4 ms·

The burger patties were absolutely not 1/8 pound. I can assure you from experience as a Professional McDonald's Worker in 2003 that those were 10:1 patties then

by xp84 2mo ago

The burger patties were absolutely not 1/8 pound. I can assure you from experience as a Professional McDonald's Worker in 2003 that those were 10:1 patties then as well. I can also vouch for the same from another major burger chain circa 2001. I'm sure they shrink everything possible, but interestingly they haven't been shaving down the beef quantities for some reason.

therealdrag0 2mo ago
Didn’t they also have filler then remove it to be 100% beef at some point?
- FireBeyond 2mo ago
  Only after attempts to call one of their suppliers or processors "100% Beef" failed.
  - sandcat_ 2mo ago
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/
  - hydrogen7800 2mo ago
    I recall a similar claim regarding pop music compilation CDs advertised as being performed by "The Original Cast", which was really a group by that name playing covers of popular songs. Or another being "Made in USA", where Usa was a city in Korea.
    - b112 2mo ago
      "Genuine diamonds" sold fake diamonds after trademarking the name, I thibk. However a decade later I read about them losibg a lawsuit. This tricks don't work any more.
      - tancop 2mo ago
        the tricks never worked legally speaking. misleading labels stay misleading even if you have a trademark on that name and use it for years. the problem is cases like this rarely go to court, and plaintiffs might run into a judge who literally doesnt believe consumer fraud is a thing if theres at least one possible non fraud interpretation no matter how unlikely it is.
    - FireBeyond 2mo ago
      I feel like there is a probably apocryphal story of a town in Japan being called Scotland so they can sell whisky as Scotch. Which as a highlander I don’t see the need for - Japanese whiskey is quite able to stand in its own and hold its own.
      - robocat 2mo ago
        Except apparently: any bottle labeled or marketed as "Scotch" in Japan must strictly comply with the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations. Because Scotch Whisky (スコッチ・ウィスキー) is legally recognized and registered in Japan as the legal equivalent of a protected denomination of origin.
    - jacobolus 2mo ago
      "Original Cast" is a record label that sells records of obscure musical theater shows. Usa is a city in Japan, and according to the internet the "Made in USA" thing is a joke or myth. As far as I can tell both of your speculative claims don't reflect any real thing that happened.
      - hydrogen7800 2mo ago
        I don't suggest they are real. Only that they are similarly as dubious as the 100% beef claim.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- x______________ 2mo ago
  100% beef is the topic of an ongoing lawsuit[0]. 0 https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/ https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/
  - johnwalkr 2mo ago
    I was surprised to see a real reference because I thought the 100% beef thing was a 100% myth. But that article confirms in several places that independent testing finds no fillers at all, and what is left is just "Plaintiffs allege that undisclosed processing steps or agents applied during production or cooking could alter the accuracy of the “100%” claim." It's not a very convincing argument and it would be quite hard for McDonalds to cover up a secret process to add another ingredient.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
      > Additionally, the visual gap between advertised burgers and actual burgers raises separate false advertising issues Meanwhile, the very clear and obvious false advertising they actually perform is getting hardly any attention. Here's to hoping they won't be able to continue advertising products that are different from what they sell.
- glitchc 2mo ago
  100% beef is a trademark.
  - nickff 2mo ago
    "100% beef" is a factual claim, and not subject to Trademarks; McDonalds Trademarked "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" in 1982. https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352086 https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352...
