

Jamie Oliver Proves McDonald’s Burgers “Unfit for human consumption” - coolsank
http://politicalblindspot.com/hamburger-chef-jamie-oliver-proves-mcdonalds-burgers-unfit-for-human-consumption/

======
Lazare
Misleading title. What Jamie Oliver has done is note that McDonald burgers in
the US are not fit for human consumption until they've been processed.

But he missed a much bigger scoop! The same is true of McDonald's burgers in
every country! In fact, burgers from every chain aren't fit for human
consumption without processing (at a minimum, cooking). Hell, without at least
_some_ processing, the burger would still be walking around going "moo" and
emitting greenhouse gasses.

So the issue isn't "you can't eat it until it's been processed"; that's a
given. The question is "what processing is okay", and in particular, "is using
ammonium hydroxide safe". And according to the FDA, the UN, the WHO, and most
EU countries, it is:
[http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Quest...](http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Questions_and_Answers_about_Ammonium_Hydroxide_Use_in_food_production)

And that seems to pretty much cover it. "The food industry uses ammonium
hydroxide as an anti-microbial agent in meats, which has allowed McDonald’s to
use otherwise “inedible meat.”" True, but they also use _cooking_ , which also
allows the consumption of otherwise "inedible meat". Is cooking safe? Science
says yes. Is ammonium hydroxide safe? Science, again, says yes.

Edit: Also, if we're going to go off of "it sounds scary, it must be bad", all
burgers contains sodium chloride, and chlorine is a very toxic, dangerous gas!
It will kill you if you breathe it! That's the real scandal! The truth is out
there! Fight Big Chlorine!

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
> In fact, burgers from every chain aren't fit for human consumption without
> processing (at a minimum, cooking)

Freshly butchered beef is safe to eat raw so long as the butcher used basic
hygiene. People have been eating raw meat for ages. Look at any of the
cuisines from Europe through the Levant. They all have traditional raw meat
dishes with histories as old as agriculture. In general it's quite tasty, much
the same was sushi is. Raw lamb however, I would say is a taste I've not
acquired.

Anyhow, even if McD's patties are perfectly safe, there is still a point to be
made about what we're trading away with factory processing vs more traditional
labor intensive methods.

~~~
ErikHuisman
Nobody wants a quick €26.95,- burger for lunch.. McD burgers aren't high end
because consumers don't expect high end going to a fast food joint.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
So this is something else I think has gone very wrong in the US. Good food
doesn't have to be an expensive luxury. Tartar doesn't have to be high end. In
fact, it's best as a quick cold lunch on hot summer days. It's just beef and
onion with minimal prep. It should be cheap.

------
corin_
> _On the official website of McDonald’s, the company claims that their meat
> is cheap because, while serving many people every day, they are able to buy
> from their suppliers at a lower price, and offer the best quality products.
> But if “pink slime” was really the “best quality” that McDonalds can muster
> in the US, then why were they able do better in Latin America and Europe?
> More to the point, why can they apparently do better now in the United
> States?_

Is the author genuinely confused, or even under the impression that _anyone_
might be confused, by that statement from McDonalds, into thinking that the
meat they use is the absolutely very best meat possibly available? That when
you're paying $1 for a burger, you probably aren't getting quite the same
quality as when you buy a nice fillet in a good restaurant, and that "best
quality" was not only standard marketing hyperbole, but also was a reference
within the context of their goal of being better than their rivals?

~~~
DanBC
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](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...](https://www.gov.uk/food-standards-labelling-durability-and-
composition#meat-products))

~~~
corin_
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?

~~~
DanBC
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".

~~~
ars
> I think taste is not relevant to quality.

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).

~~~
DanBC
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.

~~~
ars
> 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?

------
digitalengineer
> 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.

~~~
ars
> 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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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
> 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
> _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._

I'm pragmatic. I don't care about having a perfect definition. I'm not writing
a dictionary entry -- and some things are inherently fussy anyway.

People know what I'm talking about: any kind of stuff added to food that
doesn't belong to it in the first place (the way flour and salt belong in
bread and beef belongs in meatballs).

Stuff that serves no nutritional value, and is only used to: give them more
enticing color, preserve them for longer periods, have them be able to survive
frozen, enable lower quality or throw-away animal parts reused, make them more
addictive to consumers, make them cheaper, etc.

 _> Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit......_

In some kind of hell, maybe. In the real world there do exist people that take
pride in their work, and who wouldn't fuck with the food they serve to
"maximize profit", even if it means they wont get as much money as they could.

You know, the kind of people that refuse to let their famous restaurant turn
into a nation-wide chain, despite the offers, cooks that insist on using the
most fresh ingredients, etc.

~~~
Lazare
> Stuff that serves no nutritional value, and is only used to: give them more
> enticing color, preserve them for longer periods, have them be able to
> survive frozen, enable lower quality or throw-away animal parts reused, make
> them more addictive to consumers, make them cheaper, etc.

So...no salt, pretty much no sugar, no smoked meats or cheeses, no cured bacon
or smallgoods, no pickles, no jams, jellies, or preserves, no applesauce?
After all, those techniques are purely used to "preserve [the food] for longer
periods prior to the advent of cheap, universal refrigeration. (And
historically, there _were_ no "throw-away" animal parts; we ate everything
including the brain, eyes, and lungs. So I'm not really sure what point that's
meant to make.)

Your "pragmatic definition" of food additives seems to be "stuff that seems
weird to coldtea". That may be pragmatic, but it's not useful.

------
digitalengineer
Reminds me of the Ammonia the tobacco industry started adding to cigarettes.
Not to kill germs but to increase the amount of nicotine contained in the
vapor smokers inhale. That cost them quite a lot of money (after 30 years).
I'd say obesity is becoming just as dangerous as smoking...
[http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/minnesota.tobacco/](http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/minnesota.tobacco/)

------
jamesaguilar
Misleading title. The pre-treatment meat was unfit for human consumption.

~~~
coldtea
And washing it with dangerous chemicals make it "fit"?

~~~
jamesaguilar
Ammonium hydroxide is not a dangerous chemical. It is generally regarded as
safe by the FDA (that's the FDA's lowest level of regulation, along with
chemicals like sodium chloride and dihydrogen oxide).

~~~
coldtea
How much of what FDA approves is due to lobbying and lowering of standards?

Of the kind that no FDA guy would like to feed his children with those if he
had an alternative?

~~~
jamesaguilar
Don't know. You could ask this question about any chemical. That doesn't make
it actually dangerous.

------
brg
For any ChemE out there, is ammonium hydroxide a stable chemical compound? Or
does it revert quickly to an inert form in the presence of air, water, and
light?

The question arises from analogy with chlorine. To remove chlorine from tap
water, all that is needed is to let a glass sit on the counter for a while.

------
croisillon
Strange source, somehow? Anyway there is no time mention but it looks like
McDonald's solved the issue at least two years ago?

------
sambeau
My knowledge of modern chemistry (and chemical manufacture) is a little
sketchy but, at a crude level, isn't this just taking unfit meat, soaking it
in piss and then passing it off as safe?

~~~
kintamanimatt
No.

~~~
sambeau
Why?

Until recently Ammonia was extracted from Urine and rotten vegetables was it
not?

~~~
kintamanimatt
Urine contains a lot of things, urea being one. Urea can be broken down into
ammonia, but ammonia isn't ammonium hydroxide any more than sodium chloride is
chlorine. They're not washing the meat with piss by any measure.

