Mickey D’s gets a well-deserved blast with both barrels
Mark Bittman writes in the NY Times:
There’s a feeling of inevitability in writing about McDonald’s latest offering, their “bowl full of wholesome” — also known as oatmeal. The leading fast-food multinational, with sales over $16.5 billion a year (just under the GDP of Afghanistan), represents a great deal of what is wrong with American food today. From a marketing perspective, they can do almost nothing wrong; from a nutritional perspective, they can do almost nothing right, as the oatmeal fiasco demonstrates.
One “positive” often raised about McDonald’s is that it sells calories cheap. But since many of these calories are in forms detrimental rather than beneficial to our health and to the environment, they’re actually quite expensive — the costs aren’t seen at the cash register but in the form of high health care bills and environmental degradation.
Oatmeal is on the other end of the food spectrum. Real oatmeal contains no ingredients; rather, it is an ingredient. As such, it’s a promising lifesaver: oats are easy to grow in almost any non-extreme climate and, minimally processed, they’re profoundly nourishing, inexpensive and ridiculously easy to cook. They can even be eaten raw, but more on that in a moment.
Like so many other venerable foods, oatmeal has been roundly abused by food marketers for more than 40 years. Take, for example, Quaker Strawberries and Cream Instant Oatmeal, which contains no strawberries, no cream, 12 times the sugars of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats and only half of the fiber. At least it’s inexpensive, less than 50 cents a packet on average. (A serving of cooked rolled oats will set you back half that at most, plus the cost of condiments; of course, it’ll be much better in every respect.)
The oatmeal and McDonald’s story broke late last year, when Mickey D’s, in its ongoing effort to tell us that it’s offering “a selection of balanced choices” (and to keep in step with arch-rival Starbucks) began to sell the cereal. Yet in typical McDonald’s fashion, the company is doing everything it can to turn oatmeal into yet another bad choice. (Not only that, they’ve made it more expensive than a double-cheeseburger: $2.38 per serving in New York.) “Cream” (which contains seven ingredients, two of them actual dairy) is automatically added; brown sugar is ostensibly optional, but it’s also added routinely unless a customer specifically requests otherwise. There are also diced apples, dried cranberries and raisins, the least processed of the ingredients (even the oatmeal contains seven ingredients, including “natural flavor”).
A more accurate description than “100% natural whole-grain oats,” “plump raisins,” “sweet cranberries” and “crisp fresh apples” would be “oats, sugar, sweetened dried fruit, cream and 11 weird ingredients you would never keep in your kitchen.”
Since we know there are barely any rules governing promotion of foods, one might wonder how this compares to real oatmeal, besides being 10 times as expensive. Some will say that it tastes better, but that’s because they’re addicted to sickly sweet foods, which is what this bowlful of wholesome is.
Others will argue that the McDonald’s version is more “convenient.” This is nonsense; in the time it takes to go into a McDonald’s, stand in line, order, wait, pay and leave, you could make oatmeal for four while taking your vitamins, brushing your teeth and half-unloading the dishwasher. (If you’re too busy to eat it before you leave the house, you could throw it in a container and microwave it at work.)
If you don’t want to bother with the stove at all, you could put some rolled oats (instant not necessary) in a glass or bowl, along with a teeny pinch of salt, sugar or maple syrup or honey, maybe some dried fruit. Add milk and let stand for a minute (or 10). Eat. Eat while you’re walking around getting dressed. And then talk to me about convenience.
The aspect one cannot argue is . . .
Continue reading, please: it’s really worth it.
Thanks for sharing this with us. I just recently discovered Mark Bittman and find it encouraging that he’s taken this path to start these types of conversations. For too long the public has taken the marketing words at face value. It’s long overdue to really peek behind the curtains and let the public make informed decisions on what they will put into their bodies. I love that calorie counts need to be displayed by the large chain restaurants now in NY. It has definitely altered my choices when dining out and has been surprising to see that those seemingly healthier choices, aren’t necessarily so upon comparison.
Laurie
23 February 2011 at 5:48 am
Bittman’s explicit and implicit outrage is rather bizarre IMHO. McDonald’s is a very sophisticated marketing organization. They know their customers and conduct extensive market research among them almost constantly. Products are designed to suit these customers taste-buds and expectations, not those of their non-customers (and never-to-be customers). Frankly, McDonald’s doesn’t give two shits what you or I think because I haven’t eaten at Micky D’s in over 20 years and wouldn’t unless there were some catastrophic famine that destroyed all fresh food.
