Re: Burger wars

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Faux_Pseudo, Mar 9, 2006.

  1. Rich Holmes

    Rich Holmes Guest

    "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> writes:

    > General life rule: When spouting shit about someone's else's use of
    > the language, it's always good not to demonstrate your unfamiliarity
    > with a "thesaraus."


    General life rule: When defending oneself against a charge of
    pseudointellectualism, it's always good to employ tactics more
    convincing than that of picking on your detractors' typos.

    > Wondering why you're left is why you're left.


    General life rule: When crafting a concise bon mot in the Shavian
    mode, it's always best to come up with something that makes a lick of
    sense.

    > So uninformed Stacia, ill-formed Chris and vermiform Barb jumped in
    > and none has survived. If you scuttle off now, no one will notice.


    General life rule: When trying to establish one's credentials as a
    savant, it's always best to employ something better than name-calling,
    unilateral declarations of victory, and personal invective. Hint:
    address the issues your adversaries have raised instead.

    > Bwah...


    General life rule: When attempting to convey an image of cultured
    elitism, avoid belching in public.

    > Pastorio


    General life rule: When passing yourself off as an educated authority,
    avoid doing so under a pseudonym that calls to mind the most feckless
    cuckolded husband in the entire genre of minor comic opera.
     


  2. Otto Bahn

    Otto Bahn Guest

    "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote

    > No, seriously...


    Bob? Why are there several fishing hooks dangling out of
    your butt? You're lucky they didn't perforate you bowels
    as they passed through.

    --oTTo--
     
  3. Bob (this one) <[email protected]> wrote:

    > To save all the need to read many repetitive posts,


    you've decided to stop posting? Awesome.

    -jwgh

    --
    "Only in America could something like that not happen in America."
    -- Matt McIrvin, 29 November 2005
     
  4. On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:42:48 -0500, "Bob (this one) wrote:

    >Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
    >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:16:07 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>mouthfeel

    >>
    >> DING! DING! DING!
    >>
    >> Game over. Boob may now go back to casually displaying the copy of
    >> "Bon Appetit" tucked under his arm as gazes wistfully at a $190 juice
    >> machine at William-Sanoma.

    ><LOL> You should only know...
    >
    >"Boob" huh? What brilliant repartee. Dazzling wit. Um, you have some
    >stupid-cream on your lip.


    You don't like "Boob?" You should quit acting like one, you scurrilous
    social climber. I'll bet the only wine you drink comes in a box, too.

    >> "mouthfeel"
    >>
    >> <snork>

    >
    >It always is to laugh large when fool demonstrate fact.
    >
    >"Mouthfeel" is precisely and exactly a word. It's a widely used term
    >amongst adults, who don't wear plastic Spock ears, in assessing foods.
    >It's one of the - big word warning - organoleptic criteria. Take heart,
    >someday the big people will let you sit at the grownup table and you'll
    >hear words like that, too. Nearly.


    Pretentious li'l wannabe gourmands all love saying "mouthfeel" without
    knowing it was coined by a Frito-Lay adman to describe the way Doritos
    should crunch in the mouth. Then again, maybe Bob the Rubber Chicken
    eats Doritos with his Cabernet Sauvignon to show his superiority to
    the other winos in the alley.

    >You're why the saying "Silence is golden" was coined.


    Hey, Boob, we're typing here. We don't talk as we type; why do you?

    --
    Chris McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo


    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  5. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:38:35 GMT, Darla Vladschyk wrote:

    >On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:26:31 -0500, Chris McGonnell
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:57:32 GMT, Darla Vladschyk wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:05:22 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Glitter
    >>>Ninja) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> OH WHAT A GREAT IDEA. THANK YOU MR. AMAZING COOKING MAN.
    >>>
    >>>LOL! Hiya Stacia! Great to read you again! Am I still on your
    >>>Ladder of Hate? 'Cause I never stopped loving you, you know.

    >>
    >>Quit it, ya big kiss-up: Stacia's roastiing an asswipe! Wait until
    >>she's through.

    >
    >Oh Jeeze I'm sorry. I am always doing something to piss Stacia off.
    >I feel like the hopeful nerd in brown shoes at the junior prom.


    Are you wearing a blue gown? Now if the brown shoes were dyed to match
    a brown gown to set off your alabaster complexion, I don't think
    anyone would care.

