Originally posted by geniusbovine exctretia (sp?), and any othe rtype, won't be particularly beneficial to you because it is after all the bits that the animal couldn't digest so will have no nutritional value to us. Surely it'll only be bad for you if there is parasites, harmful bacteria or if the cow was diseased (now I'm guessing, but it makes sense doesn't it?) and if it was cooked then these pathogens should be dead anyway.
didn't they find cow -erm- droppings (for lack of a better word) in McDonalds burgers a while back? surely that's harmful! :o
and one extasy tablet can kill you, and yet people still take the stuff...
One dose of any drug can kill you, you just have to be allergic to it. If you could get tested at the doctors to see if you were allergic to extasy, as you can for penasillin, then those deaths wouldn't happen. There's of course many other ways extasy can kill you, such as it containing other drugs or harmful stuff, or your behaviour being altered in such a way that you hurt yourself (like oggling the big guy's girl), but most of these can be overcome by education & legalisation. The real danger in extacy is that nothing is known about the long term effects. It is known that users are 4 times more prone to depression & other psychiatric illnesses. Best tip is - don't mess around with your brains chemical balance, because you might not like how life is afterwards.
Originally posted by belgianfreakyeah-i think another of the problems was that they weren't cooking them at high enough temperatures for only short periods of time
bovine exctretia (sp?), and any othe rtype, won't be particularly beneficial to you because it is after all the bits that the animal couldn't digest so will have no nutritional value to us. Surely it'll only be bad for you if there is parasites, harmful bacteria or if the cow was diseased (now I'm guessing, but it makes sense doesn't it?) and if it ...[text shortened]... ss around with your brains chemical balance, because you might not like how life is afterwards.
Originally posted by belgianfreakSo there's no nutritional value? Sounds pretty much like a McDonalds burger to me... 🙂 Maybe that's what they use for their patties.
bovine exctretia (sp?), and any othe rtype, won't be particularly beneficial to you because it is after all the bits that the animal couldn't digest so will have no nutritional value to us.
When I was in London 2 years ago I read this article in a newspaper about a very special chicken McNugget. It was a whole chicken head, covered in the special McDonalds paste (or whatever it's called). Very cool picture... 🙂
Originally posted by belgianfreaki read a report once, i only have a vague memory of it so no references (sorry), that one dose of ecstasy realises so much endorphines that the brain's chemistry is forever changed.
bovine exctretia (sp?), and any othe rtype, won't be particularly beneficial to you because it is after all the bits that the animal couldn't digest so will have no nutritional value to us. Surely it'll only be bad for you if there is parasites, harmful bacteria or if the cow was diseased (now I'm guessing, but it makes sense doesn't it?) and if it ...[text shortened]... ss around with your brains chemical balance, because you might not like how life is afterwards.
not something i would mess with.
-trekkie
Originally posted by CrowleyYeah I saw that too! So awful, but later I red that the McNugget was edited with the computer...asumable...a whole chicken head? Brains?😏
So there's no nutritional value? Sounds pretty much like a McDonalds burger to me... 🙂 Maybe that's what they use for their patties.
When I was in London 2 years ago I read this article in a newspaper about a very special chicken McNugg ...[text shortened]... cDonalds paste (or whatever it's called). Very cool picture... 🙂
Olav
p.s. The brains of the chicken😛
Originally posted by CrowleyMarketing schemes are wrong,not only in this.We are sitting ducks in this,that or the other.
Do you think marketing schemes by fast food companies targeting kids is immoral?
The kid throws his toys out of his cot if you wanna give him vegetables because he wants a McDonalds Happy Meal with a toy...
And because families have 2 breadwinners nowadays there's no time to cook a proper meal.
Now the kids AREN'T allright and 1.5billion people worldwide are obese.
To address the point:
It is a duty of parents to guide our children.
Linda.
there's an excellent website www.mcspotlight.org with related articles of interest. the site was set up in response to the legal action that mcdonalds waged against 2 anarchists in the UK. McDonald's Corporation issued writs against the McLibel 2 on 20th September 1990 alleging they had been libelled in the London Greenpeace factsheet: "What's Wrong With McDonald's?". The McLibel trial began on 28th June 1994, and ended on June 19th 1997, after a trial lasting 314 days - the longest legal case of any kind in English history.
