McDonald’s Salads Are Making People Sick

[phands]

The salads are just more fast-acting than the rest of their swill...

A fecal parasite found in McDonald’s salads has made at least 163 sick, and three are hospitalized.

Finally, McNuggets are the healthy option.​

​

A food and waterborne parasite known as cyclospora cayetanensis has turned up in McDonald’s salads across nine states, sickening 163 people and hospitalizing three. No deaths have been reported.​

​

Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigators traced the illnesses to salads sold at the fast food chain’s outposts in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.​

​

McDonald’s ceased selling salads in eateries in those states and in five others that had been getting lettuce blends from the same distributor, “out of an abundance of caution” earlier this month, the chain said. The move affects a total of about 3,000 restaurants.
​

What are the odds on lawsuits over this?

 

[Shake]

So glad I just got a Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese last time I went.

 

[bilby]

This is why it is far better to use fertiliser that comes from a chemical plant than it is to grow food 'Organically'.

"Food grown in shit" is not as good a marketing slogan as "100% Natural and Organic"; But the two are synonymous.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is why it is far better to use fertiliser that comes from a chemical plant than it is to grow food 'Organically'.

"Food grown in shit" is not as good a marketing slogan as "100% Natural and Organic"; But the two are synonymous.

Not hardly.

A fecal parasite that breeds in shit is bad. But that does not mean that organic is bad because organic does not mean grown in shit.

Using crop residue and biomass to fertilize is not the same as grown in shit.

I know a chap at work who will not eat pears from his tree because the tree is not "sprayed."

 

[fast]

This is why it is far better to use fertiliser that comes from a chemical plant than it is to grow food 'Organically'.

"Food grown in shit" is not as good a marketing slogan as "100% Natural and Organic"; But the two are synonymous.

Not hardly.

A fecal parasite that breeds in shit is bad. But that does not mean that organic is bad because organic does not mean grown in shit.

Using crop residue and biomass to fertilize is not the same as grown in shit.

I know a chap at work who will not eat pears from his tree because the tree is not "sprayed."

Correct.

However.

Can't you imagine someone growing something in shit and then saying it's 100% organic and natural? That wouldn't be incorrect, so now we need to be cognizant of the fact that when someone advertises 100% organic and natural, although it doesn't necessarily include the possibility that it's grown in shit, it does exclude it either.

So now, I have to wonder.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is why it is far better to use fertiliser that comes from a chemical plant than it is to grow food 'Organically'.

"Food grown in shit" is not as good a marketing slogan as "100% Natural and Organic"; But the two are synonymous.

Not hardly.

A fecal parasite that breeds in shit is bad. But that does not mean that organic is bad because organic does not mean grown in shit.

Using crop residue and biomass to fertilize is not the same as grown in shit.

I know a chap at work who will not eat pears from his tree because the tree is not "sprayed."

Correct.

However.

Can't you imagine someone growing something in shit and then saying it's 100% organic and natural? That wouldn't be incorrect, so now we need to be cognizant of the fact that when someone advertises 100% organic and natural, although it doesn't necessarily include the possibility that it's grown in shit, it does exclude it either.

So now, I have to wonder.

Think about it for a second, what is not natural? Organic is it's own minefield. Anyone who obtains organic certification knows that. I use a lot of grass clippings on my yard. My definition of organic grass clippings is coming from yards that are not treated with pesticides and broad leaf herbicides. But I really don't know what else may have happened to that lawn. All I know is that it's better than sprinkling herbicides and pre-emergents and synthetic soda-enriching, soil-tilth-destroying chemicals all over everything. And it works! My garden and orchard thrives sustainably, with minimal irrigation and zero synthetics. All I use is emulsified fish.

Ebola is organic, but certainly not healthy.

 

[bilby]

This is why it is far better to use fertiliser that comes from a chemical plant than it is to grow food 'Organically'.

"Food grown in shit" is not as good a marketing slogan as "100% Natural and Organic"; But the two are synonymous.

Not hardly.

A fecal parasite that breeds in shit is bad. But that does not mean that organic is bad because organic does not mean grown in shit.

Using crop residue and biomass to fertilize is not the same as grown in shit.