    --
    Chris "in the burgundy tuxedo" McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo
    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  6. Andy

    Andy Guest

  7. On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:32:44 -0500, "Bob (this one)" wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:12:46 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Chris McGonnell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:57:32 GMT, Darla Vladschyk wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:05:22 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Glitter
    >>>>>Ninja) wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>OH WHAT A GREAT IDEA. THANK YOU MR. AMAZING COOKING MAN.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>LOL! Hiya Stacia! Great to read you again! Am I still on your
    >>>>>Ladder of Hate? 'Cause I never stopped loving you, you know.
    >>>>
    >>>>Quit it, ya big kiss-up: Stacia's roastiing an asswipe! Wait until
    >>>>she's through.
    >>>
    >>>Oh, she's through. Take my word for it, Chris.

    >>
    >> Yay! Bob graciously admits his well-earned defeat!

    >
    >I bet this brings the house down around the trailer park.
    >
    >Funny how Stacia and Chris felt the need to send in the scrub team. They
    >were weak. You're looking up at empty.


    Yep, definitely an asswipe. Can't play the game, so he flicks his Bic
    and claims it's flame. Hi Boob, are you still speaking in this
    chatroom as you type?

    --
    Chris McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo


    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  8. On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:48:24 -0500, "Bob (this one)" wrote:

    >Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> agility run through the thesaraus, why am I left

    >
    >General life rule: When spouting shit about someone's else's use of the
    >language, it's always good not to demonstrate your unfamiliarity with a
    >"thesaraus."
    >
    >Wondering why you're left is why you're left.
    >
    >So uninformed Stacia, ill-formed Chris and vermiform Barb jumped in and
    >none has survived. If you scuttle off now, no one will notice.


    Aw gee Boob, just because I don't check the newsfroups every day is no
    reason to think I'm dead. And ya really oughta ditch the Roget's, cuz
    we all see it as a vain attempt to seem intelligent. It's too late for
    that, Mr. Amazing Cookie Man. In case you don't geddit, you've been
    trolled by a thespian of thesaurii, who also knows more about grammar
    than you do about your grandma. do you know how to check headers,
    Cookie Man? You might see an extry one.

    --
    Chris McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo

    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  9. On 12 Mar 2006 19:27:03 -0600, "Bob Terwilliger" wrote:

    >Hey HEY! There are LOTS of Bobs who frequent this NG.


    But only one Boob.

    --
    Chris McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo



    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  10. On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:27:14 -0500, "Bob (this one)" wrote:

    >To save all the need to read many repetitive posts, I've consolidated
    >them here for your dining and dancing pleasure. Note the similarity of
    >tone and imagery. What is the name of that activity with kids sitting in
    >a circle all doing pretty much the same thing. Oh the name escapes me...
    >
    >Actually a decent display of vocabulary, not bad grammar, imagery a
    >little thin, cliches a bit overdone. Still, promising.


    Dank does this better than you, which should shame you into changing
    your name to "Boob" permanently. Just Google "dank" or "Dan Krueger"
    to feel the pathetic weakness of your little cut-and-paste post, Mr.
    Amazing Cookie Man. It's all about the "mouthfeel."

    --
    Chris McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo


    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  11. Faux_Pseudo

    Faux_Pseudo Guest

    _.-In rec.food.cooking, Bob (this one) wrote the following -._
    > No. It doesn't. It asks that the actual ingredients used be identified.
    > So, as an example, if they used lactose extracted from milk, they can
    > say lactose and be done with it. It's a refined sugar, not milk. And
    > that applies to packaged food manufacturers
    >
    > I didn't state clearly what I meant about that.


    To quote you earlier in this thread:
    Shoulda started there.


    > What I meant is that they can't lie about it. They're under no legal
    > requirement to list their ingredients.


    There is a legal requirement to list the ingredients. In your prior
    example if they put lactose in then they need to state 'lactose'.

    From: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/EnvironmentalServices/FoodHygieneandStandards/labelling.asp
    [ packaging must include ]
    List of Ingredients
    All the ingredients of the food, headed by the word
    "Ingredients" (or a phrase including that word), must be listed
    in descending order of weight.

    I know this won't stop you from continuing to maintain that McD's did
    nothing wrong but the fact is that they did not list some of the
    ingredients in their food. You stated previously that they must list
    all additives and now you are saying they don't have to and they aren't
    required to do so by law. Either you are engaged in double-speak or
    you are so determined to prove you are right you are willing to
    trample over your previous statements without any regard for
    constancy or continuity.

    > I wrote the "Food Additives" section in the Oxford University Press
    > Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. I'm somewhat conversant with
    > the subject.


    It would have been better for you to quote the OUEFDA instead of state
    you wrote the section. The way you phrased it makes it sound like a
    argument from authority.