    - BizarroLand 2mo ago
      Even that doesn't mean that the patty is JUST beef. Thanks to legalese, the only thing a claim like that would guarantee is that the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF". It could be 99% filler and not be a lie.
      - nickff 2mo ago
        >"It could be 99% filler and not be a lie." There is no evidence that McDonalds has included any filler in their burgers at all (at least in recent history). See the link in the cousin-comment for more information on what has been claimed and what has been proven (so far): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943
      - close04 2mo ago
        > the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" But the claim isn't about "the beef portion". If what you say is true it would give a competitor the chance to say "McD's burgers are 100% unhealthy fat" because the unhealthy fat portion is 100% unhealthy fat. > It could be 99% filler and not be a lie. I doubt it. Not sure about the US but in Europe there are laws that tell you how much or how little of something you can have before you advertise that thing. For example you can't say "now with less sugar" if you reduced the quantity of sugar by 0.001g. And you can't call it "olive oil" if it has 2% olive oil.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
cestith 2mo ago
I worked at McDonald’s a decade prior to that, and they were 10:1 then, too. I think it’s possible and maybe likely some other chains might have switched from being 8:1 to 10:1 since the market leaders already had that size. There are much better examples though than some isolated regional player’s beef patty sizes. We used to buy half gallons and gallons of ice cream. Brands started selling 60 or 62 ounces instead of 64. Over the years, it’s gotten to where some brands sell 48 ounces - three pints - instead of 64. Breakfast cereals have had similar shrinking sizes.
- furytrader 2mo ago
  Breakfast cereal boxes have gotten so small, it's ridiculous. They might as well label the package "Fun Size" since it's clearly not "Full Size".
- xp84 2mo ago
  Shrinkflation is to me the best example of why pure short-term-ism is a cancer. The first jackass to do it, say by taking a soup can of 16 ounces and adjusting it to 15.75oz, it boosted the profits that quarter. Mathematically, we could keep asymptotically shaving the size by 1.6% every couple years forever, but IRL that won't work because the amounts needed to be shaved would get so small as to not have the cost savings effect (or even be possible to precisely measure). So in reality the amounts need to be more like an actual quarter or half ounce at a time. So at some point the soup can, the candy bar, etc. would become so small that with one more shrink, people will recognize that it can't even feed one person, and at that point, all the "value" that was extracted by the previous CEOs to goose their stock price short term will be exhausted, and they'll have to move on to watering it down or whatever. But our packages will stay that idiotic minimum size forever.
  - cheschire 2mo ago
    Don't you remember how they recovered from this after 2008? That's when they started selling "family size" options that are bigger, but with a not-so-obvious price increase where you can't really tell if it's more or less expensive per oz. Price-conscious shoppers still buy the smaller thing if it's cheaper per oz (and only if the stores show the price per oz on the shelf), but most people just get the bigger size because that's how much they want to consume, and they can't really tell that the 15% increase in size does not equate to 19% increase in cost. Many stores would stock the family size separate from the regular size so the shoppers couldnt easily compare price per oz. Eventually the family size just becomes the regular size, but now at the higher price. Then the shrinking happens again.
fennecbutt 2mo ago
Where did OP specifically say maccas?
- xp84 2mo ago
  OP didn't say any chain, so his argument is technically not falsifiable, but that also makes it incredibly dubious.
beepbooptheory 2mo ago
How did they make a quarter pounder out of 1/10s?
- KptMarchewa 2mo ago
  1/4 is a separate item.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

