McDonald’s

Subway Surpasses McDonald’s

by Kathryn Ciano on March 10, 2011

in Economy

It’s a new era in fast food. Last decade everyone was asking which food was the healthiest. Now growth is global, and it all comes down to dominance. The bigger they are, the bigger they’ll get.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Subway has trumped McDonald’s in the US and abroad, though McDo continues to rule in sales dollars:

At the end of last year, Subway had 33,749 restaurants worldwide, compared to McDonald’s 32,737. The burger giant disclosed its year-end store count in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing late last month.

–

Subway has achieved its rapid growth, in part, by opening outlets in non-traditional locations such as an automobile showroom in California, an appliance store in Brazil, a ferry terminal in Seattle, a riverboat in Germany, a zoo in Taiwan, a Goodwill store in South Carolina, a high school in Detroit and a church in Buffalo, New York.

“We’re continually looking at just about any opportunity for someone to buy a sandwich, wherever that might be. The closer we can get to the customer, the better,” Mr. Fertman says, explaining that it now has almost 8,000 Subways in unusual locations. “The non-traditional is becoming traditional.”

[click to continue…]

Nanny-Statist CSPI Sues to Ban Happy Meals at McDonald’s

by Hans Bader on December 17, 2010 · 9 comments

in Health and Illness, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Sanctimony

An ill-informed left-wing group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is suing McDonald’s in California to ban toys from Happy Meals. It is bringing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of “an activist employed by the California government to advocate the ingestion of vegetables, though some pains seem to have been taken to obscure this connection,” abetted by the gullible liberal media, which continue to depict her as just a “random” California mom.

San Francisco earlier banned Happy Meals, even though the meals in San Francisco’s own public schools are less healthy than at McDonald’s.

Why is the plaintiff in the suit against McDonald’s suing? She claims that “[b]ecause of McDonald’s marketing, her daughter has frequently pestered her into purchasing Happy Meals, thereby spending money on a product she would not otherwise have purchased,” and that “when she said no, her kids became disagreeable” and “pouted.”  If that’s a basis for suing, then, as Walter Olson notes, “McDonald’s isn’t the only company that should worry. Other kids pout because parents won’t get them 800-piece Lego sets, Madame Alexander dolls and Disney World vacations. Are those companies going to be liable too?”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is the left-wing group that has ignorantly disparaged “normal food items such as baked potatoes, hamburgers, pizza, pork chops, and bacon as unhealthy. Never mind that a baked potato has only 100 calories, gives you 30 percent of your day’s supply of vitamin C (more than a banana), some protein, and many important minerals.”

People claim that McDonald’s makes poor people fat by selling them cheap greasy food, but its customers aren’t that poor (even so-called “poor” people in America have significant disposable income, which is why they often pay $3.69 for a Big Mac, when they could easily buy a McDonald’s double-cheeseburger that’s almost as big and has as much meat for a mere $1.19, even in “poor” places like the inner city).  And its food isn’t particularly fatty: a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder is a lot leaner and healthier than many dishes people cook at home like Quiche Lorraine.  I am not poor, and I periodically feed my 3-year old daughter cheeseburgers or double-cheeseburgers without being nagged to do so (although she certainly enjoys them).

New fast food restaurants were recently banned in South Los Angeles, based on a kooky “food apartheid” claim by the Los Angeles City Council.  Never mind that baked goods are a bigger source of calories for kids than fast-food items like pizza, and that some people lose weight eating at McDonald’s, like me, Soso Whaley, and a Richmond man who lost 86 pounds.  A court recently blocked a class-action lawsuit against McDonald’s over obesity.

While liberal busybodies are suing McDonald’s, they are using federal funds to subsidize the opening of an International House of Pancakes in Washington, D.C., and the development of high-calorie foods to benefit agribusinesses.

New Fast Food Restaurants Banned in South Los Angeles

by Hans Bader on December 10, 2010 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, Health and Illness, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Property Rights, Regulation

New fast-food restaurants are now banned in South Los Angeles.  Say goodbye to many entry-level jobs in that poor urban area. The cockamamie idea behind this ban is that since minorities are disproportionately obese, and since they disproportionately patronize fast-food restaurants, such restaurants are thus guilty of  “food apartheid.”  (Never mind that many fast-food entrees are not particularly fatty, that baked goods are a bigger source of calories for kids than fast-food items like pizza, and that it is possible to lose weight while regularly eating at McDonald’s, as various people have, including me, Soso Whaley, and a Richmond man who lost 86 pounds.)

On the other hand, a federal judge recently refused to certify a class-action lawsuit against McDonald’s over claims it made people obese.

While liberal busybodies are attacking McDonald’s and other fast-food chains, they are simultaneously using federal tax dollars to subsidize the opening of an International House of Pancakes in Washington, D.C., and the Agriculture Department is subsidizing the development of even higher-calorie entrees at a major restaurant chain.

