I write this from the playground at a McDonald’s just off of Interstate 81 in Harrisonburg, Virginia, where we’ve just finished a predictable McDonald’s lunch and are burning some restless energy before getting back in the car. It has me thinking about some of the most important implications of free markets: we don’t have to know one another’s goals in order to help one another achieve them, and even when we may not fully understand why other people do something, there’s probably a good reason for it.
Consider fast food. I enjoy exploring out-of-the-way places and discovering out-of-the-way culinary delights, but things change dramatically on a multi-day road trip involving two kids in diapers.
First, I don’t know any of the people at this particular restaurant, nor am I particularly close to any major McDonald’s shareholders. Nonetheless, we are able to cooperate to mutual advantage.
Second, I’ve said before that having children has made me a better economist and indeed, an economist who appreciates Hayek’s work on knowledge even more. I’ve asked-and heard many others ask-”why would (whoever) do that? It makes no sense to me.” Perhaps you’ve heard someone question others’ choices about eating fast food, for example. Traveling with kids has given me a solid appreciation for fast food restaurants, particularly with playgrounds. Getting older and having kids has helped me appreciate things I never thought to notice before the kids came along. Fast food restaurants with playgrounds are near the top of that list: peole invested valuable resources in building these things because they anticipated (correctly) that they would be a godsend to generations of traveling families.
And before someone says “but we probably wouldn’t have giant chains without enormous subsidies to freeways and the like,” I’ll be the first to say that’s probably true. That’s no knock against chains like McDonald’s, though. That’s a knock against road subsidies. The same phenomenon I just described would still exist, just in a different manifestation.
{ 64 comments }
If only fast food wasn’t so terribly unhealthy.
It doesn’t have to be. In the documentary “Fat Head”, the protagonist (I can’t remember his name) spends an entire month on fast-food without ill-effect, unlike that lying SoS Moore-wannabe Spurlock.
I’ve actually seen fast food recommended as a diet food. The main benefit are the standardized servings and widely available nutritional information. It’s a lot easier to count calories and plan meals when you don’t have to weigh and measure everything you eat.
Nutrition unfortunately isn’t just about counting calories!
Actually, more and more evidence says that it is…… And being physically active…..
I find that strange considering your criticism below, which would indicate that what the sources of calories are more important than the amount of calories put into your body (i.e. a 60/20/20 carb/prot/fat diet is significantly less healthy than a 10/30/60 diet)
A high carb, high protein, and low fat diet is the way to go.
Fat is very difficult for your body to break down. Chemicals produced by the digestion enter your blood stream and need to be removed by your kidneys and liver as they are fairly toxic. If you have other issues high fat diet can be very hard on those organs.
Carbohydrates on the other hand are easily consumed and converting them to energy has no side effects. It’s what we are meant to live off of.
If you can get the level of fat consumption under 10% of your calories you intake you can virtually eliminate any chance of heart disease and can actually reverse high blood pressure. The level of effectiveness of this diet in aiding cardiovascular health is shockingly high. Far more effective then drug treatments for heart issues. This diet can provide benefits in from weeks to a few months that you would never be able to achieve through pharmaceutics.
The trouble is that in modern society it’s extremely difficult to achieve. Even ‘low fat’ foods are not low fat enough. .Most ‘low fat’ or even ‘non fat’ yogurts, for example, are going to have fat levels higher then is useful if you want to achieve the right balance.
You can thank deceptive labeling and certification practices of the FDA for making it difficult to actually understand the contents of food.
They measure fat by grams, but that is deceptive. Fat by calories is what is important as it’s a very high concentration of energy by weight. A gram of fat contains 9 calories versus 4 for protein and carbs. And it’s not just animal fats that it’s the problem, of course.
There are lots of cuts of meat that are low enough fat that you can eat them usefully and enjoy yourself.
The exception of this is the Omega-3 fatty acids. This is found naturally in olive oil, lamb, and scaly fish. Astute people may see some sort of pattern here.
Now small children are fine with salty and fatty foods. Things like McDonald can be quite beneficial to them. Ice cream, while fairly toxic to adults (in terms of cardiovascular health) is actually a decent treat for children. As long as it’s not over-done of course.