    > I do agree that ingredients/processing materials that might have a
    > secondary effect - allergies or intolerances - should be part of the
    > information about the food. But I also think that people at large go way
    > beyond any reasonable consideration in dealing with them. In the one web
    > site I posted, how many of those people were frantic about not being
    > able to eat those fries any more. Any more. Can't eat them again. No
    > allergens in them, no gluten, no additional proteins, but that doesn't
    > stop the insanity of panicky ignorance.


    I am not debating the mentality of the people who would or would wish
    to consume the product. I am pointing out that they did not declare
    additives which you have now taken both sides of the issue on.

    > If McD has been knowingly adding stuff to their fries but not saying it,
    > or worse, denying it, they should get a smack.


    If you were in Korea and eat something you thought was dog free
    because you read the label and didn't see dog on it would you be happy
    with 'a smack'.

    McD's didn't disclose the tallow which is a religious issue for some
    people. McD's didn't disclose the wheat (regardless of how it was
    processed). They have admitted this. They lied by omision on a
    fedrally regulated issue.

    > Not for legal reasons, but because they need to be more concerned
    > about public reaction and the bogus stuff that it leaves them open
    > to.


    It is a legal issue. It is also a PR issue and it is a religous issue.
    So for three reasons they deserive to pay.

    --
    .-')) fauxascii.com ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
    ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
    ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
    ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
     
  12. Adam Funk

    Adam Funk Guest

    On 2006-03-12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I was at Trader Joe's earlier today and, while waiting in line,
    > enjoyed the sendup of wine snobbery in their goofy, wine-critic-style
    > descriptions of the "varietal" chocolate bars. My favorite was the
    > one with "a hint of tobacco."


    It's poisonous, you know.
     
  13. Adam Funk

    Adam Funk Guest

    On 2006-03-13, Rich Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> General life rule: When spouting shit about someone's else's use of
    >> the language, it's always good not to demonstrate your unfamiliarity
    >> with a "thesaraus."

    >
    > General life rule: When defending oneself against a charge of
    > pseudointellectualism, it's always good to employ tactics more
    > convincing than that of picking on your detractors' typos.


    No it isn't, and ITYM "your detractor's typos".

    Anyway, it's easy to spell "thesaurus" if you remember it's the book
    that looks like a dictionary but sounds like a dinosaur.
     
  14. Adam Funk

    Adam Funk Guest

    On 2006-03-13, Jacob W. Haller <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Bob (this one) <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> To save all the need to read many repetitive posts,

    >
    > you've decided to stop posting? Awesome.


    No, ARK will be closed for cleaning for the next few weeks.
     
  15. On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:00:06 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

    >On 2006-03-13, Rich Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> General life rule: When spouting shit about someone's else's use of
    >>> the language, it's always good not to demonstrate your unfamiliarity
    >>> with a "thesaraus."

    >>
    >> General life rule: When defending oneself against a charge of
    >> pseudointellectualism, it's always good to employ tactics more
    >> convincing than that of picking on your detractors' typos.

    >
    >No it isn't, and ITYM "your detractor's typos".
    >
    >Anyway, it's easy to spell "thesaurus" if you remember it's the book
    >that looks like a dictionary but sounds like a dinosaur.


    Ever been attacked by a Thesaurus Rex like that lawyer in Jurassic
    Park?

    --
    Chris McG.
    Harming humanity since 1951.
    "What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
    oTTo

    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  16. On 13 Mar 2006 10:17:55 -0500, Rich
    Holmes<[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >
    >> I was at Trader Joe's earlier today and, while waiting in line,
    >> enjoyed the sendup of wine snobbery in their goofy, wine-critic-style
    >> descriptions of the "varietal" chocolate bars. My favorite was the
    >> one with "a hint of tobacco."

    >
    >I mentioned Valrhona on a.r.k recently. Their literature includes
    >"varietal" and "tobacco" while omitting "goofy" and "sendup".


    My friend, who was coincidentally at Trader Joe's yesterday also and
    read those same descriptions, said that she's not so sure they were
    intended to be goofy send-ups.

    >Good chocolate, though.


    Indeed it is.

    But as with expensive wines, so with expensive chocolate: I don't want
    to develop my palate to the point that I can't enjoy the
    cheaper-but-good stuff.

    BW
     
  17. Adam Funk

    Adam Funk Guest

    On 2006-03-13, Chris McGonnell <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Anyway, it's easy to spell "thesaurus" if you remember it's the book
    >>that looks like a dictionary but sounds like a dinosaur.

    >
    > Ever been attacked by a Thesaurus Rex like that lawyer in Jurassic
    > Park?


