The latest "new" discovery by the mainstream media is that McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers and fries won't decompose, even if you leave them out for six months. This story has been picked up by CNN, the Washington Post and many other MSM outlets which appear startled that junk food from fast food chains won't decompose.
The funny thing about this is that the natural health industry already covered this topic years ago. Remember Len Foley's Bionic Burger video? It was posted in 2007 and eventually racked up a whopping 2 million views on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyD...). And this video shows a guy who bought his McDonald's hamburgers in 1989 -- burgers that still haven't decomposed in over two decades!
Now, he has an entire museum of non-decomposed burgers in his basement.
Did the mainstream media pick up on this story? Nope. Not a word. The story was completely ignored. It was only in 2010 when an artist posted a story about a non-decomposing McDonald's hamburger from six months ago that the news networks ran with the story.
Check out the video link above and you'll see an entire museum of Big Macs and hamburgers spanning the years -- none of which have decomposed.
This is especially interesting because the more recent "Happy Meal Project" which only tracks a burger for six months has drawn quite a lot of criticism from a few critics who say the burgers will decompose if you give them enough time. They obviously don't know about the mummified burger museum going all the way back to 1989. This stuff never seems to decompose!
Why don't McDonald's hamburgers decompose?
So why don't fast food burgers and fries decompose in the first place? The knee-jerk answer is often thought to be, "Well they must be made with so many chemicals that even mold won't eat them." While that's part of the answer, it's not the whole story.The truth is many processed foods don't decompose and won't be eaten by molds, insects or even rodents. Try leaving a tub of margarine outside in your yard and see if anything bothers to eat it. You'll find that the margarine stays seems immortal, too!
Potato chips can last for decades. Frozen pizzas are remarkably resistant to decomposition. And you know those processed Christmas sausages and meats sold around the holiday season? You can keep them for years and they'll never rot.
With meats, the primary reason why they don't decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald's meat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium -- so much so that they qualify as "preserved" meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat.
To me, there's not much mystery about the meat not decomposing. The real question in my mind is why don't the buns mold? That's the really scary part, since healthy bread begins to mold within days. What could possibly be in McDonald's hamburger buns that would ward off microscopic life for more than two decades?
As it turns out, unless you're a chemist you probably can't even read the ingredients list out loud. Here's what McDonald's own website says you'll find in their buns:
Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes), water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, yeast, soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide, soy flour), calcium propionate and sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin.
Great stuff, huh? You gotta especially love the HFCS (diabetes, anyone?), partially-hydrogenated soybean oil (anybody want heart disease?) and the long list of chemicals such as ammonium sulfate and sodium proprionate. Yum. I'm drooling just thinking about it.
Now here's the truly shocking part about all this: In my estimation, the reason nothing will eat a McDonald's hamburger bun (except a human) is because it's not food!
No normal animal will perceive a McDonald's hamburger bun as food, and as it turns out, neither will bacteria or fungi. To their senses, it's just not edible stuff. That's why these bionic burger buns just won't decompose.
Which brings me to my final point about this whole laughable distraction: There is only one species on planet Earth that's stupid enough to think a McDonald's hamburger is food. This species is suffering from skyrocketing rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia and obesity. This species claims to be the most intelligent species on the planet, and yet it behaves in such a moronic way that it feeds its own children poisonous chemicals and such atrocious non-foods that even fungi won't eat it (and fungi will eat cow manure, just FYI).
Care to guess which species I'm talking about?
That's the real story here. It's not that McDonald's hamburgers won't decompose; it's that people are stupid enough to eat them. But you won't find CNN reporting that story any time soon.
1. In short, McDonalds was embarrassed that the media leaked this juicy bit of information. No fast food restaurant wants to be known for their food not decomposing! People hearing this will wonder what the food does to their bodies and could ultimately cause a huge decline in the sales at McDonalds.
ReplyDelete2. Yes. A huge ethical issue could arise from the sales of these products. The chemicals could eventually cause harm to those who eat them as well as those who handle them making the products.
Mainstream media increasingly covers what sells, not what is ethical. If something garners enough attention, it is front page news. Unfortunately, convenience and low cost are more important to consumers than content. Of course there is an ethical issue. Preservatives save McDonald's time and money. Because their chief motive is profit seeking, these decisions will come at the cost of the consumer's body.
ReplyDeleteThere is obviously an ethical issue here, but I think its part of a bigger social issue. Not only in McDonald's but for fast food as a whole. As stated above, cheap food is a priority for a lot of people. Being able put something in your belly becomes your main concern when your funds are extremely limited, and let's face it, McDonald's is an easy option for most people who need to eat fast and cheap.
ReplyDelete1. I truly believe that the large corporations control the media. If they don't want something to be leaked, they are able to spend the money to keep it quiet.