Lack of fatty foods and salt will stunt mental and physical development in small children. There are major areas of Africa, for example, were lack of salt will stunt the mental development of a very significant portion of the population.
It’s one of those ironies that what the most poverty ridden parts of Africa need most is a good McDonalds…. there is potential for a entire revolution in the population with the proper levels of fat and salt introduced to the young children.
The reason we crave fatty salty foods so much is because it’s so rare in our natural environment. Meat is naturally very lean and salt is extremely hard to come by for most of the world. It’s a wonder of modern society that food types that were so utterly important and required massive expenditures to acquire are now in such high levels of abundance that they can easily be detrimental to our health.
A quick historical footnote that most people here should be aware of is that soldiers in the Roman Empire were paid partially with salt. At least for part of the history. It was rare and valuable enough that it made decent monetary base for the middle and lower classes. Hence the source of the world ‘Salary’…. which is derived from the Latin base ‘Salarium’ which is likely related to salt. A possible source for our word Soldier is from the term ‘Sal dare’.. ‘to give salt’.
Monarchs of the era controlled the production of salt, too. Fun stuff.
We have almost gone in full circle and are now back to the state controlling (at least partially) the distribution of salt….
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/02/01/cbs-warns-food-industry-must-reduce-salt-content-or-face-regulation
Old habits die hard, eh?
Now it’s true that with a low carb and high fat/protein diet can cause you to lose weight… the problem is that losing weight and being healthy are orthogonal issues.
nate-m,
Your advice is very backwards. Fat is in no way hard for the body to break down. Saturated fatty acids from animal sources are the best fuel and is in fact the type that is stored by the human body as a long term energy source.
As for your comment on the absent side effects of carbohydrate consumption, have you never heard of diabetes? Have you never heard of insulin resistance? Have you never heard of inflammation of digestive organs? They are most certainly not benign, and are nowhere near ideal. I don’t know how you have come to the conclusion that humans are made to run on carbohydrates, since in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies (where humans evolved most of their energy systems and digestive tracts), carbohydrate foods would be in short supply and would likely be in the form of tubers which would be saved for times of famine. The main source of all calories were meats, with the most prized of these being the fatty organs such as the brains (hint, hint).
Here’s a good place to start: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/3/30/paleo-20-a-diet-manifesto.html
The fat hypothesis is to nutrition as Keynesianism is to economics. It’s a decades old fallacy that is only now beginning to be questioned within the mainstream.
nate, love your stuff, but honestly, high carbs are a (fat, inflamed, diabetic, fatty liver, atherosclerosis-ridden) suicide
I present to you [The] Big Fat Fiasco, a 5-part explanation of how government ruined the science of nutrition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmwNpUJUjPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuxDuLKz39c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9mQ-QZkZpk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEayi6IBjZw
Is my comment with the videos visible? I got this thing about moderation :/
Nearly all of the studies stating that fat is bad for you were confounded by the number of calories eaten every day. Fat is carlorie-rich, so high fat diets have a lot more calories than the other treatment groups.
Eat a wide range of foods in moderation, be physically active, you’ll be healthy….
If you have diabetes then you should follow dietary recommendations for it. Eating large amount of carbohydrates can spike your blood sugar so it’s something to be aware of.
But if you don’t have diabetes then it’s not going to be a issue. High carb diet certainly isn’t going to cause or contribute to you getting diabetes. Anybody that says otherwise is just ignoring medical science and is working off of assumptions.
Yes. Diets high in fat and fructose can cause transient insulin resistance. Glucose and fructose are both simple sugars, but how they are broken down by the body is different and they have different effects.
Cultures with high carbohydrate consumption have low rates of diabetes and heart disease. When american-ized diets (much higher levels of fat and sugar) then rates of diabetes and heart disease go up.
I don’t know what specific disease your bringing up here. Generally speaking low fat diets and diets with high carbohydrates and especially lots of fiber will solve a lot of digestion issues.. Large amounts of fiber intake is very good for you.
Gathering meat was a high energy process. It required a huge mount of caloric expenditure to get and kill wild game and when game was caught it was mostly lean meat. Aboriginal hunter gatherer societies would spend the vast majority of their time foraging plant matter for sustenance. Hunting parties would take days to catch wild animals.