Court Rejects Obesity Class-Action Against McDonald’s

by Hans Bader on December 9, 2010

in Health and Illness, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

A New York court has refused to certify a class-action lawsuit against McDonald’s by people claiming it made them obese. As Ted Frank notes, the whole case should have been dismissed as baseless long ago, without even getting to the issue of class-certification. Earlier, a Brazilian judge ordered McDonald’s to pay a fat employee $17,500, in a truly moronic ruling. Never mind that eating at McDonald’s doesn’t make skinny people fat (I lost 10 pounts while working at McDonald’s).

The Obama administration is now barring poor mothers from using taxpayer (WIC) money to buy white potatoes, even though baked potatoes are more nutritious than apples or bananas. But they can still use the money to buy all kinds of things with little nutrition.  Meanwhile, the Obama administration used $766,000 of your tax money to subsidize the opening of an International House of Pancakes (IHOP) in Washington, D.C., even though IHOP food is no healthier than McDonald’s. The money was a discretionary grant from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Another branch of HHS foolishly encouraged mothers to stock their refrigerators with apple sauce (which has no nutritional value at all unless vitamin C is added to it, since an apple’s natural vitamin C is lost when it is processed into apple sauce).

The New York Times earlier reported that the Agriculture Department is subsidizing the development of fatty foods to benefit large restaurant chains.

Liberal municipal officials want to ban the opening of new McDonald’s restaurants under the theory that they are racist for making minorities fat, and that McDonald’s is guilty of “food apartheid.” (Yet when fast-food restaurants refuse to deliver to poor sections of town, liberal trial lawyers claim that that, too, is racist. No matter what they do, fast-food restaurants get accused of racism.)

Regulation of the Day 156: Happy Meals

by Ryan Young on November 4, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

With an 8-3 vote, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors banned the greatest menace facing it or any other city: Happy Meals.

Restaurants are no longer allowed to include a free toy with kid’s meals. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first,” said the bill’s sponsor, Eric Mar. He was named Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for his troubles.

I’m guessing restaurants’ first thoughts about the ban are not printable on this blog.

There is a loophole, though. If a kid’s meal is under 600 calories, includes sufficient amounts of fruit and vegetables, and does not include a sugary drink, then restaurants may include a toy.

Children’s reactions are said to be less than positive. Hearing “no” now and again is an important part of not growing up spoiled; though parents are the ones who should be saying it. But who needs parents when the nanny state is here?

Ignorant Food Snobbery: Judge Orders McDonald’s to Pay Obese Employee $17,500

by Hans Bader on October 29, 2010

in Health and Illness, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

From The New York Times:

A Brazilian court ruled this week that McDonald’s must pay a former franchise manager $17,500 because he gained 65 pounds (30 kilograms) while working there for a dozen years.  The 32-year-old man said he felt forced to sample the food each day to ensure quality standards remained high . . .The man also said the company offered free lunches to employees, adding to his caloric intake while on the job.

This is sheer idiocy. McDonald’s does not make people fat. I lost 10 pounds while working at McDonalds for a summer. McDonald’s food is not any fattier than the food served by many other restaurants. The foie gras served in fancy restaurants is much fattier than hamburgers.  Quiche Lorraine is also fattier than a hamburger.  Food snobs may not like proletarian food like hamburgers, but then, I am indifferent to foie gras, which tastes a lot like canned dog food to me. Should I be able to keep food snobs from eating foie gras, just because it’s very fatty? (Ironically enough, my wife is French, so I’ve been exposed to foie gras a lot.)

There is now a big movement afoot to tax fast food in the pursuit of mythical public health benefits. The government is also moving to restrict the salt content of food, which could lead to increased obesity rates, more heart attacks, and “higher death rates among some individuals,” and make it harder to market low-fat foods.

Restricting What People Eat, Based on the Ignorance of Food Snobs

by Hans Bader on October 17, 2010 · 2 comments

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Zeitgeist

There are increasing calls for the government to restrict salty food and fast-food restaurants, and tax fast food, to curb obesity.  This is especially true in the aftermath of the passage of Obamacare, which will shift more health care costs to taxpayers, creating the appearance of a public-health rationale for restricting what people eat.  One city even imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants.

But there is little evidence that fast food causes obesity. Eating a hamburger won’t make you fat — as I noted earlier, hamburgers are healthier and less fatty than other foods not hated by food snobs, like Quiche Lorraine. (I had four quarter-pound cheeseburgers last night, with fries — the usual number when I have hamburgers for dinner – and I am not fat;  although admittedly, the burgers were home-made, and thus made of leaner ground beef than that used in many restaurant burgers.)

Even if people who eat at fast-food restaurants are fatter than the public at large, there is little reason to believe that the fast food made them fat. It is more likely a manifestation of the socioeconomic class of people who comprise most of their customers. Less affluent people tend to be fatter in America than more affluent people, even in areas with fewer fast-food restaurants – and people who eat out frequently may well be fatter than those who don’t, regardless of whether they eat at a fast-food restaurant or a more upscale restaurant.

