The Chicago Tribune wrote:
Go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac. If you avoid studying the nutritional wall chart you could enjoy your sandwich blissfully unaware of the caloric truth.
That's about to change.
McDonald's Corp., under fire from health activists, targeted by lawsuits and trying to redefine its relationship with customers, said Tuesday that it will become the first fast-food company to print detailed nutritional information about its products on the packaging.
Literally wrapping its food in the numbers, McDonald's will confront its diners with all the hard facts, like: Big Mac, 560 calories.
On everything from a four-piece serving of Chicken McNuggets (170 calories) to a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (730 calories), the chain will include on the wrapper a small information box delineating five nutritional facts: calorie, protein, fat, carbohydrate and sodium contents.
[...]
McDonald's said its new packaging will be introduced in Italy at the 2006 Winter Olympics and then rolled out to North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America in the first half of 2006. The company said it expects to have the packaging available in more than 20,000 of its 31,700 restaurants worldwide by the end of next year.
[...]
The decision to do nutritional labeling gives the company clear-cut ammunition to defend itself against charges of being irresponsible.
But there is also a potential marketing risk in becoming so straightforward about the contents of things like a Premium Crispy Chicken Ranch BLT Sandwich (580 calories). Perhaps people will stop eating so many of them.
McDonald's says it's not concerned that it might turn off its customers, and further, it has broadened its menu choices to include more healthful items like the Fruit & Walnut Salad (310 calories).
But when Ruby Tuesday, the sit-down restaurant chain, put nutritional information on its menus, there were repercussions. According to reports, sales tumbled as consumers suddenly stopped ordering the gargantuan burgers for which it is famous. In reaction, Ruby Tuesday eliminated the nutrition information from the menu.
McDonald's may be able to avoid that fallout because it is not putting the nutritional information on menu boards where people would see the caloric and fat contents on burgers before they order.
That's about to change.
McDonald's Corp., under fire from health activists, targeted by lawsuits and trying to redefine its relationship with customers, said Tuesday that it will become the first fast-food company to print detailed nutritional information about its products on the packaging.
Literally wrapping its food in the numbers, McDonald's will confront its diners with all the hard facts, like: Big Mac, 560 calories.
On everything from a four-piece serving of Chicken McNuggets (170 calories) to a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (730 calories), the chain will include on the wrapper a small information box delineating five nutritional facts: calorie, protein, fat, carbohydrate and sodium contents.
[...]
McDonald's said its new packaging will be introduced in Italy at the 2006 Winter Olympics and then rolled out to North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America in the first half of 2006. The company said it expects to have the packaging available in more than 20,000 of its 31,700 restaurants worldwide by the end of next year.
[...]
The decision to do nutritional labeling gives the company clear-cut ammunition to defend itself against charges of being irresponsible.
But there is also a potential marketing risk in becoming so straightforward about the contents of things like a Premium Crispy Chicken Ranch BLT Sandwich (580 calories). Perhaps people will stop eating so many of them.
McDonald's says it's not concerned that it might turn off its customers, and further, it has broadened its menu choices to include more healthful items like the Fruit & Walnut Salad (310 calories).
But when Ruby Tuesday, the sit-down restaurant chain, put nutritional information on its menus, there were repercussions. According to reports, sales tumbled as consumers suddenly stopped ordering the gargantuan burgers for which it is famous. In reaction, Ruby Tuesday eliminated the nutrition information from the menu.
McDonald's may be able to avoid that fallout because it is not putting the nutritional information on menu boards where people would see the caloric and fat contents on burgers before they order.
Usually any thread about fast food gives you a dozen people swearing they'd never ever eat at McDonald's because it SUCKS!!!. But, for the rest of humanity, do you ever consider the nutritional content of your fast food? Does it make a difference? Do you just blithely order the chicken sandwich instead of the burger on the assumption it must be healthier? I have to admit I was suprised to see the Crispy Chicken BLT sandwich has more calories than the Big Mac.
At one time, I had a list of what was the best (healthiest) thing to eat at almost 20 fast food places and stuck to it. Grilled, salads, no dressing, etc.
+ 
+ 
= 