If you have any doubt of this find the nearest national forest spend a few weekends trying to take out a deer or some pheasant with a sharpened stick, a hand axe, or blow gun, and get back to me on how much fatty brains you were able to gather for yourself.
Capturing animals was certainly a high priority, but it was not the major source of calories for these people. Not until we had domesticated animals and even then to kill a cow or goat was to deny yourself milk and other products you can get from living animals.
High fiber, high protein, high carb, low surgar, low salt, and low fat diets are the way to go.
This doesn’t really change the fact that it still is mostly grains and crap fried in vegetable oil. Any food can be eaten in moderation while maintaining weight, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t having other ill effects. The high Omega-6/low Omega-3 PUFAs in vegetable oils and the gluten and lectins in grains cause severe inflammation that is now being linked to many degenerative diseases.
If you want to eat something moderately healthy from a fast food restaurant, get a big burger with no condiments and toss the bun. It’s still not ideal, but it’s the best that can be done with what’s given at a fast food restaurant. Probably the best option while out and about is stopping at a grocery store, buying a carton of eggs, and drinking them.
And toss the burger too.
You can eat salads at McDonald’s, just don’t add the dressings and you get a very healthy meal.
In what sense were there no ill-effects? He didn’t gain weight? But, what were the long-term effects of eating a disproportionate amount of certain nutrients and chemicals? Fast food isn’t unhealthy only because it can make you fat.
Ask the carnivorous Eskimos.
“No ill-effects”, in this case, means that his weight dropped(he was counting calories) and his numbers actually improved(as David mentioned, the worst part of the burger’s the bun). Here’s the movie’s/Naughton’s site.
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/about/
This man’s eaten over 25,000 Big Macs in his life and he seems to be doing okay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13437838
he’s only in his 50s. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting coronary plaque build-up or may already HAVE some plaque and possibly a few more years of the same diet may give him his first stroke. He may also be one of the lucky ones that isn’t gluten sensitive or have celiac disease. Many people are gluten sensitive WITHOUT symptoms, and it takes decades until the damage finally becomes so severe that finally a disease is diagnosed that was CAUSED by chronic gluten exposure.
Morgan Spurlock is an elitist bastard. Look up what he said to school children in Hatboro-Horsham, PA, about 5-6 years ago. I lived there when it went on, and thus, was forced to pay taxes to support this loser coming to speak at the school. I have never heard him say anything with an ounce of thought behind it.
Yeah, Morgan Spurlock is a typical elitist lefty. His entire system of thought, I believe, is built on the false premise that he is better than everyone else. It’s an axiomatic system with all of his beliefs derived from this one premise.
The most unhealthy diet is one where there are too few calories. I’m sure most people in Egypt would love to eat at McDonald’s every day. I think most Americans are in for a shock as food prices continue to escalate. People will not be able to afford to eat at McDonalds. We are headed for $10 a gallon gas, $10 for a loaf of bread and $10 a pound for hamburger.
Well, of course too few calories is a poor diet! Nobody said otherwise. But, that doesn’t mean that it’s the only type of poor diet.
That, my friend, is a huge misconception. There’s nothing unhealthy about fast food. What’s unhealthy is the inactivity of the individual accusing it of their health problems. People who eat fast food would still be gross, disgusting fat-asses if fast food were banned.
Absolutely, nobody denies the importance of exercise. Nevertheless, it’s absurd to claim that fast food has equal nutritional value as anything else, and inaccurate to claim that fast food has any important nutritional value eat all.
As cheap food it’s great, but if you have other priorities (other than being able to afford food) there are better alternatives. Tbh, when I was living in Spain, it was cheaper for me to buy my food at a grocery store and cook it than to eat fast food every day, but at the time food prices in Spain were relatively low (at least compared to food prices in where I live in the USA).
The biggest problem at fast food places is not the food but the portion size, particularly the super-size drinks that are full of sugar. This is what is causing the obesity and diabetes, not the fat in the big mac.
Besides, this is a choice issue. Do you really want Michael Bloomberg or Gavin Newsom deciding what you can put in your mouth or how many sheets of toilet paper you can use when it comes out the other end?
