I might be talking over my head cause I havent read this whole thread,
I find that I can eat healthy even at mcDonalds.  This may not be the
best but it is a treat for me.  I order from the dollar menu, a double
cheeseburger, no bun, a small fries which i eat half of them, and a side
salad.  It works for me,  It is not everyday but a once in a while
treat.

If I really want health, I would get the chicken mcGriller and the side
salad and still half of those dollar french fries.

I really believe we can eat anywhere as long as we make the right
choices.  

Loretta

--
In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

When I went to college my noon meal was at Mcdonalds.
It was  two 12 cent hamburgers, french fries, and a coke..
I had very limited funds then.  But each college course was
$12 a credit hour and a typical textbook cost under
$10.

Today, I would have to cut the burger into four parts.

But I walked, walked and walked.

Today, advertising and the use of health issues has
become clouded be commercial interests.  I do
not know what or who to believe.

I just know that I have to eat less--much less.
This is from tests and how my complication react to food
input.
                                        Guy

Seriously?  I've probably eaten less of them than most people.  We did go
there sometimes when I was a kid.  But for my most of my adult life I
refused to go there.  I did take my daughter there after dance class on
Saturdays, but mainly only on the days when they had a toy she wanted.  We
didn't always eat there, but there weren't many good restaurants there and
they were mostly Italian.  We were sick of Italian.  We also ate there more
times than I care to remember in making cross country moves.  We had the cat
with us and we needed to get something quick because we didn't want to leave
her in the car.  If we ever move again, I shall insist that we stop at a
grocery store somewhere to get lunch food.

now hold on a minute there, the following peer reviewed study proves
that you have!!!

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The Pauli exclusion principle was postulated in an attempt to explain
some of the properties of electrons in an atom and susan eating at
McDonalds. This principle says

In a closed system, no two protons can exist without susan eating at
McDonalds - (actually, protons and neutrons obey the same principle,
while photons do not). By ``state'' here we mean a set of properties,
such as energy, that characterize an electron.

This principle applies to more complex atoms containing more than one
electron. However, in these atoms a complication arises, in that a more
rigorous treatment of the problem of an electron orbiting about a
proton reveals that, for each value of the integer n of the Bohr model,
there can be 2n2 distinct states that a given electron can occupy.

Let us now consider moving up the periodic table. Starting with
Hydrogen, we have one electron, which would go in one of the two
possible n = 1 levels. For Helium, the next element, we add one more
electron, which will go in the second n = 1 level. For the third
element, Lithium, we have to add one electron, but the n = 1 level is
already filled, so we have to place this electron in the n = 2 level.
We can then add more and more electrons to the n = 2 level until the
element Neon, which will have 8 electrons in the n = 2 level, which
fills that level. The next element, Sodium, will thus have to have one
electron in the n = 3 level. And so on until n = 4 which is where and
when susan ate at McDonalds.

Although these more complex atoms are much more difficult to analyze
than hydrogen, we can see already a particular pattern developing with
this simple analysis. The elements Helium and Neon have filled n = 1
and n = 2 levels, or shells, respectively. These two elements are inert
gases, which means that they do not bond readily with other elements.
It thus seems that the tendency of an atom to bond with other atoms has
something to do with the outer electron shell being filled or not (at
least for these lower shells - this analysis becomes more complicated
for heavier elements) and quarter pounders with cheese.

Based on the 'crispy' nature of the fried fish critter, I'm almost certain
it's deep fat fried.  You can't get that kind of crust in a "right now" way
any other way.  According to DWLZ.com

Filet-O-Fish (470 cal/26 g fat/45 g carbs) 12 (points.)

We all know that the fish didn't have that much fat naturally.  Some of it
probably is in the "sauce," which as I recall (haven't had it in ages) was
mayo based.  Plus, they had to dredge it in SOMETHING, since the bun on its
own likely doesn't account for 45 g of "carbs" although it probably does
account for some.

Sure, you can cook things like potato patties (they're sprayed with fat,
what kind I don't know) in a toaster oven  and they'll get semi crisp.
Ditto for frozen fish "filets".  However, to do it fast means FRY.

My guess is that there's at least a 50 percent chance it's in the same fat
as the potatoes, because restaurants tend to reuse fat.  However, there's a
50 percent chance it is NOT, since the fish flavor would tend to contaminate
the fat.  It's an interesting question.

