Do we really want to see what McDonald’s is made of?

As the world’s largest hamburger fast food chain by sales, McDonald’s serves around 68 million customers per day in 119 countries. Founded in 1955 by Dick and Mac McDonald, and later run by legendary businessman Ray Kroc, McDonald’s is the best known franchise in the world, with golden arches spotted from Lebanon to the Louvre.

McDonald’s history of controversies and lawsuits is nearly as old as the company itself. Since its founding, McDonald’s has come under fire for everything from environment to health to labor practices, inspiring terminology like McJob (a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement) and critical food industry documentaries like Super Size Me. What else would you expect from a restaurant founded upon and organized around factory assembly line principles?

McDonald’s latest marketing campaign addresses the quality of their ingredients, and more specifically, the people behind those ingredients. Under the headline “See What We’re Made Of,” the campaign, created by Omnicom DDB, is heavy on video, with feel-good “Supplier Stories” from potato, lettuce, and beef growers, as well as informative looks “Inside Our Kitchens” to see how staples like the Big Mac and Egg McMuffin are made.

“We thought putting a face on the quality of the food story would be a unique way to approach this,” McDonald’s U.S. Chief Marketing Officer Neil Golden told AdAge. “We acknowledge that there are questions about where our food comes from. I believe we’ve got an opportunity to accentuate that part of our story.”

But how much of the story is real, and how much is just marketing? Let’s look at some of the facts.

The Good

While McDonald’s certainly isn’t the poster child for corporate social responsibility, the company has taken a number of steps toward greater transparency and more sustainable business practices in recent years. Nutritional information and ingredient lists for most of their standard menu items are available online, as well as answers to frequently asked questions like “What do you feed the cows that the beef comes from?” (answer: mostly corn). In 2008, McDonald’s opened a pilot LEED-certified “green” location in Chicago, with energy efficient equipment and lighting, high efficiency plumbing, and permeable pavement and rainwater collection for irrigation. They followed up with a North Carolina location in 2010 and a LEED-driven sustainable overhaul of their Global Headquarters. McDonald’s has also tackled packaging, cooking oil reuse, and customer awareness campaigns.

With this particular campaign, it looks like McDonald’s aim is to tap into the fresh/organic/locavore movement by presenting its ingredients as fresh and its farming partners as real people, just like you and me. The farmers chosen for “Supplier Stories” are secondary sources, contracted through McDonald’s suppliers, and they represent a cross-section of backgrounds and locations.

The Bad

McDonald’s has long been criticized for working with large-scale suppliers who have questionable environmental and animal welfare policies. Just in November, ABC News revealed that Sparboe Farms, which supplied the majority of eggs used in McDonald’s popular Egg McMuffin breakfast sandwiches, was guilty of horrific violations related to animal cruelty and hygiene. Soon after, McDonald’s ended the supplier relationship, and Sparboe vowed to “do better.”

But McDonald’s has yet to take action in response to PETA’s recent “McCruelty: I’m Hatin’ It” campaign, which calls the corporation out on inhumane treatment of chickens by their suppliers.

Says PETA: “Chickens who are raised for McDonald’s are killed using an old-fashioned method that causes millions of birds to have their wings broken and many to be scalded to death in defeathering tanks. A less cruel slaughter method—and one that is already used by McDonald’s European suppliers—is available, but the company refuses to require its U.S. suppliers to upgrade to it.”

And those are only recent scandals in a long list of controversies.

The Questionable

“Supplier Stories” presents a romantic view of American agriculture, with soft lighting, panoramic shots, acoustic background music, and farmers who emphasize the values of hard work and perseverance. In the world depicted in these videos, conventional factory farming isn’t a practice that’s harmful to the environment; it’s the American dream. The feel-good nature of the campaign glazes over many of the issues involved in McDonald’s supplier relationships, like the pesticide and migrant worker issues in the Salinas Valley where lettuce producer Dirk Giannini farms.

