3 ms·
At the time, fast food chains, and McDonald’s in particular, were pushing large (and the defunct supersize) meals all the time. That this was dan
by JohnBooty 2y ago
At the time, fast food chains, and McDonald’s
in particular, were pushing large (and the
defunct supersize) meals all the time. That
this was dangerous [...]
It's still a little bit ridiculous.
A human being should be eating 90 meals per month, give or take. If more than 1 or 2 of those are fast food, that's the problem.
To what standard should we be holding a restaurant meal? "Is it healthy for a person to eat 90 of these meals per month?" doesn't seem like a useful or realistic thing to do.
- ethbr1 2y ago> If more than 1 or 2 of those are fast food, that's the problem. Given that full service grocery store access is area-income dependent in the US, it's a complicated situation.
- JohnBooty 2y ago"Food deserts" (areas with no access to fresh food) are a huge problem, yeah. Also, economically struggling people often can't prepare their own food, even if given groceries for free: they may be physically disabled, they may be unhoused, they may be unable to afford utilities or appliances, etc. However, I think that altering the offerings of fast-food restaurants is not even remotely a suitable way to address that.
- hmcq6 2y ago> A human being should be eating 90 meals per month, give or take. If more than 1 or 2 of those are fast food, that's the problem. 3 meals a day has nothing to do with health and everything to do with marketing. If the way we eat had any ties to common sense we wouldn't be eating our largest meal at the end of the day when we have nothing left to do except sleep.