thinking that this supposed transparency will appease customers. However, this article suggests that people who eat at McDonald’s don’t want to know/don’t care what’s in the food they’re eating. This generally makes sense to me, I don’t think anyone is under the impression that food from McDonald’s is good for you, and so people who really do care probably wouldn’t be eating there. This ad campaign really does nothing for the company- it appears to make them seem more open, which is something we value today (neoliberalism), but I don’t think that it will change anyone’s opinion. This is why it reminds me of TGAL: it might satisfy its own fan base, but isn’t doing much for people outside of the bubble.
Quintin Van Dyk says
The fourth article, about Carl’s Jr. and their new pepperoni fries, was interesting. It’s crazy to think that the french fries market is still expanding, with our generation serving as ultra-consumers. Carl’s Jr. uses our tendencies as consumers to their advantage by creating and advertising something such as their loaded pepperoni fries.
Nora Chellew says
This USA Today article alludes to the idea that there will always be a market for fries. Fries are a good in constant demand, and can be relied on for a consistent profit margin. According to the article, the omnipresence of the fry signifies its position as the perfect foundation for a new, more “loaded,” more profitable market. In a sense, the fry is becoming the building block for a new economic endeavor, much in the same way that cellphones have created the cellphone-case industry. It is scary to think that fries are constantly in demand like cellular technology.
Erica Schroeder says
I think the article on McDonalds french fries is very strange. First of all it is very shocking that there are that many ingredients in the fries. If I had to guess how many there would be I would have guessed a lot but not 19! I also found it interesting that McDonalds is trying a new marketing strategy where they are sharing what ingredients go into their food items. I think this is a good idea because it gives people a chance to make a decision on whether or not it’s worth it to them to eat, for example, french fries with 19 ingredients. Many people, me included, probably didn’t know there were that many ingredients or what purpose they serve in the foods. At the end of the article it says that McDonalds may be sharing too much information, and people don’t want/need to know that much about the foods they are consuming. I completely disagree with this thought, I think that it is nice to have the choice to know what is in the food. You can choose to look it up and understand the ingredients you are consuming or you can ignore it and that’s fine too.
Emma Savino says
I found this article to be pretty interesting. The point seems to be to assure consumers that although there are 19 ingredients in the classic McDonald’s fries, which does seem pretty absurd in my opinion, they are all necessary and important for making fries taste the way that they do. I found the actual affects the video had may be different than the intention. As Eric mentioned, the video does not explain any of the health affects of the ingredients on the list, nor the actual necessity of them all (as the article brings to question, are so many kinds of oil necessary ? ?). Rather than feeling relieved by the transparency that the industry is going, and having not heard previously the myth of the 17 ingredients in McDonald’s fries previously, I think that watching this video made me less likely to go purchase french fries than I may have been previously. With that being said, I absolutely do believe that consumers have the right to know what they are eating and especially within such a popular chain, I think that McDonalds is taking a step in the right direction by creating a more open ad campaign.
Roan Shea says
This article highlights one of the major reasons that people are not going to stop eating unhealthy fast food. Besides the convenience and low price of fast food, there is a widespread appeal of greasy mashes of flavor. As it says, especially among young adult males, there is general craving for new flavors and unhealthy snacks. It does not matter if there is education on the negative health effects of food like the pepperoni pizza fries, because people know the risks and still submit to their cravings.
Liza Tugangui says
In the first article, I was amazed to find out what was in McDonald’s french fries. However, it was almost even more surprising that McDonalds produced this video themselves. Many Americans do agree that knowing what is in their food is very important, hence the recent GMO debates. But knowing that there are anti-foaming agents in these fries, does not ease our minds or make me want to eat these fries. It was beneficial to put this information out there, but beneficial to the consumer, not McDonalds.
Zoe Webb says
I am shocked that there are 19 ingredients in McDonald’s french fries! I am glad McDonalds is trying this new marketing strategy and sharing what ingredients go in their food. I think this is good because it informs the consumer what they are consuming. Even though you would think that people who want to eat healthy would not eat at McDonalds, I think it is important to remember that even if people want to eat healthy, they might still choose to eat at McDonalds because it may be a cheaper and more efficient way to get calories than other options for them. I think sharing the ingredients that goes into making the french fries is a good idea, however I am not sure that it would change the number of people that buy french fries from McDonalds.
Daniel Jarrad says
This is pretty scary, yet somewhat unsurprising. There seem to be a lot of loop-holes that allow companies to get away with stuff like this. The GRAS certification doesn’t sound like it has a whole lot of investigation behind the products that are being approved. Companies probably aren’t going to be very extensive or completely truthful about ingredients if it makes their food better or cheaper. Giving this type of freedom to them puts a lot of people at risk, as this article demonstrated. There’s more than just the FDA and companies involved though, there’s a lot of politics behind GRAS. And the politics of problems make them immensley harder to resolve. Maybe a possible solution that would not be so involved in politics is improving the process and speed at which the food additive approval system works. The article said it can take from two years to decades for additives to be approved. That is way too long.