Plus, while the base ingredients in McDonald’s meals may come from the fairytale farms depicted in the videos, what happens to them after they hit a McDonald’s kitchen cancels out all the purported purity. McDonald’s famous french fries, for instance, contain much more than just home-grown potatoes:

Potatoes, vegetable oil (canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, natural beef flavor [wheat and milk derivatives]*, citric acid [preservative]), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain color), salt. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent. CONTAINS: WHEAT AND MILK. *(Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients).

For McDonald’s to highlight the stories of the people behind their products is a step in the right direction. However, McDonald’s has yet to address in a significant way how its factory farm suppliers are harming the world they so romanticize.

Fast food chain Chick-fil-A fights a kale lover from Vermont for rights to an ad campaign.

Sometimes I get confused and grab a big fat handful of family-farmed kale when what I really want is a fried chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A. It’s disappointing every time.

The lawyers for the nation’s second largest fast food chicken chain, Chick-fil-A, understand what I’m talking about. That’s why Chick-fil-A is suing Bo Muller-Moore, a Vermont-based folk artist who earns a living working as a foster parent for an adult with special needs, because he has been printing the phrase “Eat More Kale” on t-shirts and bumper stickers since 2000. Chick-fil-A’s argument is that those words dilute its brand and might be too easily confused with its ad campaign – which began in 1995 – featuring cows using the phrase “Eat Mor Chikn.”

Here’s how the beef started. A friend of Muller-Moore’s grows kale and asked him to make three t-shirts for his family and paid him $10 for each top. The shirts gained some popularity around town and now Muller-Moore sells them on his website, along with other products with the phrase.

Chick-fil-A sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2006, but backed down when Muller-Moore fought back. But, he re-ruffled the feathers recently when he applied for a federal trademark to protect his business name.

Muller-Moore hasn’t confirmed that his slogan was inspired by the cow campaign, but given the timeline, there’s a case to be made that his pro-kale merch is a play on the chicken franchise’s slogan. But the question is: Why does a giant corporation like Chick-fil-A care? And if this is lawsuit worthy, why aren’t the Got Milk? people suing everyone? (An aside: I wish they would.)

First, there’s the fair concern of brand identity. Imagine if Reebok’s new catch phrase were “I just did that.” Yet, we have to scratch our heads and ask how could Chick-fil-A be threatened by a do-gooding kale lover from Vermont?

Second, there’s the publicity. Chick-fil-A’s suit has brought more attention and traffic to eatmorekale.com than Muller-Moore likely ever would have gotten on his own or from people typing “eat more” into Google. For the most part, the company is being criticized for stepping on the little guy (insert David and Goliath reference here). But, Chick-fil-A is in the headlines. And the cow campaign is back in the forefront at a time when the chain is in expansion mode. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Protecting creative work is important. But this is just corporate bullying.

Sadly, reports The Atlantic, history is on the side of the bully. Chick-Fil-A has already succeeded in protecting the “Eat More” tagline more than 30 times, according to a letter sent to Muller-Moore. At the moment, this battle is being fought in the court of public opinion: The internet. If you’d like to stand up for the little guy, sign the petition on change.org and maybe skip the trip to Chick-fil-A.

Chicago is getting its very first Chick-fil-A in April and people are pretty close to losing their minds as the fast food giant expands across the Midwest. Chicago has enough problems with its collective weight (thanks, pizza), and Chick-fil-A’s staunch stance against gay marriage makes me queasy. The company also has this creepy statement of purpose: “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

That’s a heavy sandwich.

With apologies to my transplanted, salivating southern friends,  I know we’ve done you wrong with the weather and we sort of owe you one but we don’t need another fast food restaurant and we definitely don’t need to welcome a business that hides behind Christian values to fuel bigotry.

While I am a vegetarian, I’m not made of stone. The company’s Eat More Chikin campaign is super cute. And I get that people have fond, buttery childhood memories that include the popular sandwiches. But we’re not six, and fast food chicken sandwiches are terrible for both your body and the planet.

I’m not saying you have to shell out for Karyn’s Cooked every day, but there’s a Subway across the street from the new location, so if animal rights and environmentally conscious eating aren’t your things, please, think of your ass! We’re all smart enough to know that 920 calories for lunch (original sandwich, medium fries and medium sweet tea) is too many. Sure, you can order a salad, but you’re at Chick-fil-A. Who orders the salad?

