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.
...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.
...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?
Nobody is forcing anyone to eat at McD. For an entire family I think it'll be more expensive than cooking a normal meal. Besides, the average customer for McD is not the poor, it's the middle class. http://www.neatorama.com/2011/11/13/mcdonalds-biggest-custom...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
Comments
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.
...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.
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?
Nobody is forcing anyone to eat at McD. For an entire family I think it'll be more expensive than cooking a normal meal. Besides, the average customer for McD is not the poor, it's the middle class. http://www.neatorama.com/2011/11/13/mcdonalds-biggest-custom...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.