Frankly, I don’t get all this outrage. If people are too stupid to know what they are getting at McDonald’s then Darwinian evolution will eventually weed them and Micky D off the landscape!
Steve
23 February 2011 at 9:28 am
I believe the idea is that we band together in a society to pool our strengths and help each other, thus becoming stronger than if each went his or her own way.
So when we see businesses injuring their customers, those having this view of society tend to speak up and try to improve the general welfare.
It may not work, but it’s hard to stand by while people’s lives are being adversely affected, much less witness behavior I consider highly unethical. YMMV, of course, but to praise McDonald’s and condemn Bittman in this exchange is something I personally would find quite difficult.
LeisureGuy
23 February 2011 at 10:35 am
I despise McDonald’s and Bittman is ultimately right. BUT, that being said, I’m averse to promoting my values to people who may not want them. I believe that short of the intellectually handicapped, McDonald’s customers know what they’re getting and in fact go there because of what they’re getting: Food that appeals to their taste-buds, a context they find pleasurable, and a price-to-full-belly ratio that works for them.
We all define happiness differently and find different ways to fulfill ourselves. Many aren’t necessarily very healthful, but we have the freedom to pursue them regardless. And, McDonald’s is harmless in the context of an otherwise balanced diet, just like any junk food. It is harmful to those who eat it either regularly or predominantly.
A more important issue, IMHO, is how companies with fundamentally pernicious products use marketing (read Psychology) to manipulate people into using their products. Perhaps the oatmeal issue could fall into that category in that one might believe that McDonald’s is a good place to go for breakfast. But it’s a stretch. The moment you enter those golden arches you’ve got to know it’s shit and will be loaded with all kinds of garbage. Do you really think anyone goes to McDonald’s thinking they’re going to get a healthful meal? If they do, they’re deluded or have just woken up from a Rip Van Winkle sleep. More likely they’re getting what they want…and what they deserve.
Bittman’s article is useful, I suppose, as a useful counterbalance to McDonald’s advertising. OTOH, trying to force Micky D to change their tried, tested and true formula which works for their customers smacks somewhat of elitism and hubris on Bittman’s part.
A good and very useful discussion, but we are preaching to the converted unfortunately.
Steve
23 February 2011 at 11:37 am
One thing I’ve painfully learned over the years: my expectations about people’s responses are often at variance with what is discovered through actual research—usability testing is an obvious example. One can be absolutely certain that a given interface design is great, but then an actual test, working with representatives of the typical user population and having them work through a task script inevitable presents substantial surprises.
So I’m not so sure of the reaction of those McDonald’s customers. Once they learned what Bittman discovered, they might feel both ripped off and pissed off. Maybe they don’t think a major corporation with all those ads is serving them shit. Maybe their knowledge of nutrition basics is shakey.
But people tell me I should simply accept things as they are. (To me, that seems to rhyme with “Give up.”) We all know corporations will do anything for a profit: just accept that as a fact, look out for yourself, and everyone else can look out for themselves.
Nope. That’s not me. I will speak up against what I perceive as wrong when done by corporations, governments, and individuals, and I’ll give my reasons. Those who disagree can point out my errors and give their reasons. Through reason and discussion, we can work together to understand. That’s more my line of country. YMMV.
LeisureGuy
23 February 2011 at 11:54 am
McDonald’s continues to grow at a faster pace than the population. The demand for fast-food continues to grow unabated…along with the rate of diabetes.
What if we flipped the question around? What if we ask: What does McDonald’s do that seems to appeal to so many people? In Psychology we know that no organism EVER does anything without a payoff. Even altruism has a payoff. What value is McDonald’s bringing to its customers?
You raise a good point that perhaps most McDonald’s customers don’t know it’s shit. How is that possible? Opponents to McDonald’s have been relentless in bashing them publicly for years, yet they continue to grow. Are these just innocent lambs to the slaughter, or does Micky D’s fulfill a role in their lives that you and I can’t relate to? In debating club in high school I learned that the best way to debate something was to take the other guy’s side.