And many people who eat at fast-food restaurants are not fat at all. For example, when I ate mostly at McDonald’s (because I worked there at the time), I lost 10 pounds over the course of a summer. Since such people are not overweight, taxing the fast food they eat will do nothing to reduce obesity. It simply imposes a regressive tax on people of modest means.

The FDA is now seeking to cut the amount of salt on our food, even though prevailing salt levels do no harm to most people, and cutting salt consumption will actually harm some people. Ironically, if salt levels are curbed, people will compensate by eating fattier food. There seems to be a trade-off between salt and fat. Low-fat foods sometimes contain added salt to make them palatable to dieters. When I lived in Irvine, California, where the shelves of the grocery store seemed full of low-fat foods, I checked the sodium levels. I found that the sodium levels of low-fat foods were slightly higher than the regular or full-fat versions. If the high sodium levels of such low-fat foods are forced down by FDA regulations, people may react by returning to consumption of the fattier foods, resulting in rising obesity levels. The government’s anti-salt crusade may thus result in its anti-fat crusade backfiring.

McDonald’s 6-Month-Old Burger is a Triumph, Not a Terror

by Michelle Minton on October 13, 2010 · 5 comments

in Health and Illness, Nanny State, Regulation

To prove a friend wrong, New York artist Sally Davies left a happy out on her counter for six months. Yesterday, several media outlets reporting on the shocking results: the burger and fries showed very few signs of decomposition.

The tone of the articles as well as the response to the Happy Meal Art Project have ranged from shock and amusement to horror.

A Triumph of Food Technology

While it may seem “unnatural,” food preservation is responsible for a substantial increase in the quality of life for human beings. Salting meats, dehydration, and canning have significantly contributed to the increase in the quality of food and the prevention of disease. That Sally’s burger and fries show no signs of mold or rot indicates that they resisted spores for the entire six months. That is an amazing achievement! A human being could presumably consume that meal, absorb the calories, turn the calories into energy, all without becoming ill. Most likely, the salt in the foods has caused it to be resistant to mold spores and bacterial growth. Though it isn’t certain that the food is free of bacteria, it is more likely that the six-month-old dehydrated burger has less bacterial growth than a week old tomato.

What happens when we consume foods with bacteria growing in them? A few infectious diseases are caused by such bacterial growth, such as cholera, anthrax, respiratory infection, and tuberculosis.

The horrified response to this artist’s experiment is misguided and potentially dangerous. As the food police begin to forcibly limit the use of salt in food processing, our foods are becoming more and more susceptible to bacteria. As people become more and more resistant to antibiotics used in treating the aforementioned diseases, preventing infection will become an essential step to saving lives.

Those believing that food preserved too well is a horrible thing ought to think back to a time when winter food options were limited and disease was far more prevalent.

Preservation of food is the preservation of life.

Image via Sally Davies Flickr stream

Afternoon Links: October 7, 2010

by Nicole Ciandella on October 7, 2010

in Zeitgeist

1. New York wants to forbid residents from purchasing sugary drinks with food stamps.

2. Bedbugs are back in America with a vengeance. (Where’s DDT when you need it?)

3. A proposed San Francisco city ordinance would ban toys in McDonald’s happy meals unless the meals are under a certain calorie count and include fruits and vegetables.

4. There really is a market for everything: if you’re lonely, you can easily rent a friend for the day.

5. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is in hot water for casting out-of-state actors to play “ordinary” West Virginians in an ad attacking West Virgina Gov. Joe Manchin (D). The casting call specifically asked for actors with a “hicky” look.

If You Like Your Health Plan, You May Lose It Anyway

by Hans Bader on October 5, 2010

in Economy, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Zeitgeist

Another major employer, 3M, has decided to “eventually stop offering its health insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.”

As Reason‘s Peter Suderman notes, “despite the Obama administration’s repeated promises to the contrary, many people and employers will not, in fact, be able to stick with their current health care plans and arrangements. The White House had to sell the public — a large majority of whom were actually pretty happy with their existing health insurance — on the virtues of their plan while promising that it wouldn’t upset existing arrangements that people liked. That was obvious nonsense before the law passed.”

Principal Financial, “which provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer,” announced on September 30 that it planned to stop selling health insurance.

Earlier, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare terminated the Medicare Advantage healthcare plan of 22,000 people as a result of Obamacare. Insurers stopped writing child-only health insurance policies.  McDonald’s disclosed that it may dump employee health coverage for many employees thanks to the new healthcare law. Even if you keep your plan, your employer may end up paying a lot more for it (perhaps resulting in you getting pay cut so that your employer can pay for the increased costs of your health care plan).  As noted earlier, regulators in some states have approved increases in premiums because of how Obamacare increases costs.  Major employers like AT&T and Caterpillar have reported cost increases due to Obamacare.

← Previous Entries