Yes, but you are missing the point; what “Fat Head” makes as one of its central themes and what virtually everyone here at mises.org will agree with is that no one at any fast food establishment is forcing you a. eat there and/or b. eat the absolute maximum size of their offerings.
“no one at any fast food establishment is forcing you a. eat there and/or b. eat the absolute maximum size of their offerings.”
This is the key point. I seem to recall a 60 Minutes show on this. They asked Denny’s, I think, why they didn’t have more “healthy choices” on their menu. The spokesman produced a series of old menus where they “healthy choices”. Very few people ordered these items off the menu, so they were taken off. It like the question “Why do they have all these shops that sell junk on Fisherman’s Wharf? Because tourists keep buying it.” The restaurant business is extremely competitive. If you do not serve up what people want to eat, you will go out of business.
This really highlights the difference with the other major way to travel, which also involves lots of waiting but fewer consumer amenities: have you ever seen a playground at an airport?
Yes, several and I usually do not travel with children.
Give us a list?
I’ve often seen playgrounds at airports.
Well the Security Area is a playgound for perverted TSA thugs.
As an unemployed single man with no kids, I enjoy McDonald’s for it’s value. A double cheeseburger is very cheap and tasty, and McDonald’s pancakes are cheap and tasty in the morning. Their coffee is cheap and tasty and I enjoy sitting at the restaurant and eating my breakfast as I read the newspaper.
Cheap and tasty, no wonder McDonald’s is doing so well in this economic crisis.
I also realize that in the morning, the restaurant is filled with gray hair and retired old people and I am the only “youngster” in the crowd.
McDonald’s seems to appeal to everybody. Yes there is a playground but at the hours when I go to McDonald’s, there’s only old people chatting quietly.
Well, I’m a HUGE fan of McDonald’s. Their burgers are amazing. Their coffee is fantastic. Their breakfasts are the best. I don’t know how they make ANY money with those prices. Everything about McD’s is brilliant. I’ve looked and looked for an advertising sign to put in my yard but can’t find one. I want a McD tie but can’t find that.
This company is great, great, great – the embodiment of the best thing in a capitalist world.
As for the crowd of self-regarded libertarians who keep putting down McD and Wmart and all the rest, on grounds of public roads or whatever the heck, I’m getting sick of these people. They strike me as overly scrupulous, trying to manufacturer reasons to agree with the anti-capitalists of the left (oh how fashionable). For that matter, if I were really a leftist, I would hope that I would love McDs in that case too. Never have the poor and working class had access to such wonderful food in such variety and at such low prices as McD and Wmart offer.
Frankly, it gets me really steamed when people criticize these godsends of the capitalist order.
Ronald McDonald is pretty gruesome though.
Remember clowns are more scared of you then you are of them. They only try to eat your soul when they are cornered. Otherwise they are harmless as long as you remember to remain mostly sober.
But leftists want Quinoa and sprouts to be super cheap, and McD’s hamburgers and fries prohibitively expensive.
They have to respond to their customers, so of course, their food is good and service usually excellent. Their coffee product line is really excellent.
Yeah, I don’t get the hate on them. Their food is unhealthy, but the taste is fairly good and it’s what the consumers want, and they do an excellent job in production. Last time I was at a McD’s I was impressed with how much automation they had installed. They had an automatic cup filler, an automated fry machine, and probably some other stuff in the back that was out of view. They’re incredibly efficient (that probably goes a way to explaining your price query).
And don’t get me started on WalMart. Only an economically illiterate bunch could be opposed to a company which provides so many goods at such affordable prices, and in so many areas as well.
I used to deride these companies, then I realized that it was just because I didn’t like them, and wanted to justify my choice not to buy from them (McDonald’s is the last kind of food I’d eat). Now, I see that they are merely meeting the needs of their customers, and getting constant feedback in the form of what people buy (and don’t buy). More power to them!
Perhaps the single most brilliant product ever conceived: The Happy Meal.
Its brilliant on many levels: (a) includes a toy, (b) burger-fry-drink in a little box that looks like a house, (c) the food is all yummy, (d) has the word ‘happy’ in it, (e) the burger is kid-friendly….meaning young kids generally like simple uncomplicated foods along the lines of a thin piece of meat in between two pieces of bread.