I know a chap at work who will not eat pears from his tree because the tree is not "sprayed."

Organic doesn't necessarily mean 'grown in shit'. But it can, and often does.

My point is to parody and mock those who think that 'organic' is something more than a marketing scam by which cheaper, lower quality, produce can be sold at a hugely inflated price.

Whatever else it means, safer, healthier, and more nutritious do NOT belong on the list.

 

[bilby]

Correct.

However.

Can't you imagine someone growing something in shit and then saying it's 100% organic and natural? That wouldn't be incorrect, so now we need to be cognizant of the fact that when someone advertises 100% organic and natural, although it doesn't necessarily include the possibility that it's grown in shit, it does exclude it either.

So now, I have to wonder.

Think about it for a second, what is not natural? Organic is it's own minefield. Anyone who obtains organic certification knows that. I use a lot of grass clippings on my yard. My definition of organic grass clippings is coming from yards that are not treated with pesticides and broad leaf herbicides. But I really don't know what else may have happened to that lawn. All I know is that it's better than sprinkling herbicides and pre-emergents and synthetic soda-enriching, soil-tilth-destroying chemicals all over everything. And it works! My garden and orchard thrives sustainably, with minimal irrigation and zero synthetics. All I use is emulsified fish.

Ebola is organic, but certainly not healthy.

Organic certification does NOT mean that something is grown without pesticides.

Organic pesticides, it is asserted, work with nature and are environmentally unstable, unlike synthetic pesticides. About 60% of natural and synthetic chemicals are known rodent carcinogens, and around 20 different chemicals are used to maintain the safety of processed organic food.
Approved pesticides for organic farmers include
● copper sulphate, which has caused liver damage in vineyard workers, kills worms and is persistent in soil and produce (to be banned by the European Commission after 2002)
● rotenone, recently shown to induce Parkinson’s disease
● Bacillus thuringiensis spores, causing fatal lung infections in mice.
Organic pesticides may be used more sparingly, yet more frequent treatments of crops with copper sulphate than good conventional practice have been reported on organic farms. Natural pyrethroids have to be used at much higher doses than some of the prohibited, equally unstable and much more effective synthetic pyrethroids, such as bioresmethrin.

http://web.uvic.ca/~njl/pplecpdf/trewavas_organic_farming.pdf


'Organic' is a very successful marketing scam, and nothing else.

It's just as reasonable to reverse the spin and say 'grown in shit'; But while you were immediately able to spot the flaws in that case, for some reason you are unable to being yourself to similarly dismiss 'organic', even though you appear aware that it's not telling you useful things about the growing conditions of the stuff you buy.

No wonder humans are so frequently misled by propagandists and advertisers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Organic certification does NOT mean that something is grown without pesticides.

Organic pesticides, it is asserted, work with nature and are environmentally unstable, unlike synthetic pesticides. About 60% of natural and synthetic chemicals are known rodent carcinogens, and around 20 different chemicals are used to maintain the safety of processed organic food.
Approved pesticides for organic farmers include
● copper sulphate, which has caused liver damage in vineyard workers, kills worms and is persistent in soil and produce (to be banned by the European Commission after 2002)
● rotenone, recently shown to induce Parkinson’s disease
● Bacillus thuringiensis spores, causing fatal lung infections in mice.
Organic pesticides may be used more sparingly, yet more frequent treatments of crops with copper sulphate than good conventional practice have been reported on organic farms. Natural pyrethroids have to be used at much higher doses than some of the prohibited, equally unstable and much more effective synthetic pyrethroids, such as bioresmethrin.

http://web.uvic.ca/~njl/pplecpdf/trewavas_organic_farming.pdf


'Organic' is a very successful marketing scam, and nothing else.

It's just as reasonable to reverse the spin and say 'grown in shit'; But while you were immediately able to spot the flaws in that case, for some reason you are unable to being yourself to similarly dismiss 'organic', even though you appear aware that it's not telling you useful things about the growing conditions of the stuff you buy.

No wonder humans are so frequently misled by propagandists and advertisers.

Well, it sounds like a case of pot, kettle maybe...