Eating your politics isn’t for everyone and it’s easy to go overboard with the food thing (see the Portlandia episode featuring Colin, the chicken), but there are some companies with politics so against everything I believe in that I simply can’t give them my money. Remember back in the day when Domino’s founder Tom Monaghan started donating to Operation Rescue and a bunch of doctors who provided abortions were killed? Chick-fil-A is one of these companies for me.

The company is very open about their Christian roots, and I like religious freedom. It’s a private company with every right to be closed on Sundays and give people discounts for going to church or whatever. But Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, loves to hate on gay marriage and has close ties to the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute and “ex-gay” activists Alan Chambers and David Blankenhorn.

The Ruth Institute and the National Organization for Marriage’s line is that same-sex marriage destroys the fabric of society, and they’ve worked hard to pass legislation banning gay marriage or taking existing marriage equality rights away from same-sex couples. Chambers, of Exodus International, is a proponent of ex-gay therapy, which perpetuates the idea that there is something wrong with being gay – and after a year of highly-publicized teen suicides linked to bullying and homophobia, can’t we all agree that telling people there’s something wrong with them is a bad idea?

But will denying yourself the joy of Chick-fil-A make the world better for gay people? Across the country, college kids say it will and in Florida, Indiana and New York,  students have rallied to get the franchises kicked off campus. Change.org has a series of stories worth taking a look at but it’s too soon to say what will happen in Chicago. The Windy City Times is the best local source for news about the issue and has raised some good points. If there are gay and lesbian Chick-fil-A employees, none have complained of discrimination but that could be because there aren’t any. As the paper points out, the corporation openly favors married people and most of its locations are in states that do not recognize gay marriage, so potential gay and lesbian employees would appear to be automatically out of the running. Because Chicago’s human rights ordinance includes sexual orientation and gender identity, that could also be a key factor as the community decides whether to organize a boycott.

I know many of my butter-bun loving pals can’t wait for April and the chance for a little southern comfort, but organized or not, I’ll personally be boycotting Chick-fil-A.

Image: iheartmacaroni

The drive-thru: an iconic institution fueled by the American spirit to hit the open road. But in this day and age, drive-thrus have become synonymous with unhealthy lifestyle habits, both because of the food they serve and the mode of transportation used to get there. But what if the food was good, and getting access to it promoted sustainable living habits?

In Madison, a restaurateur is looking to open an eating space that’s anything but a drive-thru; he wants to launch a bike-thru, accessible only by two wheels. The Wisconsin capital is already known for its cycling culture, in fact it’s currently ranked the nation’s #7 city for biking, and Chris Berge thinks it would be the optimal spot for what he calls a “bike-in” bar and grill. The proposed restaurant would be built on the city’s Southwest Commuter Path, making it inaccessible by car, and commit to serving local food, and producing zero garbage. He’d also make it a great place for riders to get a quick rest stop, with bathrooms, a fountain for filling water bottles and a bicycle repair service station.

Although the restaurant hasn’t been officially proposed yet, the idea has already garnered the support of the mayor of Madison, Dave Cieslewicz. “I think it’s fascinating idea,” Cieslewicz said. Be it a love for good, local food or a passion for two-wheeled transport, the idea has the potential to take off in other cities as well.

Conscious urbanites know that combining a love of bikes and food makes sense, and restaurants that offer ample bike parking for diners that arrive on two wheels are already getting plenty of national traction, and in places like Venice Beach, there’s even valet velo parking.

And for those that can’t make it out of the house, there are lots of two wheeled foodie delivery options from soup to coffee to jam. Vive le culinary velo revolution!

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground. Each week, Anna will be taking a look at something new and different that’s taking place in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to culinary avant garde.

Twitter changed how foodies found out about the latest and greatest taco truck, leading to an influx of underground culinary aficionados, professional and amateur, being constantly informed of the up and coming hole-in-the-walls and where to get a city’s best authentic ethnic lunch for under $5. Don’t be shy, admit to your many TweetDeck columns that help you decide where you’re going for lunch.