Steve
23 February 2011 at 12:57 pm
Businesses have worked for years to undermine any scientific findings that threatened their profits. The best example is the tobacco companies, who worked to instill and magnify uncertainty. People then said much the same thing you’re saying now: “Everyone knows that cigarettes are bad for you.” The proposition was, of course, not tested or quantified. And most companies are pretty flint-eyed when it comes to handing out money (except, apparently to CEOs): giving out money affects the bottom line directly. And yet the tobacco companies spent hundreds of millions (if not billions) fighting the scientific evidence—so one wonders why they bothered if everyone already knew all that anyway. Moreover, they continued the fight as the dangers of secondhand smoke began to be evident, leading to the abolition of smoking in places where nonsmokers would be exposed (workplaces, restaurants, etc.).
That is what businesses do, and the tobacco fight has served as a model, which currently is being used by the energy industry to undermine public support for fighting global warming.
One side-effect of all that activity is that many, poorly educated in science, now distrust all scientific reports that they hear about—and in the meantime try to ignore as many as they can. We are now reaping, in the alteration of the climate (and the effects on our food supply) of what the tobacco industry and others have sowed.
People also are extremely good at denial: you’ve seen that yourself, I’m sure. Most of the McDonald’s customers, if they think about their food at all (which I suspect they do not: they have a job to worry about, and the lunch hour is short and they need/have to get back to work), probably are in denial about how bad it is. And you may note that popular TV programs, the source of information for many (most?), do not spend a lot of time in serious analysis of things like McDonald’s foods.
McDonald’s spends lots on advertising. As I wrote earlier, that definitely has an impact. Otherwise they would not be spending the money. And that advertising constantly presents the food as a solution to daily problems, and healthful, etc.
LeisureGuy
23 February 2011 at 1:11 pm
Brilliant! Now we have convergence. My original point was that Bittman’s rant about why McDonald’s can’t make a straight-up oatmeal is irrelevant, if not elitist. McDonald’s does what it does. The real issue is how McDonald’s brainwashes people into believing their food is good and healthful…using the psychological techniques of denial, as you say, pioneered by the tobacco industry. This is what I was trying to get at. It’s not about the burgers…it’s about the bullshit.
Steve
23 February 2011 at 2:12 pm
We also might ask about the problems (and possible solutions) with the system that has so many incentives for businesses to behave badly. Perhaps a system that continually encourages dishonest, unethical, immoral, dangerous, and illegal practices on the part of businesses is a bad system and should be reconstructed so that it provides instead incentives for honest, ethical, moral, safe, and legal practices. I earlier blogged about a new form for corporations that might help. We also should probably explore how we might build cooperation into our system, beyond companies cooperating to throw off regulation and set prices high.
LeisureGuy
23 February 2011 at 3:19 pm
I agree with you that a new business model is needed, but I’m not hopeful any such thing is forthcoming in our lifetime. Look, the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, much of it driven by the very design of the current corporate model, and it wasn’t enough to stimulate any change.
The current model is so perfectly aligned with human greed that it is nearly invincible, save perhaps after some catastrophe of global Armageddon proportions. Socialism thought it had the answer….but it collapsed because it failed to acknowledge the power of human greed.
And good people are complicit in all this. As I’ve mentioned in past discussions, one of the big questions in Psychology is how basically good, decent people are able to work for pernicious companies like Micky D’s, the tobacco industry, etc.
I’m not hopeful.
Steve
23 February 2011 at 4:03 pm
I don’t think giving up will work: that’s been tried, and it generally has proved unsuccessful. As I mentioned, some efforts are underway now to respond to the need by a redesign of corporate structures. I believe that, as crops fail and civilization teeters, quite a few institutions will get a re-examination and makeover.
Certainly people can readily be persuaded to act against their obvious self-interest: cigarette smokers are involved in an effort likely to kill them, and if you can easily persuade people (through ads, social pressure, etc.) to kill themselves, you can probably persuade them to turn against greed.
The problem is that the current system encourages greed, and we freely allow corporations to poison the water, the air, the soil, and ourselves with no real penalties.
But accepting that situation and throwing in the towel: I don’t think either of us is ready for that. Thus our rants/persuasive screeds.
LeisureGuy
23 February 2011 at 4:23 pm
Only a business model that can be proven to be more profitable than the current one will likely be adopted. Profit has become the litmus test. It will take some Steve Jobs type visionary to build it.
Steve
23 February 2011 at 5:33 pm
At one time profits were distributed to the company’s owners (shareholders) as dividends. That practice has ended, and companies seem to have stopped paying dividends. So it becomes speculation.
This is not to dispute profits, though of course there is an active non-profit sector as well. So we know that companies can be run well without the profit thing.
It will be interesting to see what happens, though it may be too late.
LeisureGuy
23 February 2011 at 5:38 pm