    Um, no...

    Hey, is that a threat?!
     
  18. Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
    <snip>

    Why'd you drag this into alt.food.barbecue, Kevvie? Bob doesn't post,
    here, ya know. Oops.

    Another Kevin Moment brought to you by... Kevin, of course.

    -sw
     
  19. Rich Holmes

    Rich Holmes Guest

    Adam Funk <[email protected]> writes:

    > On 2006-03-13, Rich Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> General life rule: When spouting shit about someone's else's use of
    > >> the language, it's always good not to demonstrate your unfamiliarity
    > >> with a "thesaraus."

    > >
    > > General life rule: When defending oneself against a charge of
    > > pseudointellectualism, it's always good to employ tactics more
    > > convincing than that of picking on your detractors' typos.

    >
    > No it isn't, and ITYM "your detractor's typos".


    Think what you like, mister, but referring to "Bob's detractor" is
    kind of like referring to "the Library of Congress's book". Or
    "George W. Bush's error". Or "Usenet's idiot".

    --
    - Doctroid Doctroid Holmes <http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/>

    "But only with kibological dooomsday bombs do you get the authentic
    wacky boing." -- John D Salt
     
  20. Faux_Pseudo wrote:
    > _.-In rec.food.cooking, Bob (this one) wrote the following -._
    >
    >>No. It doesn't. It asks that the actual ingredients used be identified.
    >>So, as an example, if they used lactose extracted from milk, they can
    >>say lactose and be done with it. It's a refined sugar, not milk. And
    >>that applies to packaged food manufacturers
    >>
    >>I didn't state clearly what I meant about that.

    >
    > To quote you earlier in this thread:
    > Shoulda started there.


    Probably so, but I'm there now. Did you notice above, "packaged food
    manufacturers...?"

    >>What I meant is that they can't lie about it. They're under no legal
    >>requirement to list their ingredients.

    >
    > There is a legal requirement to list the ingredients. In your prior
    > example if they put lactose in then they need to state 'lactose'.


    No. I said "if they used lactose extracted from milk, they can say
    lactose and be done with it." *Can* say lactose. Not *must* say lactose.

    They need only not to deny it. Prepared foods for immediate consumption
    are not required to list ingredients. But if they do, they can't lie
    about it.

    > From: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/EnvironmentalServices/FoodHygieneandStandards/labelling.asp


    Did you simply not notice that this is "Copyright © 1998-2006 The Royal
    Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" - the U.K.?

    > [ packaging must include ]


    Anyway, it says "Basic information required by law to appear on labels
    of most pre-packed foods includes the following."

    Got it? "Pre-packed foods." Cans, jars, bags of food on market shelves.
    Not in restaurants. Same idea in the U.K. as the U.S.

    > List of Ingredients
    > All the ingredients of the food, headed by the word
    > "Ingredients" (or a phrase including that word), must be listed
    > in descending order of weight.
    >
    > I know this won't stop you from continuing to maintain that McD's did
    > nothing wrong but the fact is that they did not list some of the
    > ingredients in their food. You stated previously that they must list
    > all additives and now you are saying they don't have to and they aren't
    > required to do so by law. Either you are engaged in double-speak or
    > you are so determined to prove you are right you are willing to
    > trample over your previous statements without any regard for
    > constancy or continuity.


    Do you want to actually talk about this or is it more important to win?

    I said I didn't write it clearly. What I initially wrote wasn't
    accurately what I meant; I corrected myself. The facts:
    1) McD is not legally required to list their ingredients.
    2) But, if they do, it must be true.

    >>I wrote the "Food Additives" section in the Oxford University Press
    >>Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. I'm somewhat conversant with
    >>the subject.

    >
    > It would have been better for you to quote the OUEFDA instead of state
    > you wrote the section. The way you phrased it makes it sound like a
    > argument from authority.


    <LOL> So you want me to quote myself? Boy, talk about an argument from
    authority. I bet you'd accept that in a heartbeat, right?

    Maybe you want to take a look at my wardrobe next? That's about all you
    haven't "corrected" me about so far.

    >>I do agree that ingredients/processing materials that might have a
    >>secondary effect - allergies or intolerances - should be part of the
    >>information about the food. But I also think that people at large go way
    >>beyond any reasonable consideration in dealing with them. In the one web
    >>site I posted, how many of those people were frantic about not being
    >>able to eat those fries any more. Any more. Can't eat them again. No
    >>allergens in them, no gluten, no additional proteins, but that doesn't
    >>stop the insanity of panicky ignorance.