Social media might help in getting the word out (along with a whole slew of other benefits), and its word-of-mouth nature certainly facilitates in keeping up to speed on what your foodie friends (and people you aspire to be friends with in real life) are eating and loving, but can it change how we think about food?

That’s part of the idea behind 4Food, an operation that’s trying to “de-junk” junk food, by providing healthy, fresh and local food alternatives while at the same time “revolutionizing counter culture, in real-time.” What exactly does that mean? 4Food lays it out like this:

• We upgrade food that people already eat – burgers, nuggets, fries, salads and teas-transforming them into new menu items that are convenient, and almost infinitely customizable to our guests’ lifestyles and cultural preferences. Our food is measurably healthier than existing products.
• Dynamic Menu Boards reduce waste and enable us to feature seasonal and occasional products.
• Advanced, web-based technologies allow us to make personalized recommendations that meet our guest’s nutrition and lifestyle goals.
• Fresh, local produce is transformed into our menu offerings in the Community Kitchen Commissary-a vocational training center.
• We build with natural construction materials that are abundant and regenerative.

Like any truly networked food operation, 4Food is already hitting the Twitterverse, creating a buzz around their August 9 opening at 40th and Madison in New York City. Their website gives a pretty solid rundown of their credo, citing important things like composting in-store, no artificial sweeteners or flavor enhancers, no fried food and in the true spirit of the local food movement, “if it’s soy, it’s not Monsanto.”

But what’s the potential that 4Food will change what we eat and how we think about what we eat? That will probably depend on two things: branching out into a wider demographic than NYC-based foodies and engaging the general public via social media to truly get a conversation going about food. On the conversation side of things, so far so good, as 4 Food has already been asking its social media community for creative ideas on how they would “de-junk NYC.”

If the idea works and affects positive change in diverse demographics, we could be looking at a game changer in the fast food movement. Until then, keep an eye on Twitter and stay away from those traditional fast food joints – you know better!

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground. Each week, Anna will be taking a look at something new and different that’s taking place in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to culinary avant garde.

Image: ebruli

Change, whether good or bad, supported or maligned, always begins the same way: with one person, one idea, and one moment of courage. Many people find change suspect because the outcome is unknown; there are too many unforeseeable consequences. They naysay new ideas about old ways of thinking, not realizing how remiss we’d be without the positive progress in equality, health, and the environment that change makes possible. They forget that just years ago, secondhand smoke in offices, restaurants, and other crowded areas was just an accepted aspect of life. But thanks to one city – San Luis Obispo, California – the majority of indoor public spaces in America are now smoke-free, and we’re much healthier for it.

Cities effect change through bans, setting precedents that are sometimes revolutionary and almost always controversial. Over the past few years, a number of U.S. cities have gone the way of San Luis Obispo: initiating bans that are aren’t always popular with everyone but have the power to change things for the better.

1. Santa Clara, California: No Happy Meal Toys

In April 2010, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors decided to prohibit fast-food restaurants from adding toys or other promotional items to kids’ meals. The ban applies only to eateries in certain areas of the county, and only to kids’ meals that have significantly high levels of calories, sodium, fat, and sugar. Fast-food establishments have ninety days to give up the toys or develop more nutritionally sound menu choices for kids. Those supporting the ban feel that offering toys with fast-food meals rewards kids for eating McDonald’s, Burger King, and so on. It lessens the incentive for the fast food industry to target children, which could help curb the increasingly growing rates of childhood obesity in this country.

2. San Francisco, California: No City Money for Bottled Water, No Plastic Bags

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom declared in 2007 that no more of the city’s money would go toward bottled water (as in buying it for government offices or city functions). Other cities, like Los Angeles, Seattle, and Salt Lake City, followed suit and cut local-government spending on bottled water. Some went further, like Chicago, which tacked on a five-cent tax to every bottle of water sold, and Concord, Massachusetts, which banned the sale of any bottled water from within its borders starting in January 2011. The anti-bottled water legislation in these two cities is much more extreme, and therefore much more disputed. Banning or reducing bottled water at the government level first seems like a more popular, and therefore possibly more effective, first step.

