Burger wars 2051

FauxPseudo

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 buttert 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?

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.

"Unlike processed foods, restaurant menu selections are not required to supply complete nutrition information."

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."

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."

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