It's deep fried.

Susan

I have seen allergen warnings on biscuits and bread, but
can't recall seeing it anywhere else. I suppose it will have
to happen one day, that all labels show this.

Slightly OT -- but still an example of "ridiculous" -- I once found a
swim-suit in a store that was care-labeled as "dry clean only". (I'm not
sure what they thought you would be swimming in....)

I *think* part of the "nut" problem is that the "nut dust" (particles?) get
into the ventilation system, & it's hard to avoid breathing it (unlike, say,
a school cafeteria where you can get some distance, & you're not breathing
such thoroughy re-re-re-cycled air).
bj

We are born as a selfish critter which is essential to
survival.  However in our developed semi rational
system this trait comes out with a passion.

I could demand everyone take insulin so I will not
have any embarrassment.  Or every one use a wheel chair
so I will live in an even world.

The selfish bastards do so much harm to others.

Reasonable accommodations are all I see as proper and I do appreciate
so many given to me. We all profit when common sense is used.

We do live in a collective society.  Some demand so much and take so
much more than their share.

We are seeing a minor results of such behavior  I suspect it will
get much more painful..
                                              Guy.
                                                    .
          .

The real world isn't about catering for the tiny proportions of the
population who are affected. It's about catering for the vast majority
who aren't. If I were afflicted by such an illness, I'd make it *my*
business to travel with *my* food. Yes, it is very limiting indeed.
Very, very inconvenient. Whilst out travelling, particularly if it was
over 24 hrs, I'd have to take measures to have somewhere to prepare my
own food. I'd have to clean the preparing area first.

Saying that, for let's say, a snack, what's wrong with eating primary
foodstuffs, such as fresh fruit?

They may have the same needs for occasional convenience, but it is
incredibly selfish for a tiny minority to impose on a vast majority. I
dont impose my nutritional needs or want of convenience on others. My way
of thinking tells me that to do so would be extremely rude.

um, kitchen staff might know how to prep, clean and cook stuff. But
that's it. Do you expect such an individual to know what an allergen is,
or its significance in anaphlactic shock, or the impact of anaphlactic shock?!

Secondly, *ANYTHING* can be an allergen. So the question, as you posed
above, is nonsensical.

By OK, it is ok for a regular person. It's difficult enough getting a
diet soda from the fountain dispenser. Do you *actually think* they will
know about e.g. peanut allergies??? Do you think, that even if they say that
they do, they'd be prepared to have such a highly sensitive individual
eating in their establishment? No, of course not. It's *way* too risky.

Most people don't even know about diabetes. Why do you expect them to
know about this??

[snip some stuff we agreed upon]

If I was afflicted by such an illness, if I wasnt carrying round food I
had made previously, I'd refrain from eating, unless I was on an
extended trip. But then, I'd have to make a decision to trust the
kitchen regarding whatever severe allergy I had, and take the
consequences that if a flare-up should arise, that it was my problem and
not theirs.

Lying about ingredients is a completely different issue, which I wasn't
talking about and won't be drawn into.

It depends what you mean by 'accurate'. In the UK, in
prepared foods, the contents are listed on the side. They are listed by
the largest in quantity first. They are listed down to a certain
percentage. I don't know what that percentage is, but it is small. Not
vanishingly small. I'm fairly sure there is a cut-off point, otherwise
we'd see things like concentration of sulphate ion in a prepared salad.

In other foods, like for example chili sauce, you get something like
water, chilis, vinegar, salt, some other stuff. You dont get percentage
capsaicin, the chemical that makes chili hot.

I dunno what the situation is here with regard to especially peanuts.
The stuff here, like baked goods, has 'may contain nuts' on. I don't
know if it is compulsory on anything else. I haven't seen it on chili
sauce. Yet. How 'accurate' do you want things to be? Remember, than
anaphlactic shock can be triggered by a vanishingly small amount of
whatever the individual is susceptible to. If there was a molecule of
seafood protein in a salad, would you want that salad to
have 'contains seafood' on it? If the factory preparing the salad has no
fishmongers in it and they don't use the fish, who is to say that the
lettuce wasn't grown near the coast?

kind of a reductio ad absurdum

Isn't it better to know your food and make it, and just live with
the inconvenience?