San Francisco put forth another groundbreaking law in 2007, banning plastic bags from all major supermarkets and pharmacies in the area. The government gave businesses (exempting small ones) a year to switch to paper or compostable bags. NPR estimated that this legislation would reduce plastic-bag usage by five million bags each month. The move inspired similar action in Los Angeles, Paris, and London. In Washington, D.C., residents now pay five cents for paper or plastic bags from stores, restaurants, and pharmacies.

3. North Olmsted, Ohio: No Sweatshop Goods

North Olmstead is a suburb in Cleveland that also happens to be the first area in the country to forbid products made in sweatshops. Mayor Ed Boyle came up with the idea in 2007, creating an ordinance that banned city vendors from buying, renting, or selling anything produced in a work environment with sweatshop-like conditions. Another Cleveland-area city, Bedford Heights, adopted the same ban, and other cities have looked into doing something similar.

4. Los Angeles, California: No New Fast-Food Restaurants

Los Angeles’s City Council made this highly controversial ban in 2008, deciding that South Los Angeles had more than enough fast-food establishments (about four hundred at the time), and put a yearlong moratorium on any new ones opening in the thirty-two-square-mile area. The council wanted to use that year to entice healthier restaurants and grocery stores into the neighborhood; the ban specified eateries that have drive-through windows and/or use heat lamps in lieu of freshly prepared meals. The council also enacted the ban to reduce the higher-than-average obesity rates in South L.A., though opponents argue that’s a form of food policing. But residents can still access hundreds of fast-food joints in the area. The problem is that there are very few grocery stores in comparison; the ban is supposed to close the gap a little and give people in the neighborhood more dining options.

5. New York, New York: No Trans Fat in Restaurants

Even more contested than the L.A. fast-food ban was Manhattan’s infamous trans-fat ban in 2006. The Board of Health voted to eliminate the unhealthy ingredient from all city restaurants by July 2008, giving chefs two years to replace it in their recipes. Even though trans fat is linked to heart disease and increases bad-cholesterol levels, many restaurant owners and citizens feared the ban would make food taste worse. Despite their doubts, a 2009 report in the Annals of Internal Medicine by the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene found that the ban-which reduced the amount of trans fat in NYC restaurants from 50 percent to 2 percent-didn’t hurt restaurant business. Plus, the amount of both trans fat and saturated fat was reduced in french fries by 50 percent, suggesting that restaurants offer more-healthful fare postban.

I always feel a little suspicious when something’s completely eliminated from public use because it can be a slippery slope. Even though I’m vehemently against smoking, I do feel that legislation limiting the right to smoke in cars and homes infringes upon people’s rights. That’s why I understand the outcry against fast-food and trans-fat bans, and even plastics and happy meal toys, to an extent-when does external enforcement of citizens’ personal lives and choices stop? Could these decisions, though meant for the greater good, be used to justify others that go too far? But limiting oneself to that mindset also limits anything good that can come from the restrictions, like healthier people and environments. These specific bans have the potential to do just that, which is why I hope they’re successful and influential, and that they’re not taken too far beyond their intentions.

Article by Vicki Santillano for DivineCaroline. First published May 2010.

Related DivineCaroline posts:

• New Plans to Get America Moving
• You Are What you Eat: Inside America’s Refrigerators
• Six Good Deeds That Take Less Than Five Minutes

Image: kla4067

“Why not give me a choice besides french fries or french fries?” Morgan Spurlock asked the American food industry and regulators in his 2004 fast food exposé Super Size Me. President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2011 begins to answer that question.

Of particular interest to slow food activists and locavores is the administration’s plan to invest $400 million, through public-private grants into the development of super markets, farmers’ markets and other health food stores across the U.S.

The financing should help small businesses provide healthy alternatives to plastic wrapped snacks, burgers, fried chicken and shakes in communities lacking options. President Obama’s plan, made public on Feb. 1, 2010, included overall food-and-nutrition expenditures far beyond this, of course, which will have a lasting impact on our food and agricultural economy, land and health.