by xp84 2mo ago

therealdrag0 2mo ago

Didn’t they also have filler then remove it to be 100% beef at some point?

FireBeyond 2mo ago
Only after attempts to call one of their suppliers or processors "100% Beef" failed.
- sandcat_ 2mo ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/
- hydrogen7800 2mo ago
  I recall a similar claim regarding pop music compilation CDs advertised as being performed by "The Original Cast", which was really a group by that name playing covers of popular songs. Or another being "Made in USA", where Usa was a city in Korea.
  - b112 2mo ago
    "Genuine diamonds" sold fake diamonds after trademarking the name, I thibk. However a decade later I read about them losibg a lawsuit. This tricks don't work any more.
    - tancop 2mo ago
      the tricks never worked legally speaking. misleading labels stay misleading even if you have a trademark on that name and use it for years. the problem is cases like this rarely go to court, and plaintiffs might run into a judge who literally doesnt believe consumer fraud is a thing if theres at least one possible non fraud interpretation no matter how unlikely it is.
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    I feel like there is a probably apocryphal story of a town in Japan being called Scotland so they can sell whisky as Scotch. Which as a highlander I don’t see the need for - Japanese whiskey is quite able to stand in its own and hold its own.
    - robocat 2mo ago
      Except apparently: any bottle labeled or marketed as "Scotch" in Japan must strictly comply with the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations. Because Scotch Whisky (スコッチ・ウィスキー) is legally recognized and registered in Japan as the legal equivalent of a protected denomination of origin.
  - jacobolus 2mo ago
    "Original Cast" is a record label that sells records of obscure musical theater shows. Usa is a city in Japan, and according to the internet the "Made in USA" thing is a joke or myth. As far as I can tell both of your speculative claims don't reflect any real thing that happened.
    - hydrogen7800 2mo ago
      I don't suggest they are real. Only that they are similarly as dubious as the 100% beef claim.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
x______________ 2mo ago
100% beef is the topic of an ongoing lawsuit[0]. 0 https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/ https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/
- johnwalkr 2mo ago
  I was surprised to see a real reference because I thought the 100% beef thing was a 100% myth. But that article confirms in several places that independent testing finds no fillers at all, and what is left is just "Plaintiffs allege that undisclosed processing steps or agents applied during production or cooking could alter the accuracy of the “100%” claim." It's not a very convincing argument and it would be quite hard for McDonalds to cover up a secret process to add another ingredient.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
    > Additionally, the visual gap between advertised burgers and actual burgers raises separate false advertising issues Meanwhile, the very clear and obvious false advertising they actually perform is getting hardly any attention. Here's to hoping they won't be able to continue advertising products that are different from what they sell.
glitchc 2mo ago
100% beef is a trademark.
- nickff 2mo ago
  "100% beef" is a factual claim, and not subject to Trademarks; McDonalds Trademarked "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" in 1982. https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352086 https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352...
  - BizarroLand 2mo ago
    Even that doesn't mean that the patty is JUST beef. Thanks to legalese, the only thing a claim like that would guarantee is that the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF". It could be 99% filler and not be a lie.
    - nickff 2mo ago
      >"It could be 99% filler and not be a lie." There is no evidence that McDonalds has included any filler in their burgers at all (at least in recent history). See the link in the cousin-comment for more information on what has been claimed and what has been proven (so far): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943
    - close04 2mo ago
      > the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" But the claim isn't about "the beef portion". If what you say is true it would give a competitor the chance to say "McD's burgers are 100% unhealthy fat" because the unhealthy fat portion is 100% unhealthy fat. > It could be 99% filler and not be a lie. I doubt it. Not sure about the US but in Europe there are laws that tell you how much or how little of something you can have before you advertise that thing. For example you can't say "now with less sugar" if you reduced the quantity of sugar by 0.001g. And you can't call it "olive oil" if it has 2% olive oil.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

cestith 2mo ago

I worked at McDonald’s a decade prior to that, and they were 10:1 then, too. I think it’s possible and maybe likely some other chains might have switched from being 8:1 to 10:1 since the market leaders already had that size. There are much better examples though than some isolated regional player’s beef patty sizes. We used to buy half gallons and gallons of ice cream. Brands started selling 60 or 62 ounces instead of 64. Over the years, it’s gotten to where some brands sell 48 ounces - three pints - instead of 64. Breakfast cereals have had similar shrinking sizes.

furytrader 2mo ago
Breakfast cereal boxes have gotten so small, it's ridiculous. They might as well label the package "Fun Size" since it's clearly not "Full Size".
xp84 2mo ago
Shrinkflation is to me the best example of why pure short-term-ism is a cancer. The first jackass to do it, say by taking a soup can of 16 ounces and adjusting it to 15.75oz, it boosted the profits that quarter. Mathematically, we could keep asymptotically shaving the size by 1.6% every couple years forever, but IRL that won't work because the amounts needed to be shaved would get so small as to not have the cost savings effect (or even be possible to precisely measure). So in reality the amounts need to be more like an actual quarter or half ounce at a time. So at some point the soup can, the candy bar, etc. would become so small that with one more shrink, people will recognize that it can't even feed one person, and at that point, all the "value" that was extracted by the previous CEOs to goose their stock price short term will be exhausted, and they'll have to move on to watering it down or whatever. But our packages will stay that idiotic minimum size forever.
- cheschire 2mo ago
  Don't you remember how they recovered from this after 2008? That's when they started selling "family size" options that are bigger, but with a not-so-obvious price increase where you can't really tell if it's more or less expensive per oz. Price-conscious shoppers still buy the smaller thing if it's cheaper per oz (and only if the stores show the price per oz on the shelf), but most people just get the bigger size because that's how much they want to consume, and they can't really tell that the 15% increase in size does not equate to 19% increase in cost. Many stores would stock the family size separate from the regular size so the shoppers couldnt easily compare price per oz. Eventually the family size just becomes the regular size, but now at the higher price. Then the shrinking happens again.

fennecbutt 2mo ago

Where did OP specifically say maccas?

xp84 2mo ago
OP didn't say any chain, so his argument is technically not falsifiable, but that also makes it incredibly dubious.

beepbooptheory 2mo ago

How did they make a quarter pounder out of 1/10s?

KptMarchewa 2mo ago
1/4 is a separate item.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]