The Very Official McDonalds (and other fast food outlets) Thread

scottishtv
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu 01 Apr, 2004 15.36
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Mon 26 Mar, 2018 14.25

bilky asko wrote:
Mon 26 Mar, 2018 14.01
I believe those sweeteners - xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, lactitol, maltitol, etc. - are not present in Ribena. They are generally present in mints and chewing gum.
Oh, I think Gregg Wallace should be sent back to the factory to find out.
Critique
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10.37
Location: Suffolk

Mon 26 Mar, 2018 15.51

In the midst of all the talk of the sugar tax recently I bothered to actually check how much sugar is in a bottle of Lucozade Sport and was fairly horrified when I saw how much! As a result I picked up a Lucozade Sport Lite to find that it tasted nowhere near as good. However, is it just me that finds Ribena light to taste just as good as normal Ribena? It has something mad like less that 30 calories in it per 500ml and less than 3g of sugar!
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

Mon 26 Mar, 2018 18.29

Vimto Mix is just as good as full blooded Vimto now.
james2001
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 23.10

Tue 27 Mar, 2018 00.38

scottishtv wrote:
Mon 26 Mar, 2018 13.47
Some sweeteners can have laxative effects. I know sugar-free Polos used to carry a warning on the back, telling people to avoid "excessive consumption".
There's so many questionable side effects and long term health effects of these sweeteners that makes you wonder if they're really much better than sugar at all. But they're in nearly everything now, they're hailed as the magic solution (or they're cheaper for penny pinching buisnesses).
james2001
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 23.10

Tue 27 Mar, 2018 00.40

WillPS wrote:
Mon 26 Mar, 2018 08.55
The levy wasn't intended to remove sugary drinks from the market, it was designed to make consumers stop and think about the choice.
It has removed drinks from the market though. Pretty much everything apart from Coca Cola and Pepsi has been reformulated to be full of sweeteners, and there are places which now only offer sugar free soft drinks. How is that not removal of choice? Especially for people who want to avoid artifical sweeteners for various reasons. The choice to pay more for the full sugared versions hasn't even been given to us for the majority of drinks.

I can't buy the lucozade I like, only a version that tastes like it's had fairy liquid poured into it, I can't add the flavours I enjoy to pepsi at the refill stations, when I went to the cafe in Asda the only options were diet drinks. If that isn't removal of choice, I don't know what is.

The levy might not have been intended to remove these drinks from the market, but with companies trying to avoid having to pay it, that's the effect it's had.
bilky asko
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48

Tue 27 Mar, 2018 07.47

james2001 wrote:
Tue 27 Mar, 2018 00.38
scottishtv wrote:
Mon 26 Mar, 2018 13.47
Some sweeteners can have laxative effects. I know sugar-free Polos used to carry a warning on the back, telling people to avoid "excessive consumption".
There's so many questionable side effects and long term health effects of these sweeteners that makes you wonder if they're really much better than sugar at all. But they're in nearly everything now, they're hailed as the magic solution (or they're cheaper for penny pinching buisnesses).
What evidence do you have to back up thag first statement? Do any of these sweeteners cause significant tooth decay and diabetes when consumed excessively? And what is the actual percentage of products they are in, seeing as sweeteners are notoriously bad for use in baking?
Image
User avatar
Ebeneezer Scrooge
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 13.53
Location: Scrooge Towers

Wed 28 Mar, 2018 11.43

I too have an issue when it comes to state sanctioned diet - removal of options doesn't count as education, so while the initial effect may be an improvement in health, these adults who "can't be trusted" will still opt for sugar en-masse as soon as the opportunity arises.

Take the supermarkets as an example - most have already increased their prices and removed offers on 500ml bottles of coca-cola. While that doesn't affect me massively as I would tend only to have that as a sugar hit following particularly heavy exertion, it has affected me by way of the supermarkets/manufacturers using it as a mask to hide the fact that they've increased the price across all options.

Meanwhile, while walking around after seeing my 2 for £2 option had disappeared entirely across coca-cola AND coke zero (It's since been reintroduced to Coke Zero as 2 for £2.20), I went along the non-refrigerated drinks aisle and found 1.75L of coca-cola for 30p more than a 500ml bottle.
And that was without the three for... offer being applied.

So would the sugar tax result in me buying less sugary drinks? With pricing as it currently is, no - I'd just end up buying in bulk to hide the cost increase!
Snarky
james2001
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 23.10

Wed 28 Mar, 2018 12.15

On another subject, I've just been to KFC and they're still running on a limited menu all these weeks later, this DHL farce has been so embarrasing. The fact things still aren't close to back to normal 6 weeks later just shows how unsuitable and unprepared DHL were for the job. I think the new Bidvest contract kicked in at the start of the week (and I think my store is one of those they've been restored to) so hopefully things will be better soon.
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

Wed 28 Mar, 2018 12.34

Had a quick gander in Pret today. Healthy options my arse. Some of their wraps and sandwiches are up above 650kcal per portion... that's half my daily minimum allocation. A sweet chili chicken wrap from McDs is only 340-odd
james2001
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 23.10

Wed 28 Mar, 2018 14.42

Ebeneezer Scrooge wrote:
Wed 28 Mar, 2018 11.43
Take the supermarkets as an example - most have already increased their prices and removed offers on 500ml bottles of coca-cola. While that doesn't affect me massively as I would tend only to have that as a sugar hit following particularly heavy exertion, it has affected me by way of the supermarkets/manufacturers using it as a mask to hide the fact that they've increased the price across all options.
What's worse is I've just been into tesco and noticed in their fridges they've replaced the 500ml bottles and 330ml cans with 375ml bottles & 250ml cans of regular Coke & Pepsi- but they cost the same as the 500 & 330ml diet drinks. Considering the sugar tax is something like 24p per litre (I think), therefore the extra would only be 12p on a 500ml bottle and 8p on a 330ml can then, then the difference with the smaller bottles and cans is well in excess of what the sugar tax actually costs. Clearly some blatant profteering going on here. When a 375ml bottle of regular is 50p more expensive than a 330ml can of diet, and costs the same as a 500ml bottle diet despite being 75% of the size, it's clear they're using it as an excuse to rip us off. It wouldn't be as bad if the size/price difference was at least in proportion to the sugar tax.

I also noticed on the main soft drinks part of the shop, they had no bigger bottles of coca-cola, only 1L ones and 8 packs of 330ml cans (they did have 1.5L bottles of cherry though). Possible this is only a temporary thing during the changeover though.
bilky asko
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48

Wed 28 Mar, 2018 15.44

My local Tesco has swapped from 600ml Pepsi Max to 500ml Pepsi Max recently.

I wonder what the price will be once it's Full Sugar Coca-Cola with the sugar tax and bottle deposit.
Image
Post Reply