According to Bloomberg financial reports, the U.S. Department of Agriculture spending overall will rise 2.3 percent to $132.3 billion in fiscal 2011.

Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said the money would continue to pay for major nutrition assistance programs, with $1 billion split between the Women Infants and Children, and National School Lunch Program; $1 billion for efforts to reduce foodborne illnesses from USDA-inspected food products; and a whopping $75.3 billion towards the food stamps program SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Plan).

Even though food stamp spending is rising to meet the needs of record-levels of unemployed and under-employed people in the U.S., there’s a silver lining: food stamps are increasingly allowed at farmer’s markets, these days.

Farmers’ markets, which we frequent and frequently write about at EcoSalon, reduce the fuel consumption and other environmental costs of food transportation by selling produce within 100 miles of its origin and by featuring in-season items only, eschewing huge amounts of plastic and packaging, among many other environmental benefits.

Everyone, from lunch lady bloggers to twittering accountants, had something to say about the budget this week online. Decide for yourself if the plan spends too much or not enough on food, with these basic reads and resources.

Basic Reading:

“A record 37.9 million people, or about one of every eight Americans, received food stamps in October 2009, as the jobless rate reached a 26-year high, the USDA said on Jan. 12, 2010. ‘Thank gosh we have food stamps,’ Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at a news briefing in Washington. ‘One, for the families who are struggling, and two, for the farmers who want to sell commodities to 300 million Americans.’ – Bloomberg news story by Alan Bjerga examining FY2011 budget in light of food programs

“Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) said. ‘Every day millions of Americans walk out their front doors and see nothing but fast food and convenience stores selling high-fat, high-sugar, processed foods. This lack of retail outlets that sell healthy food options results in higher rates of obesity, diabetes and other health-related issues. The success of the Pennsylvania initiative should be used as the model for a national plan to improve children’s health, create jobs and spur economic development nationwide.’” – A PolicyLink press release via The Medical News

“President Obama’s Budget became public recently and one of the many items in the massive $4.5 trillion expenditures is $1 billion per year for Child Nutrition split between the National School Lunch Program and the Women, Infants and Children Program. At first blush, given the economy and the call for a 3-year freeze on discretionary spending, this might seem like a win for America’s children; and groups like The School Nutrition Association, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have applauded the proposal. I believe we need to take a closer look at what this really means and perhaps rub the shine off of this offered apple.” – A Chef Ann blog post, by “renegade lunch lady” Ann Cooper, criticizing the president’s FY2011 budget

Further Resources:

Further plans for U.S. government spending on environmental initiatives, especially in solar energy, described at OnEarth.org

Eat This, Not That, a Men’s Health guide to swapping convenient comestibles, for healthier, still-tasty green fare

A photo essay in Fast Company showing new, luxe restaurants started during the recession

A list of food-related budget items by the industry blog The Packer

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring environmental news, trends and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: mckaysavage

The holidays are behind us, and that means one thing – dreams of sugarplums dancing in our heads have turned to nightmares of cellulite chasing our posteriors. Because even the best eater is going to sample a homemade white chocolate chip mocha cookie when it’s offered piping hot from the stove, right? (This is me, raising my hand.) And the best eater might even have another cookie – or six. Who’s to say?

And besides all the awesome baked goods we may or may not have consumed over the holidays, there are also the quick dinners we might have grabbed between shopping and wrapping and generally trying not to go insane. And maybe, just maybe, this food arrived to you through a drive through window with grease seeping through its paper bag – a paper bag you later threw away in an anonymous dumpster on the side of the road. Perhaps?

But not to worry! We’ve got a quick guide to a quick way to burn off the bad stuff. Every wonder how many crunches it takes to burn off a Big Mac from McDonald’s? Or how many miles you have to run to burn off a large French fries from Wendy’s?

First, everyone burns calories in a different way. In other words, a 120 pound woman with 17% body fat isn’t going to burn the same amount of calories as a 250 pound man with 30% body fat. It all varies according to weight, size and metabolism. So for the purposes of this article, we figured in statistics for the average sized American woman – which is 5’4″, 140 pounds, and a size 14.