I would posit that there is nearly no more successful product among its demographic than the HM. I would imagine if you went to a random group 4 – 8 year olds and asked: ‘Do you want a Happy Meal right now?’ You would get at least a >90% response of ‘YES’.
Moreover, HM’s are simply the gold-standard in traveling with kids. 3 hours into that long drive, nothing can placate a vehicle of grumpy kids like the offer of a HM. All this for $3.00 – which is strange because if you went to a frazzled parent in a car of whining kids and said “How much is it worth to you to make your kids quiet *and* happy right now?” Most would be willing to spend considerably more.
Finally, McD’s simply has the lock-down on french fries. I’ve often posited that Burger King / Jack-in-the-box / etc would make more money if they would just pay licensing fee’s to McD’s and be able to advertise: “Now serving McDonald-brand French Fries!”
I go to McDonald’s because I love their foods, I love their drinks, I love their service and I love their prices. Personnel there are smiling, enthusiastic and happy to serve you. I’d go through rough terrain if I had to in order to get to McDonald’s, it has nothing to do with government subsidized roads.
McDonald’s did terrific during this economic crisis, people ditch expensive restaurants and go to McDonald’s. McD is one of the few companies that actually did better and better and increased it’s market share all the while hiring more people during this economic crisis.
Jeff, can you just imagine how much even better the food would be if government, food fascists, and other assorted regulatory busy bodies would have left McDonald’s alone and they still made their food the same way they did in the ’50s?
How were they made in the 1950′s ?
I guess that McDonald’s changed their recipes and methods because of business considerations and not because of government regulations.
“Their burgers are amazing.”
MdD’s burgers–and their food general– is yummy going down for sure–but always leaves me with a peculiar unsatisfied, empty feeling shortly afterward. Anyone else get that?
@J. – You may find some personal edification by researching Type II food allergies and “leaky gut syndrome”.
A professional opinion may be beneficial.
Godsend ? It was created by the McDonald’s brothers and expanded by Ray Kroc, it has nothing to do with God. Men have made McDonald’s into what it is today.
The principal difference that i see between a fast food restaurant and an ordinary one, is that in the former one they cook your meal before you order it, while in the latter one the y cook it after you order it.
Gerry:
This is certainly true in a made-to-order breakfast restaurant or a pizza restaurant where you can actually see the food being cooked in front of use. However, in most restaurants, most of the preparation is done early in the day and assembled when you order it. You are not going to get a slow-roasted prime rib cooked from scratch while you wait. For high end gourmet food, chef’s (like Thomas Keller) use a water bath heated to the exact serving temperature. (SousVide). This way they can pre-cook the meal ensuring a perfectly cooked meal every time.
Walt D., I agree with you that the difference is not so great. Even in restaurants not classified as ‘fast food’, what you order is already cooked before you come in, like in BBQ restaurants.
What i don’t like, is when some peoples think that because it is called ‘fast food’ it is ‘bad’, and with the others it is ‘good’.
That’s why i reduce the difference between ‘before’ and ‘after’. I should have put a
at the end of my post.
I’ve got five girls ages 9 and under, and we eat a basically whole-foods plant-based diet at home. And yet the author of the post is so RIGHT – thank goodness for fast food joints with playgrounds! We have an 8 hour drive to visit the family, and in the winter there is no where to stop and play except for McDonalds. We make an exception, let the kids eat chicken nuggets and fries, and then let them play. Hooray for the free market!!
I think you’ve made the point that seems to be missing in the preceeding debate on nutrition: nobody says you oughta eat there exclusively. You deserve a break TODAY, not everyday. Any hazards associated with eating, drkinkinking, smoking, or toking are highly individual and obviously dependent on the frequency (and consumption quantity) of the particular sin. There is absolutely nothing wrong with junk food/fast food if it is the occasional indulgence.
I eat at McDonald’s almost every day and I love it !
Eat healthy, exercise daily, die anyway
Hope someone sees it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXFUaqMl3fc
McDonald’s chicken club sandwich, grilled version, is not unhealthy. If you’re one of those people who is all concerned about the fat, then lift the top bun, scrape off the mayo, and enjoy. You can even get a version with no bacon, if two little strips disturb you.
I get these often when I’m on the road.