Perhaps you are mistaken as what you perceive organic to mean. It doesn't mean untreated and left to its own devices.

 

[bilby]

Organic certification does NOT mean that something is grown without pesticides.

Organic pesticides, it is asserted, work with nature and are environmentally unstable, unlike synthetic pesticides. About 60% of natural and synthetic chemicals are known rodent carcinogens, and around 20 different chemicals are used to maintain the safety of processed organic food.
Approved pesticides for organic farmers include
● copper sulphate, which has caused liver damage in vineyard workers, kills worms and is persistent in soil and produce (to be banned by the European Commission after 2002)
● rotenone, recently shown to induce Parkinson’s disease
● Bacillus thuringiensis spores, causing fatal lung infections in mice.
Organic pesticides may be used more sparingly, yet more frequent treatments of crops with copper sulphate than good conventional practice have been reported on organic farms. Natural pyrethroids have to be used at much higher doses than some of the prohibited, equally unstable and much more effective synthetic pyrethroids, such as bioresmethrin.

http://web.uvic.ca/~njl/pplecpdf/trewavas_organic_farming.pdf


'Organic' is a very successful marketing scam, and nothing else.

It's just as reasonable to reverse the spin and say 'grown in shit'; But while you were immediately able to spot the flaws in that case, for some reason you are unable to being yourself to similarly dismiss 'organic', even though you appear aware that it's not telling you useful things about the growing conditions of the stuff you buy.

No wonder humans are so frequently misled by propagandists and advertisers.

Well, it sounds like a case of pot, kettle maybe...

Perhaps you are mistaken as what you perceive organic to mean. It doesn't mean untreated and left to its own devices.

I am very aware of what Organic means. And I know very well that it doesn't mean untreated and left to its own devices, although if it did, that might not be quite such a bad thing.

Organic is a marketing scam that relies on the appeal to nature fallacy being widespread and uncorrected, amongst wealthy fools who don't object to the idea of taking land that could feed hundreds and using it to feed dozens (with lower quality produce sold at higher prices).

It's a very popular scam; and it's true believers can get very upset if you criticize them for going along with it, as do the people perpetrating the scam, some of whom are also true believers, and most of whom find it very lucrative indeeed. In that regard, it is little different from so many other scams, cults and superstitions.

 

[DBT]

Not surprised, I have never even imagined that McDonald's sells actual food.

 

[BH]

I had two pear trees in my backyard home growing up and we never sprayed them. We would wash them and peel them and never got sick from the pears. If you ate too many they would make you go to th restroom a lot though but that was due to the pears themselves not bugs in them.

 

[bilby]

I had two pear trees in my backyard home growing up and we never sprayed them. We would wash them and peel them and never got sick from the pears. If you ate too many they would make you go to th restroom a lot though but that was due to the pears themselves not bugs in them.

There's no need to spray produce, unless it is infested or otherwise under attack.

If you are a commercial grower, it's almost certain that it will be - a large crop is a hugely attractive target for all kinds of pests.

If your are a commercial Organic grower, you still need pesticides to avoid economic ruin - and they use them. The ones they use are 'natural' - which tells us exactly nothing about whether they are more or less harmful to consumers or the environment than the 'artificial' ones used by non-Organic producers.

If you have a tree in your back yard, and some (or even all) of the fruit are attacked by pests, you just don't eat those damaged fruit. It's no big deal. If the tree sometimes produces fewer fruit, or none, because it wasn't fertilized or because pests attacked the blossom, that's OK - Better luck next year. But if it's your livelihood at stake, because you are a commercial grower, you need to care, and you need to act.

 

[fast]

While I can appreciate the possibility that non-artificial substances might sometimes be harmful and the possibility that not using artificial substances might sometimes prevent a helping hand, the all natural idea does seem alluring when it excludes the harmful consequences associated with artificially used substances.

 

[bilby]

While I can appreciate the possibility that non-artificial substances might sometimes be harmful and the possibility that not using artificial substances might sometimes prevent a helping hand, the all natural idea does seem alluring when it excludes the harmful consequences associated with artificially used substances.

Sure. But 'alluring' is all it's got. It's completely baseless nonsense - and is even recognized as a logical fallacy.