On June 19th 1997 Mr Justice Bell ruled that: - McDonald's marketing has ‘pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food (high in fat & salt etc) did not match’ - that McDonald's ‘exploit children’ with their advertising strategy, ‘using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald’s’ - are ‘culpably responsible for animal cruelty’ - ‘pay low wages, helping to depress wages in the catering trade’.
McDonald’s were set a limit of 28 days to apply for costs and an injunction (their primary aims - as outlined in their original Statement of Claim), but failed to do so.
The McLibel 2 had failed to convince the judge on all issues however and so they appealed. Significantly McDonald's did not appeal over the rulings against their core business practices, later stating that the Judge was 'correct in his conclusions'. [McDonald's written submissions 5.1.99].
On March 31st 1999 the Court of Appeal added to the findings against McDonald's, after a 23-day hearing in which the McLibel 2 again represented themselves. Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane ruled:
- it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide ‘do badly in terms of pay and conditions’ - true that ‘if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.’
But despite all these damning findings against McDonald's the Appeal Court only reduced Mr Justice Bell's original award of £60,000 pounds damages to McDonald's by £20,000.
The McLibel defendants refused to pay a penny, and in September 2000 launched an action at the European Court of Human Rights against the British Government over its unfair an oppressive libel laws.
Originally posted by amoincubusCan you elaborate? Yes, there are good arguments that too many chemicals are used in the cultivation of foods & that processed foods are unhealthy, but I don't think you can argue that eating fruit every day will cause you as much detrement as eating a mcDonalds every day.
Even the food you get for home is pretty much poisined proccess food so either way you lose.
I personally just lost 11 kilos because I switched my diet from home pizza & premade lasagna to stir fries made from frsh vedge etc. Processed food is just junk food that you heat at home - OK in moderation but harmful in excess.
Originally posted by redlentilsI'm sorry, but much as I dislike McDonald's, this website is garbage set up by friends of the defendants.
there's an excellent website www.mcspotlight.org with related articles of interest. the site was set up in response to the legal action that mcdonalds waged against 2 anarchists in the UK. McDonald's Corporation issued writs against the McLibel 2 on 20th September 1990 alleging they had been libelled in the London Greenpeace factsheet: "What's Wrong W ...[text shortened]... urt of Human Rights against the British Government over its unfair an oppressive libel laws.
It makes's it appear that McD's were the defendants in the case - they were not. McD's sued the pair for libel and won.
The couple were found guilty of making libellous statements.
The things pointed out here that the judge 'ruled' was that the couple produceda leaflet listing lots of things McD's did. And that out of that list, some of the things were true. But that website makes it appear like a great legal victory for them when in fact they lost!
Then they hold up the fact that McD's did not pursue the 20,000 pounds damages as admission of guilt. But the fact is, this legal case had generated a huge amount of bad publicity for McD's, and that maliciously chasing the 20,000 would have made them look mean, spiteful and petty, and kept their name in a bad light for much longer while the case was being heard.
Originally posted by NightWeaverI can't see a truly international company like McDonalds being part of something like that.
It is scary to think that 2% of mac donalds profits go to Noraid who fund the IRA (Irish Republican Army). being from england this worries me as the IRA carry out terrorism within england and northen ireland
Where did you get this information?
Companies like McDonalds are all about public relations, so they won't be willing parties in organizations that are connected with any unsavoury actions.
Originally posted by redlentilsgreat site, redlentils! and an excellent summary of the events by you as well.
there's an excellent website www.mcspotlight.org with related articles of interest.
"But despite all these damning findings against McDonald's the Appeal Court only reduced Mr Justice Bell's original award of £60,000 pounds damages to McDonald's by £20,000."
interesting how the legal system works according to golden rule: "thems that gots the gold makes the rules"
goliaths can be hard to slay, but the davids may yet show us the way.