Here’s a look at our average Jane eating our favorite fast food wonders, and how she pays for them. (Not that we green Janes ever eat fast food…)

Burger King Bacon Double Cheeseburger

620 calories and 28 grams of fat. Get out your bathing suit and hop in the pool for some swimming. Like the back stroke? You’ll just have to swim 2.18 hours of the back stroke to burn off the 620 calories. We suggest a wet suit and nose plugs.

McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets

Six pieces have 290 calories and 17 grams of fat. Sounds like a lot, right? Easy enough to fix: a few hours of vigorous sex will burn that off! Just 9.06 hours in bed will take care of those six McNuggets. Up for it?

Thirsty? Before you reach for a Starbuck’s Mocha, Low Fat Milk, Venti, here’s a thought.

At 446 calories and 20 grams of fat, you can burn that all off with just one simple exercise. Consider climbing some hills for just one hour – while carrying a 21-42 pound load. That’s about a bushel of apples. We suggest not eating one on the way up – one Red Delicious apple will add 127 calories to your count.

Want a Chocolate Softie from Wendys?

One large Frosty Dairy Dessert in Chocolate from Wendys is 540 calories and 91 grams of fat. Participating in one hour of your place of worship -  i.e. kneeling, walking, and praying – will burn 32 calories. You just have to marathon it by completing 16.8 straight hours at church.

Carl’s Jr Bacon Swiss Crispy Chicken Sandwich

690 calories and 36 grams of fat. Like working on your home? Just 2.17 hours of roofing will burn off your crispy sandwich. If that’s not motivation to get your home in order, I don’t know what is.

IHOP Pancakes with Syrup

110 calories and 3 grams of fat per dessert pancake, and 230 calories and 58 grams of fat per two ounces of syrup. So if you layer up the pancakes, you’re looking at about 790 calories. But no worries. If you bicycle like a rabid hamster – or, roughly 20 mph – you can burn it off in 45 minutes. And possibly win the Tour De France. Look out, Lance Armstrong!

CORRECTION:

Note: please excuse our inadvertent errors and typos. IHOP syrup has 58 grams of carbs, not fat.  A large Wendy’s shake has 13g of fat.

Further reading: Calorie Counts frequently off for fast food

Images: mikebaird, thefoodpornographer, milkintheclock, lyberty, foodfacts, mooshee85, foodbeast

We’ve got our eyes on you, KFC.

For years now you’ve been a cornerstone of the fast food movement, bucketing out deep-fried meat and refined carbs in every direction and every conceivable portion size – relentlessly filling American faces for decades.

You’ve taken criticism on the chin, which was brave of you because there’s been plenty of it – from health organisations despairing at your liberal use of hydrogenated oils (prompting you to recently switch to trans fat-free oils, along with all your competitors, of course) to PETA’s fury over your somewhat spotty animal rights record. Which is putting it mildly. Truth be told, as unashamedly bonkers as PETA often are, the term “battery hen” makes me want to strip naked and hand out leaflets until I’m arrested. Yet despite all that, KFC, you’re a survivor.

Look.

You make fast food. It’s fast food. That means, inexorably and unavoidably, the food you make is of the fast variety. It’s not healthy food. You’ve taken great pains in recent years to make your food healthier – but that’s a world away from being good, green people-fuel. Putting aside the continuing problem with your reliance on incarcerated animals living in undeniable squalor and misery, your product falls firmly into the category of Food That Seems A Better Idea After A Few Beers.

It’s generally wildly caloric and bulging with fat. Your latest effort is an admirable step away from the fat fryers, releasing a range of grilled chicken with reduced calories and sodium – all while you’re developing new fried products in the background, of course. But your newly grilled products are not healthy. They’re  just less unhealthy.

So keep your slice of the market – though we suggest that if you wish to expand it, be nicer to animals, since people are big on that nowadays. Grill everything in sight, and continue to keep America (and the world, for that matter) bright-eyed and greasy-lipped.

But don’t pretend to be what you aren’t, please, or we’ll have a new word to fling at you.

Image: pdra