Why a Big Mac Costs Less Than a Salad
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/
An interesting study of the effects of subsidies.
I seem to recall an article a while back where it listed all the federal regulations that McDonald’s was subject to, nutrition, advertising, labor. The one thing I remember was that the federal government regulated the viscosity of tomato ketchup! Does anyone know where I can find this. (I would suggest that Jeffrey or Stephan compile an article on this. However, I suspect that it would run into the hundreds of pages.)
“The one thing I remember was that the federal government regulated the viscosity of tomato ketchup!”
So, a government mandated and certified ketchup inspector, armed with a concealed pistol, could infiltrate a McDonald’s restaurant as an undercover customer and the restaurant could get busted on grounds of illegal ketchup ?
Too lite or too thick ketchup is a federal offense ?
Will they send a swat team to apprehend the restaurant manager on grounds of faulty ketchup ?
What if I prefer vinegar on my fries instead of Ketchup ?
Inspector Ketchup, that sounds like the title of a tv cartoon series.
LOL, this world is crazy
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/archive/index.php/…/t-1768736.html
P.S. What’s the difference between Ketchup and Catsup ?
If the government has Ketchup experts, do they also have Catsup experts ?
The Federal Bureau of Condiments, Ketchup and Catsup ?
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 2]
[Revised as of April 1, 2010]
[CITE: 21CFR155.194]
TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B–FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
PART 155 — CANNED VEGETABLES
Subpart B–Requirements for Specific Standardized Canned Vegetables
Sec. 155.194 Catsup.
(a)Identity –(1)Definition. Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:
(i) Tomato concentrate as defined in 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or safe and suitable organic acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in compliance with 155.191(b).
(ii) The liquid derived from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varietiesLycopersicum esculentum P. Mill.
(iii) The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes for canning, consisting of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.
(iv) The liquid obtained from the residue from partial extraction of juice from such tomatoes.
Such liquid is strained so as to exclude skins, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior to straining, food-grade hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no lower than 2.0. Such acid is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material is restored to a pH of 4.2+/-0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by the addition of water. The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be considered added salt) and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage.
(2)Ingredients. One or any combination of two or more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in each of the following categories is added to the tomato ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
(i) Vinegars.
(ii) Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. Such sweeteners if defined in part 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.
(iii) Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.
(3)Labeling. (i) The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”
(ii) The following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity to the name of the food:
(a ) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.
(b ) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.
(iii)Label declaration. Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,” “tomato pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of 155.191(a)(3)(ii)(a ) and (a)(3)(ii)(b ) do not apply.
(b)Quality. (1) The standard of quality for catsup is as follows: The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 deg. C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20+/-1 deg. C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to 20 deg. C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument. Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product. Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent its movement as the gate is released. Immediately start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately for the next determination, as this may result in an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy, the instrument should be maintained at a temperature of 20+/-1 deg. C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter, repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is obtained. Report the average of two or more readings, excluding any that appear to be abnormal.
(2) Determine compliance as specified in 155.3(b).
(3) If the quality of catsup falls below the standard prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard quality specified in 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified, but in lieu of such general statement of substandard quality when the quality of the catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality–Low Consistency.”
(c)Fill of container. (1) The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined by the general method for fill of container prescribed in 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent of the total capacity except:
(i) When the food is frozen, or
(ii) When the food is packaged in individual serving-size packages containing 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.
(2) Determine compliance as specified in 155.3(b).
(3) If the catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard fill as specified in 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified.
[48 FR 3956, Jan. 28, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 15073, Apr. 17, 1984; 58 FR 2883, Jan. 6, 1993]
Normally I do not learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to try and do it! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, very great article.
“Perhaps you’ve heard someone question others’ choices about eating fast food, for example. Traveling with kids has given me a solid appreciation for fast food restaurants, particularly with playgrounds. Getting older and having kids has helped me appreciate things I never thought to notice before the kids came along.” Well the free playground is a definite bonus for kids, and I know recently McD’s has adjusted the menu to try to make it healthier… you can get your kids the apple slices instead of fries and milk instead of soda for example. Definitely more convenient and less expensive than fancy restaurants. Happy travels!
Comments on this entry are closed.