snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Fauxtography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05 October 2009, 05:58 PM
Jenn's Avatar
Jenn Jenn is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Alberta
Posts: 19,477
Read This! Warning label at McDonald's

Comment: Apparently the FDA forced McDonald's corporation to add this Warning Label at the bottom of the Nutrition Facts. Is this true or false?

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05 October 2009, 06:05 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

The FDA didn't do it, but Prop 65 in California could require it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05 October 2009, 06:06 PM
Nick Theodorakis Nick Theodorakis is offline
 
Join Date: 05 November 2005
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 6,657
Default

I don't know if the warning is true or not, but it is true that acrylamide spontaneously forms when food containing sugars and amino acids is cooked at high temperature. See the FDA page on "Acrylamide questions and answers."

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05 October 2009, 07:20 PM
Vextas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am inclined toward believing it is fake. One reason being, the English used seems a little odd - "may be present in foods or beverages sold or served here." Shouldn't it be "sold and served"? Or are McD's now giving away food/drink for free?
Meh, I am nitpicking
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05 October 2009, 10:27 PM
Latiam's Avatar
Latiam Latiam is offline
 
Join Date: 19 June 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,484
Default

I just have trouble with the idea that someone is going to go into McDonald's and then see this on the food they have ordered and paid for and not eat it. It's like putting a warning on a cigarette - you don't see it until it's out of the pack and on the way to consumption.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05 October 2009, 10:38 PM
RCIAG's Avatar
RCIAG RCIAG is offline
 
Join Date: 29 May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latiam View Post
I just have trouble with the idea that someone is going to go into McDonald's and then see this on the food they have ordered and paid for and not eat it. It's like putting a warning on a cigarette - you don't see it until it's out of the pack and on the way to consumption.
And like the cigarette warnings don't stop people from smoking, that warning is not gonna stop anyone from eating a Big Mac.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05 October 2009, 10:44 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Roll eyes

I don't know why anybody would think someone would fake something so mundane as a standard health warning.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 October 2009, 10:53 PM
PallasAthena's Avatar
PallasAthena PallasAthena is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 6,621
Default

Every building I go in here in California has similar signs. I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think that they'd put them on other things.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06 October 2009, 10:59 AM
Vextas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
I don't know why anybody would think someone would fake something so mundane as a standard health warning.
The statement "Chemicals known to cause cancer" is not fact, as the notice implies. Also, acrylamides form in many foods for many reasons beyond what is mentioned. Tests have been carried out to determine if there is a definate link between acrymalides and the development of cancer, specifically bowel cancer.
It was determined that no consistant evidence linking these chemicals to any form of cancer could be found. There is also zero evidence that acrymalides cause birth defects. In short, there is more chance of choking to death on some fries, than developing cancer from eating them.

"Warning - Food may present choking hazard"


http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Leg...-warning-rules
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06 October 2009, 02:45 PM
BenPenguin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vextas View Post
I am inclined toward believing it is fake. One reason being, the English used seems a little odd - "may be present in foods or beverages sold or served here." Shouldn't it be "sold and served"? Or are McD's now giving away food/drink for free?
Meh, I am nitpicking
Sold or served covers all possibilities. If they say sold and served then if, for some reason somebody gets a freebie then they will be covered. It seems to be on a lot of disclaimers.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07 October 2009, 01:40 AM
TuFurg TuFurg is offline
 
Join Date: 06 July 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 1,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latiam View Post
I just have trouble with the idea that someone is going to go into McDonald's and then see this on the food they have ordered and paid for and not eat it. It's like putting a warning on a cigarette - you don't see it until it's out of the pack and on the way to consumption.
I don't think it's supposedly on the food but other media used to relay the nutrition facts, like a poster or the like. Could be wrong though.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07 October 2009, 09:45 AM
pickle's Avatar
pickle pickle is offline
 
 
Join Date: 11 January 2009
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 194
Default

I've not visited California, so I've not seen many of the affects of Prop 65. I am curious though - it seems that that proposition would result in an so many warning labels, that it would lose its affect. Has it resulted in too many labels? And do people generally just ignore them now?

(Within the last couple of months, I read a little on the proposition, but it wasn't what I'd call an in depth study. It did make me wonder about the number of labels that would be required when I started seeing the types of substances covered though.)

Last edited by pickle; 07 October 2009 at 09:45 AM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12 January 2012, 07:08 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Icon13

Similar sign from Starbucks:

http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/t...ning-posted-in
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12 January 2012, 07:31 PM
DrRocket's Avatar
DrRocket DrRocket is offline
 
Join Date: 03 February 2006
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 2,290
Soapbox

Teh raw food advocates are probably behind this.

You can have my hash brown potatoes and cup of coffee after you pry them from my cold dead hands!!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12 January 2012, 07:40 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,031
Glasses

This is not a fake. California's prop 65 requires these warnings, and they're all over the place. I work in environmental law and we deal with these often.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12 January 2012, 07:47 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Chef

As far as I know, California withdrew the requirement for posting acrylamide warnings for food products:

http://www.ncausa.org/custom/headlin...8&returnto=171

I can't recall having seen one of these signs in the last several years.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12 January 2012, 08:22 PM
kanazawa kanazawa is offline
 
Join Date: 19 January 2007
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
This is not a fake. California's prop 65 requires these warnings, and they're all over the place. I work in environmental law and we deal with these often.

Seaboe

When I bought bags of sand at the hardware store to make a sandbox for my kids, the sand has similar warning labels. Warning...sand will kill you.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12 January 2012, 09:19 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latiam View Post
I just have trouble with the idea that someone is going to go into McDonald's and then see this on the food they have ordered and paid for and not eat it. It's like putting a warning on a cigarette - you don't see it until it's out of the pack and on the way to consumption.
Are cigarettes different in Canada? Here the warnings are on the pack itself (and often on displays and advertisements) and you can clearly see them long before you've purchased and used the drug.. Of course cigarettes are at the point that anybody using them should be aware of the danger, warning or no.

As for here, while you may already be at the McDonalds surely you could notice this before buying your food, it appears to be on their standard nutrition sign which (again around here) is usually next to the counter on one side or another.

As for the warnings.. I am in no way qualified enough to comment on the risks of acrylamide, but I've heard some dissenting opinion.

ETA: I also don't mean to make light of cancer but there are sooooo many things that could possibly be linked to cancer (heck there are tons of things that definitely are linked to cancer) that putting a warning on them all seems.. I guess overblown. But if that's what California wants to spend its money on that's their business I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12 January 2012, 10:15 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

I must say that I do get a chuckle when some product has a warning label saying "such and such is known by the state of California to cause cancer." I don't live anywhere near California yet see these labels. I can never figure out if it's a situation where California voters/lawmakers embraced some pseudo-scientific nonsense about some product causing cancer or they were just the only state with the guys to legislate a warning about it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13 January 2012, 02:15 AM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

By the difference in color and that text and table that is partially covered. I would say this is a label that was added some time after bag was manufactured. Whether it was added by the store or someone else is not something the picture will tell you. Being it that their is some law that claims California know about something from testing that know one else seams to recognise or knows about. It is very possible that the store had to add these after the bags arrived at the store.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.