ReplyDelete2. There is a huge ethical issue with the sale of this non decomposing food. Although fast food is a easy and cheap meal, that does not mean people should be risking their health for it. People need to know what they are putting in to themselves and I believe that the larger corporations are taking advantage of the people who can not afford alternatives or possibly the means to educate themselves about food alternatives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.) I think the reason why it took so long for the mainstream media to pick up on the story is that the average individual takes the food that they consume for granted. People generally understand that McDonalds is not the optimal choice when it comes to eating healthy. I think because people already have these assumptions about McDonalds that when a story comes out showing exactly how unhealthy or processed their foods are the viewer is unlikely to be entirely surprised; it is merely confirming their initial assumption. Because of this, the media is less likely to report it because a story like this lacks a certain "shock-value" that the media has come to rely on for higher ratings.
ReplyDelete2.) No, I do not thing that there is an ethical conflict in the sale of these buns and meats. Cigarettes, arguably more dangerous than McDonalds consumption, are sold freely and are only required to list ingredients and a health warning. McDonalds is currently required to list ingredients as well as nutritional values. One could assert that it would be appropriate for McDonalds to add some sort of explicit warning, however this burden would fall on government agencies and not on the corporation itself. Furthermore, there needs to be a level of responsibility taken by the consumer. The ingredients are available and information is abundant to help the consumer make smarter food choices should they choose to.
1. I'm not sure why it took the media so long to start talking about the unnatural quality of McDonald's food, but it doesn't surprise me one bit. McDonald's obviously would try to use it's financial strength to suppress any potentially harmful information about their food, and I would assume the vast amount of Americans just plain do not care. This overriding apathy that exists in so many Americans, myself included, is a serious contributor to many of our society's ills. We want someone else to worry about it while we check facebook.
ReplyDelete2. I would say they have a right to sell us trash if they wanted. They would have to label it for what it is, though, so that people don't mistakenly think it's prime rib in that McRib! They satisfy those kinds of requirements by placing labels on the wrappers, but of course they always put the information on the backside of the paper, or wherever it's least likely to be seen. I wish our lawmakers actually cared about the people eating McDonald's, as opposed to the people selling it.
1. I am not sure exactly why it took over three years for this information to become public. I think McDonald's did its best to cover up the fact that their food doesn't breakdown and decompose. Imagine what a McDonald's hamburger and fries does to you health wise if the food doesn't even breakdown. This information is something consumers of McDonald's should have none the second this information was found out by scientists. The information about the food and it's lack of real "substance", and the health factors associated with their food is a viable liability for the fast food chain.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I certainly believe there is ethical issues at hand with the non-decomposing food sold at McDonald's. When bacteria, animals, and fungi won't even eat while millions of America's continue to consumer billions of dollars with of this food. It was McDonald's ethical responsability to inform their costumers what they are actually eating and to improve their food they serve in their restaurants.
1) I would be surprised if there were any deliberate effort to hush up the fact that McDonald's food doesn't decompose, because no journalist would have any incentive to keep such a thing quiet, as it makes a good story, and because any attempt on McDonald's part to keep this story quiet would probably have the opposite effect. The best way to keep something quiet is to simply ignore it. As to why, then, the media didn't report this story until three years after the video was posted on YouTube, my best guess would be that it simply wasn't on their radar. Since 2007 there have been two elections, one of which put America's first black president in office, three successful revolts in the Arab world, a worldwide financial crisis, a budget crisis in the US, and all of the other normal stories to report on. People simply don't care enough about this information to make it worth the media's time to look for it.
ReplyDelete2) There are certainly ethical issues with knowingly selling food that is not fit for consumption. That said, McDonald's food is still mostly food (you'll notice the 2% or less qualifier in the ingredient list), and so it's not an ethical issue on the same level as it would be if their burgers were laced with arsenic or lead or chlorine bleach. It's something that people ought not do, but not something that is a big enough deal to require the government to step in, in my opinion.
1. I think that the delayed media coverage was due to the ubiquity of processed food in society. People in the media initially might not have considered it newsworthy since so much of what we eat is processed and everyone *seems* to be fine. Of course, it's possible that they faced pressure from McDonalds, but, I think it's more likely due to laziness or, perhaps, to a natural pro-business stance amongst some in the media.
ReplyDelete2. I don't necessarily think it's an ethical issue because, as far as anyone knows, no one is getting sick from it. Just because food isn't natural doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or unethical to give to people. If McDonald's knew that these foods were harmful and continued to sell it, then that would be unethical.
1) Part of it probably has to do with who the problem affects, as well as how much attention the story can get. We already know that the food is not exactly good for us, but too often, those who would feel the impact are the poor and overlooked in society. When this affects someone who is well to do, and with the time to advocate, that's when it becomes a bigger story.
ReplyDelete2) Of course this is an ethical issue. We should have the right to that what is being sold as "food" actually is edible. Otherwise, they are not holding up their end of consumer-producer cooperation.
This is really scary. I'm glad I don't eat fast food very often. A lot of my friends like McDonald and always want to go there; I always decline. Has this changed anyone's mind about fast food. For me, it reconfirms why I have always avoided fast food. If their food wont decompose after six months then how could our bodies even begin to process it, it's repugnant.
ReplyDeleteThis is really scary. I'm glad I don't eat fast food very often. A lot of my friends like McDonald and always want to go there; I always decline. Has this changed anyone's mind about fast food. For me, it reconfirms why I have always avoided fast food. If their food wont decompose after six months then how could our bodies even begin to process it, it's repugnant.
ReplyDelete