4 ms·

> Most disturbing of all is the horrifying fact that because ammonium hydroxide is considered part of the “component in a production procedure” by the USDA, con

> Most disturbing of all is the horrifying fact that because ammonium hydroxide is considered part of the “component in a production procedure” by the USDA, consumers may not know when the chemical is in their food. I can understand McDonalds goes for the maximum profit. You get what you pay for. But I (naively) thought every company would be required by law to at the very least tell their clients when there's chemicals in the bloody food. That's the part of this I can't understand.

coldtea 13y ago
>I can understand McDonalds goes for the maximum profit. Well, I for one, can't understand it. Maybe I'm not indoctrinated in the free market enough, but basic human decency, and creating a quality product is among things I value.
- corin_ 13y ago
  Ammonium hydroxide is classed by the FDA as "generally recognized as safe", so while I certainly side with the argument that they should be required to disclose this, and I understand that some people may prefer to avoid it, I don't think that it's particularly immoral to do this as a way of offering customers cheap food. In fact I'd argue that it's more immoral of them to be helping people become obese than doing this.
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    But in Europe McDonalds does not use this procedure. Can't be the philosophy stopping them, so must be the law. The Dutch website even states in a big bold font that they don't do use Ammonium hydroxide. 'Never have, never will'. http://www.mcdonalds.nl/meerweten/kwaliteit-voeding/ http://www.mcdonalds.nl/meerweten/kwaliteit-voeding/
    - corin_ 13y ago
      If they state "never have, never will" it's unlikely to be the law, otherwise they wouldn't need to say that. More likely is that the marketing win is bigger than the increase in cost and/or the belief that less people would eat there if they used it.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >I don't think that it's particularly immoral to do this as a way of offering customers cheap food I don't think their intent is to "offer customers cheap food" (as if they could care less). They just use those techniques to increase their margins.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      Sorry I should clarify, I wasn't suggestion they want to produce cheap food for charitable reasons at all - but yes, that absolutely is their intent, they're a cheap food place with cheap food prices.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  ...Which is why you probably will choose not to eat those burgers and will spend your money on more expensive products and that's fine. Other people might have less money to spend and they'll look for the 'biggest bang for their buck'. But they lack the information to make a good judgment. Providing good labeling and information for your food so you can make a good call, that's what everyone pays the FDA to do but they simply don't.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >...Which is why you probably will choose not to eat those burgers and will spend your money on more expensive products and that's fine. Other people might have less money to spend and they'll look for the 'biggest bang for their buck' No, that's not fine for me. Basic human decency doesn't stop at the middle class. Why should poor people eat a subpar and dangerous food just because a chain wants to maximize their profits? Are they less human?
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Of course not, but most people on this planet don't believe that one human is just as valuable as another, a homeless drunk just as valuable as Einstein.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        Well, if there's someone that is not as valuable as another, is people thinking like this. Einstein contributions to science might be more valuable than a homeless drunks, but the homeless drunk is just as valuable a life as anybody's. (Not to mention, if we're looking at the "total cost of ownership" so to speak, the homeless drunk's theories weren't used in making stuff used to kill 250000 innocent people and that can wipe out the whole earth several times).
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I agree, just pointing out that most people don't think like this. Even people who have read the chapter called "Your Work Is Not Your Worth" from David Burns' classic Feeling Good book about depression can have serious trouble grasping the fundamental fallacy at play in associating the worth of a human with their actions, achievements, and bank account.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Ammonium hydroxide is FDA-GRAS, if that matters in this analysis. I don't know that restaurants are required to list ingredients at all, except on packaged goods. May be wrong about that though.
ars 13y ago
> when there's chemicals in the bloody food There's always chemicals in the food. That's what food is made of. So not "when there's chemicals" (because the answer is always), but rather which chemicals, for example flour, salt, sugar, water, etc. But practically speaking they don't - for example a mold release (oil) doesn't have to be disclosed. I don't like that law, but it is the law. PS. If you are one of those who use "chemicals" as a shorthand for "dangerous chemicals" then ammonium hydroxide would not count because it's not a dangerous chemical.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  I am 'one of those' people who cares what he (and his kids) eat. I knew it wasn't all that great and fast food isn't really healthy. But I'd like to know about meat getting soaked in ammonium hydroxide to change it from 'not fit for humans' to 'fit for human consumption'.
  - ars 13y ago
    It's not soaked - it's a small amount (and is perfectly safe). And he's wrong - it's doesn't make it "not fit for humans". The person in the article likes to massively exaggerate, and he has great power over the media, which he is not using responsibly.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >There's always chemicals in the food. That's what food is made of. Not very useful pedantic correction. He doesn't mean flour, salt, sugar etc. He means artificial sweeteners, preservation chemicals, additives, etc. Stuff people have not traditionally eaten for evolution-spanning years to be adapted to them, and are only used to maximize profit.
  - ars 13y ago
    > He means artificial sweeteners, preservation chemicals, additives, etc. Then say so (although additive is a meaningless word - don't say that). > Stuff people have not traditionally eaten for evolution-spanning years to be adapted to them, and are only used to maximize profit. That's your definition. Other people don't define it that that way. I've heard definitions ranging from "dangerous" to "not natural", to "using the chemical name of something". And your definition excludes sugar (sucrose) and corn (since they are both new), and includes sugar of lead (which has been eaten throughout history despite being toxic), so it's not a helpful definition. What about Sodium acetate? How would you rank that? Chemical, or non chemical? Plus if you are concerned about "maximizing profit" then don't eat wheat - modern dwarf wheat was invented to maximize profit. Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit...... Your definition is useless and you know it. If you are concerned with a particular type of ingredient say so directly. I have great concern over preservatives and artificial food colors - but I don't call them "chemicals" since that means everything and anything.

