McD's use a low quality product in one country. This isn't just "not best quality", it is very low quality meat.
UK advertising laws have the concept of "Legal, Decent, Honest, and Truthful", I don't know what it's like in the US. But calling the worst quality level of meat available from a carcass "best quality" seems deceitful.
These ingredients have terms in the UK, but there are loopholes and these are exploited sometimes. Mechanically recovered meat used in Sausages (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21530861) (Something called a "sausage" in England needs to have certain quantity of meat, where both the quantity of meat and the meaning of meat are defined in law)
How do you define "quality" when talking about McDonalds food? If their burgers taste better than their rivals (subjective, of course) then aren't they the best?
Sure quality of the raw ingredients is weakly correlated to taste, but processing and handling have much bigger effect on the taste of the final product. Take the highest quality beef you can find, run it through the McDonalds beef processing machine and make a Big Mac using the standard McDonalds process and you'll end up with a burger which probably doesn't taste much better than a normal Big Mac.
I'm not sure how you managed to misread my comment so badly.
Something can be very tasty and very poor quality. Add enough salt, fat, sugar, and spices and the worst quality 'pink slime' is tasty.
But a filet mignon is expensive, tender, usually high quality cut of meat that isn't particularly tasty. It doesn't have much fat and isn't weight bearing which affects the taste.
But a filet mignon is expensive, tender, usually high quality cut of meat that isn't particularly tasty. It doesn't have much fat and isn't weight bearing which affects the taste.
Then why buy it? What do you gain by spending extra on it?
Quality is not dependent on taste - nutrition is what food is for, not pleasant sensations. A banana is better quality food than Conglomocorp's banana-flavoured-yoghurt-covered chocolate sticks, even though the latter is far more delicious.
I believe superlatives are like this: "best" means "as good as anything else" and is incredibly vague from a legal standpoint. You could safely say "our hamburgers are the best" but you probably couldn't say "our hamburgers are better than Burger King's", given that the latter statement is a specific claim.
Wow, that's great! So if I get cereal waste, pump it full of sugar, fat and salt so that, what, 10% of the population claim it tastes "the best", you won't have a problem with that being advertised and sold to the gullible, stupid and naive?
It depends on the context. I think in the context of fast food, "the best" implies the food that is the nicest, and no, I don't have a problem with companies like McDonalds serving unhealthy food.
The cereal waste - if it complies with safety standards and people want to buy it, then let them.
If you decide to ban anything that could be bad for people who are gullible, stupid and naive then you're not going to have much left that's allowed.
I don't believe anyone reads "our products are the best" and thinks "that means they're healthy". If you want to be upset about something, how about the fact that they let people think of their salads as a healthy choice while pumping calories into the dressings?
The final product isn't the same as the ingredients, though.
If they are using the absolute worst cut of meat, bleaching it and flavouring it to taste good, the food might be considered "best quality" in terms of taste, but the meat cannot be considered "best quality".
Conversely, the wholly fictional "Kobe beef jerky" kickstarter scam would have been mediocre (if not poor) quality jerky, but (arguably at least) best quality meat, had it existed.
Comments
McD's use a low quality product in one country. This isn't just "not best quality", it is very low quality meat.
UK advertising laws have the concept of "Legal, Decent, Honest, and Truthful", I don't know what it's like in the US. But calling the worst quality level of meat available from a carcass "best quality" seems deceitful.
These ingredients have terms in the UK, but there are loopholes and these are exploited sometimes. Mechanically recovered meat used in Sausages (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21530861) (Something called a "sausage" in England needs to have certain quantity of meat, where both the quantity of meat and the meaning of meat are defined in law)
(https://www.gov.uk/food-standards-labelling-durability-and-c...)
How do you define "quality" when talking about McDonalds food? If their burgers taste better than their rivals (subjective, of course) then aren't they the best?
Quality for a meat product would cover things like breed of cow used; cut of meat used; and the way that meat is processed.
Using meat from Aberdeen Angus beef cows, and using nice cuts of steak, and mincing it, would result in a high quality product.
Using meat from old dairy cows, mechanically recovered from the carcass after everything else has been used, results in a lower quality product.
I think taste is not relevant to quality. They're not saying "tastier than the rival products".
That's an extraordinarily strange definition of quality. By your definition quality is completely useless and means nothing except "more expensive".
So you basically think people should spend more money for the sake of spending more money? (Why not just send it to me instead?)
But of course in the real world quality does have an effect on taste (or nutrition).
Sure quality of the raw ingredients is weakly correlated to taste, but processing and handling have much bigger effect on the taste of the final product. Take the highest quality beef you can find, run it through the McDonalds beef processing machine and make a Big Mac using the standard McDonalds process and you'll end up with a burger which probably doesn't taste much better than a normal Big Mac.
I'm not sure how you managed to misread my comment so badly.
Something can be very tasty and very poor quality. Add enough salt, fat, sugar, and spices and the worst quality 'pink slime' is tasty.
But a filet mignon is expensive, tender, usually high quality cut of meat that isn't particularly tasty. It doesn't have much fat and isn't weight bearing which affects the taste.
Then why buy it? What do you gain by spending extra on it?
@the sister comment made by user "ars":
Quality is not dependent on taste - nutrition is what food is for, not pleasant sensations. A banana is better quality food than Conglomocorp's banana-flavoured-yoghurt-covered chocolate sticks, even though the latter is far more delicious.
I believe superlatives are like this: "best" means "as good as anything else" and is incredibly vague from a legal standpoint. You could safely say "our hamburgers are the best" but you probably couldn't say "our hamburgers are better than Burger King's", given that the latter statement is a specific claim.
Wow, that's great! So if I get cereal waste, pump it full of sugar, fat and salt so that, what, 10% of the population claim it tastes "the best", you won't have a problem with that being advertised and sold to the gullible, stupid and naive?
It depends on the context. I think in the context of fast food, "the best" implies the food that is the nicest, and no, I don't have a problem with companies like McDonalds serving unhealthy food.
The cereal waste - if it complies with safety standards and people want to buy it, then let them.
If you decide to ban anything that could be bad for people who are gullible, stupid and naive then you're not going to have much left that's allowed.
I don't believe anyone reads "our products are the best" and thinks "that means they're healthy". If you want to be upset about something, how about the fact that they let people think of their salads as a healthy choice while pumping calories into the dressings?
The final product isn't the same as the ingredients, though.
If they are using the absolute worst cut of meat, bleaching it and flavouring it to taste good, the food might be considered "best quality" in terms of taste, but the meat cannot be considered "best quality".
Conversely, the wholly fictional "Kobe beef jerky" kickstarter scam would have been mediocre (if not poor) quality jerky, but (arguably at least) best quality meat, had it existed.
They said they "offer the best quality products", not that they offer products made with the best quality ingredients.
Aha, my mistake - I misread.
In that case my comment is an argument for your point of view, not against it.
McDonalds calls its locations "restaurants", so they should also be judged according to the standards of real restaurants.