 

[fast]

While I can appreciate the possibility that non-artificial substances might sometimes be harmful and the possibility that not using artificial substances might sometimes prevent a helping hand, the all natural idea does seem alluring when it excludes the harmful consequences associated with artificially used substances.

Sure. But 'alluring' is all it's got. It's completely baseless nonsense - and is even recognized as a logical fallacy.

Isn't there risk reduction?

1) organic food with no artificial substances used anytime during entire planting, growing and harvesting process

2) food (though organic in that it's derived from a living thing) but not labeled as purely organic since artificial substances are used at some point in the process.

There are four possibilities (each of those 2 listed with both having potential benefits and potential harmful effects.

A) organic with nothing artificial (with potential benefits)
B) organic with nothing artificial (with potential hazzards)
C) not purely organic (with potential benefits)
D) not purely organic (with potential hazzards)

What's alluring is that eating organic excludes D completely. An entire set of associated risks are eliminated. Granted, that doesn't tell us crap about which is better, but what I'm saying isn't an appeal to the fallacy. You can't go the other way and avoiding purely organic as it doesn't exclude any hazzards associated with organic or artificial substances.

 

[bilby]

While I can appreciate the possibility that non-artificial substances might sometimes be harmful and the possibility that not using artificial substances might sometimes prevent a helping hand, the all natural idea does seem alluring when it excludes the harmful consequences associated with artificially used substances.

Sure. But 'alluring' is all it's got. It's completely baseless nonsense - and is even recognized as a logical fallacy.

Isn't there risk reduction?

1) organic food with no artificial substances used anytime during entire planting, growing and harvesting process

2) food (though organic in that it's derived from a living thing) but not labeled as purely organic since artificial substances are used at some point in the process.

There are four possibilities (each of those 2 listed with both having potential benefits and potential harmful effects.

A) organic with nothing artificial (with potential benefits)
B) organic with nothing artificial (with potential hazzards)
C) not purely organic (with potential benefits)
D) not purely organic (with potential hazzards)

What's alluring is that eating organic excludes D completely. An entire set of associated risks are eliminated. Granted, that doesn't tell us crap about which is better, but what I'm saying isn't an appeal to the fallacy. You can't go the other way and avoiding purely organic as it doesn't exclude any hazzards associated with organic or artificial substances.

Sure; But that's only true if the hazards in B are not substantially greater than those in D. The fact is that (largely because the appeal to nature is such a popular fallacy), the permitted hazards in D are far smaller and more closely guarded against than those in B. And many of the hazards in B are worse than those in D - for example, if your crop is at risk of low yield due to nitrogen depletion in the soil, you could fertilize it using nitrates made in a chemical plant (not organic, not potentially hazardous to consumer health); OR using dung produced in animal digestive tracts, with the associated risk of bacterial and/or viral contamination. E-Coli and Salmonella infections due to eating vegetables contaminated by 'natural' fertilizers are becoming increasingly common.

Eliminating D at the cost of more exposure to B is, in reality, an increase in total risk. The allure of the appeal to nature fallacy is making you LESS safe.

 

[blastula]

I don't care, they have $1 sodas now. Any size!

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't care, they have $1 sodas now. Any size!

I like their southwest salad, but they're pretty pricey.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is why it is far better to use fertiliser that comes from a chemical plant than it is to grow food 'Organically'.

"Food grown in shit" is not as good a marketing slogan as "100% Natural and Organic"; But the two are synonymous.

Not hardly.

A fecal parasite that breeds in shit is bad. But that does not mean that organic is bad because organic does not mean grown in shit.

Using crop residue and biomass to fertilize is not the same as grown in shit.

I know a chap at work who will not eat pears from his tree because the tree is not "sprayed."

Organic doesn't necessarily mean 'grown in shit'. But it can, and often does.

My point is to parody and mock those who think that 'organic' is something more than a marketing scam by which cheaper, lower quality, produce can be sold at a hugely inflated price.

Whatever else it means, safer, healthier, and more nutritious do NOT belong on the list.

In America, we waste so much food (it doesn't even make it to market) because it just doesn't "look right".