    >
    > I am not debating the mentality of the people who would or would wish
    > to consume the product. I am pointing out that they did not declare
    > additives which you have now taken both sides of the issue on.


    Get over yourself. I've said before and again here what the legal
    requirements are. I misstated it at first and corrected it and have
    admitted it repeatedly.

    >>If McD has been knowingly adding stuff to their fries but not saying it,
    >>or worse, denying it, they should get a smack.

    >
    > If you were in Korea and eat something you thought was dog free
    > because you read the label and didn't see dog on it would you be happy
    > with 'a smack'.


    What the hell does a restaurant in Korea have to do with American food
    laws? Focus... And I love how you loaded that one up. Dog, indeed.
    That's certainly equivalent to a starch isolate from wheat.

    Do you want to debate the meaning of "smack," now, too? I meant that
    something negative should happen to them, based on what the legal issues
    are. What does your outrage about my use of that word inspire you to
    demand in retribution for their sins?

    > McD's didn't disclose the tallow which is a religious issue for some
    > people. McD's didn't disclose the wheat (regardless of how it was
    > processed).


    McD started out with a beef fat-vegetable fat frying mixture. It
    produced what they and their customers thought were good fries. People
    complained - not about the beefness of it, but about the saturated fat
    of it - so they *said* they were replacing it soon. They didn't because
    everything else they tried to fry with gave inferior results. They
    stalled and hoped the whole issue would go away. That was wrong.

    How the wheat was processed and what finished product it became is one
    of the central elements of the question. If you're going to argue that
    no matter what or how much processing it undergoes, it's still wheat, we
    have nothing to talk about on that subject. When complex mixtures of
    naturally occurring chemicals (any food materials) are separated into
    individual components that no longer have the properties of the source,
    that's a different thing than it started out to be. When people scrape
    the white, powdery tartaric acid out of wine bottles and barrels, are
    you going to assert it was still wine? Is the fructose from grapes
    different from the fructose from apples? Is it still the grape or apple?
    What useful information do you learn if it's so identified?

    > They have admitted this. They lied by omision on a
    > fedrally regulated issue.


    You've insisted that the law binds them to state their ingredients.
    You're wrong.

    Go read the law - the American law - before posting this again.
    <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html> is where you can find the regulations.

    "Unlike processed foods, restaurant menu selections are not
    required to supply complete nutrition information."
    <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpmenus.html>

    <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdnewlab.html>
    First sentence: "Grocery store aisles are avenues to greater nutritional
    knowledge." Not restaurants.

    "Food labeling is required for most prepared foods, such as breads,
    cereals, canned and frozen foods, snacks, desserts, drinks, etc.
    Nutrition labeling for raw produce (fruits and vegetables) and fish is
    voluntary." Packaged foods, not foods prepared for immediate consumption.

    "Nutrition Labeling--Exemptions
    Under NLEA, some foods are exempt from nutrition labeling. These include:
    * food served for immediate consumption, such as that served in
    hospital cafeterias and airplanes, and that sold by food service
    vendors--for example, mall cookie counters, sidewalk vendors, and
    vending machines
    * ready-to-eat food that is not for immediate consumption but is
    prepared primarily on site--for example, bakery, deli, and candy store items
    * food shipped in bulk, as long as it is not for sale in that form
    to consumers
    * medical foods, such as those used to address the nutritional
    needs of patients with certain diseases
    * plain coffee and tea, some spices, and other foods that contain
    no significant amounts of any nutrients."

    >>Not for legal reasons, but because they need to be more concerned
    >>about public reaction and the bogus stuff that it leaves them open
    >>to.

    >
    > It is a legal issue. It is also a PR issue and it is a religous issue.
    > So for three reasons they deserive to pay.


    It is not a legal issue, if by that you still are trying to say that
    they have to list their ingredients.

    "Unlike processed foods, restaurant menu selections are not
    required to supply complete nutrition information."
    <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpmenus.html>

    It is a PR issue. And a religious issue, and also one for vegans.

    But none of this happens in a vacuum. We're talking about a burger joint
    where they sell meat, dairy and wheat products all day long. It is
    absurd to expect that there won't be some cross-contact in the normal
    course of events of cooking, handling, wrapping or boxing, and delivery
    to customers. I agree that that's a different issue than the one that
    started this thread, but it's clearly germane to the situation. And McD
    deserves a smack for trying to be all things to all people.

    What part of this didn't you understand: "I do agree that
    ingredients/processing materials that might have a secondary effect -
    allergies or intolerances - should be part of the information about the
    food." Given that it's voluntary for them to post anything at all.

    Pastorio
     
Loading...