coldtea 13y ago

>I can understand McDonalds goes for the maximum profit. Well, I for one, can't understand it. Maybe I'm not indoctrinated in the free market enough, but basic human decency, and creating a quality product is among things I value.

corin_ 13y ago
Ammonium hydroxide is classed by the FDA as "generally recognized as safe", so while I certainly side with the argument that they should be required to disclose this, and I understand that some people may prefer to avoid it, I don't think that it's particularly immoral to do this as a way of offering customers cheap food. In fact I'd argue that it's more immoral of them to be helping people become obese than doing this.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  But in Europe McDonalds does not use this procedure. Can't be the philosophy stopping them, so must be the law. The Dutch website even states in a big bold font that they don't do use Ammonium hydroxide. 'Never have, never will'. http://www.mcdonalds.nl/meerweten/kwaliteit-voeding/ http://www.mcdonalds.nl/meerweten/kwaliteit-voeding/
  - corin_ 13y ago
    If they state "never have, never will" it's unlikely to be the law, otherwise they wouldn't need to say that. More likely is that the marketing win is bigger than the increase in cost and/or the belief that less people would eat there if they used it.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I don't think that it's particularly immoral to do this as a way of offering customers cheap food I don't think their intent is to "offer customers cheap food" (as if they could care less). They just use those techniques to increase their margins.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    Sorry I should clarify, I wasn't suggestion they want to produce cheap food for charitable reasons at all - but yes, that absolutely is their intent, they're a cheap food place with cheap food prices.
digitalengineer 13y ago
...Which is why you probably will choose not to eat those burgers and will spend your money on more expensive products and that's fine. Other people might have less money to spend and they'll look for the 'biggest bang for their buck'. But they lack the information to make a good judgment. Providing good labeling and information for your food so you can make a good call, that's what everyone pays the FDA to do but they simply don't.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >...Which is why you probably will choose not to eat those burgers and will spend your money on more expensive products and that's fine. Other people might have less money to spend and they'll look for the 'biggest bang for their buck' No, that's not fine for me. Basic human decency doesn't stop at the middle class. Why should poor people eat a subpar and dangerous food just because a chain wants to maximize their profits? Are they less human?
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Of course not, but most people on this planet don't believe that one human is just as valuable as another, a homeless drunk just as valuable as Einstein.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Well, if there's someone that is not as valuable as another, is people thinking like this. Einstein contributions to science might be more valuable than a homeless drunks, but the homeless drunk is just as valuable a life as anybody's. (Not to mention, if we're looking at the "total cost of ownership" so to speak, the homeless drunk's theories weren't used in making stuff used to kill 250000 innocent people and that can wipe out the whole earth several times).
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I agree, just pointing out that most people don't think like this. Even people who have read the chapter called "Your Work Is Not Your Worth" from David Burns' classic Feeling Good book about depression can have serious trouble grasping the fundamental fallacy at play in associating the worth of a human with their actions, achievements, and bank account.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

Ammonium hydroxide is FDA-GRAS, if that matters in this analysis. I don't know that restaurants are required to list ingredients at all, except on packaged goods. May be wrong about that though.

ars 13y ago

> when there's chemicals in the bloody food There's always chemicals in the food. That's what food is made of. So not "when there's chemicals" (because the answer is always), but rather which chemicals, for example flour, salt, sugar, water, etc. But practically speaking they don't - for example a mold release (oil) doesn't have to be disclosed. I don't like that law, but it is the law. PS. If you are one of those who use "chemicals" as a shorthand for "dangerous chemicals" then ammonium hydroxide would not count because it's not a dangerous chemical.

digitalengineer 13y ago
I am 'one of those' people who cares what he (and his kids) eat. I knew it wasn't all that great and fast food isn't really healthy. But I'd like to know about meat getting soaked in ammonium hydroxide to change it from 'not fit for humans' to 'fit for human consumption'.
- ars 13y ago
  It's not soaked - it's a small amount (and is perfectly safe). And he's wrong - it's doesn't make it "not fit for humans". The person in the article likes to massively exaggerate, and he has great power over the media, which he is not using responsibly.
coldtea 13y ago
>There's always chemicals in the food. That's what food is made of. Not very useful pedantic correction. He doesn't mean flour, salt, sugar etc. He means artificial sweeteners, preservation chemicals, additives, etc. Stuff people have not traditionally eaten for evolution-spanning years to be adapted to them, and are only used to maximize profit.
- ars 13y ago
  > He means artificial sweeteners, preservation chemicals, additives, etc. Then say so (although additive is a meaningless word - don't say that). > Stuff people have not traditionally eaten for evolution-spanning years to be adapted to them, and are only used to maximize profit. That's your definition. Other people don't define it that that way. I've heard definitions ranging from "dangerous" to "not natural", to "using the chemical name of something". And your definition excludes sugar (sucrose) and corn (since they are both new), and includes sugar of lead (which has been eaten throughout history despite being toxic), so it's not a helpful definition. What about Sodium acetate? How would you rank that? Chemical, or non chemical? Plus if you are concerned about "maximizing profit" then don't eat wheat - modern dwarf wheat was invented to maximize profit. Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit...... Your definition is useless and you know it. If you are concerned with a particular type of ingredient say so directly. I have great concern over preservatives and artificial food colors - but I don't call them "chemicals" since that means everything and anything.