I also read that their #1 selling product to adult women is French Fries (yes, a side-order, not salad or a hamburger or something else). So, you go workout at Curves for 20-30 minutes, than eat your McFries, and voila, you've gained weight rather than losing it. Or so it seems.

Oh, and did you the photo of their new packaging which shows Nutritional information (which is being test marketed in several US cities)? It doesn't list ingredients. I notice many big companies websites do this as well - not list ingredients when listing nutritional info - when did this become okay?

The biggest debacle in Asia was when it was discovered in India that they used animal fat to fry the French Fries after claiming that they only use vegetable oil. The fall-out from that still reverberates to this day.

If McDonald's would quit trying to be something they are not, this wouldn't be an issue.

Word. The offending ingredients are flavoring agents, which McDs added when they switched from frying in 93% beef tallow to a relatively-flavorless vegetable shortening around 1990.
Why make a signature product taste worse? Marketing to consumer ignorance. "Cholesterol" was the scare word of the day and guests were demanding products fried in vegetable rather than animal products. Never mind the high trans-fat content of the mix McD's switched to. They ended up with a fry that was worse-tasting than the original, but one that could be advertised as being 100% cholesterol-free and fried in pure vegetable oil. And, as the OP suggests, still loaded with potentially artery-clogging trans fats.

The biggest debacle in Asia was when it was discovered in India that they used animal fat to fry the French Fries after claiming that they only use vegetable oil.

Whoa. Back up.

There are a lot of conflicting stories, with varying degrees of reliability, floating around as to what McDs might have done in India. Nobody except McDs really knows what happened, but here is the best I can piece together after a review of seemingly-trustworthy journalistic sources:

In 2001 some West Coast (U.S.) customers sued McDs after discovering that in U.S. markets the company used a beef-based "natural flavoring" product on their fries before freezing them. The company doesn't deny doing this. The plaintiffs claimed that they'd been led to incorrectly believe that the fries were a vegetarian product. IANAL, but that sounds like a good reason to be upset to me.

Again, the company doesn't deny using beef flavoring on fries SOLD IN THE U.S.

Nobody claimed that McDs was frying in anything but vegetable oil anywhere in the world (the first McDs opened in India in 1996, long after the company had ditched their tallow fry mix.) And nobody, at least nobody reliable, claimed that McDs used the beef flavoring on fries sold in India.

Anyway, it all blew up when the Indian press picked up on the U.S. story. From that point it's hard to tell where good information stopped and rumors took over. People in India got very upset at the thought they might have unwittingly ingested beef products, while being unaware of or discounting the company's stated policy of not using beef flavoring or tallow in India. Given the subcontinent's colonial history, it's understandable how suspicions might develop and fuel rage, and indeed there were riots in some locations, but again McD's maintained and continues to maintain that no beef products were used to flavor or prepare fries in India. Independent tests done at the time appear to confirm McD's story.

Now to apply Occam's razor: common sense should tell us that McD's using beef fat for frying in India was highly unlikely. For starters, if McD's was actually frying in tallow in India it would have been pretty obvious, from the smell and flavor of the fries, to anybody visiting their restaurants. On top of that, it would mean they were using a shortening they'd ditched everywhere else in the world, and one that would be a specialty product for that market and thus more expensive than company-standard or locally-available fats. And risking alienating the entire Indian market. There's just no good explanation of why they'd do that.

On top of that, it's really difficult to believe that a company with McD's tremendous marketing resources and demonstrated willingness to adapt menus to local customs would make that kind of blunder. To me, a lot of this story reeks of spider eggs in Bubble Yum.

The U.S. lawsuits ended up with settlements to Hindu, Muslim and Jewish groups (due to halal/kosher concerns) and apologies from the company, but to this day McDs maintains there were never any beef products used to flavor or cook their Indian fries.

Oh, and McDonalds didn't remove beef-derived flavorings from the fries as part of the U.S. settlement -- they look like they're still in there -- so vegetarians and halal/kosher-obervant folks still need to beware.

The issue was actually not so much about the beef flavouring although that is also a big no-no. It was more an issue for the many Indians are vegetarians and those who are not, sometimes go vegetarians on a particular weekday as a show of abstinence. The fact that MacDonalds in India advertised that they had vegetarian options (especially their fries) allowed many of them to dine there.

For some Indian vegetarians, the discovery that they had injested animal remains is not just a health or religious issue but a caste issue. Yes, even to this day. It is hard for non-Indians to comprehend, perhaps, but their ire was quite real, which no amount of monetary settlement can assuage.

And that's from a non-journalistic (not anymore at any rate) opinion but from someone (who considers herself fairly trustworthy) who was there when it happened.

But thank you for your opinion.

And another thing, MacDonalds did finally admit they used non-vegetable oil in India, hence the settlement.

And now I have a craving for a Big Mac and fries. Darn.

The issue was actually not so much about the beef flavouring

Sorry -- let me clarify since we agree on this -- I meant to use the term "flavor" in the sense of "ingredient used to create a taste," not in the sense of "taste" per se. In retrospect that was probably an overly vague choice of words -- I probably should have called the offending ingredient "beef extract." Anyway, I believe we both agree that the problem isn't that the U.S. fries tasted like beef -- if that "beef flavor" tasted like pumpkin pie it wouldn't change the main issue -- the problem's that the beef flavor was made from and therefore contained beef and the people eating the fries didn't know it. People shouldn't have to eat stuff they don't know they're eating whether it's a question of taste, caste, religion or health.

So we're cool there. I'm still having a hard time finding any documentary evidence for your next two claims (though thanks to their popularity on the web I'm sure many folks are convinced they're correct regardless of evidence):

For some Indian vegetarians, the discovery that they had injested animal remains...

My thesis is that in the case of India (we are talking about Indians in India, not the U.S., right?) it wasn't a discovery because it appears it didn't happen -- nobody ate animal remains in McDs' Indian fries -- although people then and now (present company included) don't want to believe it.

IN INDIA, according both to McDs and Indian health authorities, the fries NEVER contained animal products. Indian health authorities tested the product and agreed it was purely vegetarian: Indian Officials: No Beef Fat in McDonalds Fries And this fella, who's no friend of Western industrial consumerism or the meat biz, says the same thing (the problem was restricted to the U.S.): McDonald's lawsuit over beef in the french fries.

There is no question that the U.S. product DID and STILL contains beef. The reason there was a suit and settlement is that McDs hid this. It had nothing to do with their corporate behavior in India. In settling the suit, McDonalds admitted they screwed up and didn't give their U.S. customers complete information, and paid the plaintiffs and some charities a lot of money:
2001 U.S. settlement blurb.
Harish Bharti's page on the case (Bharti brought the suit.)
McDonalds'apology.

It's these facts: that there WAS and STILL IS beef product in McDs' U.S. fries, that McDs hid this, and that McDs DID admit and apologize for that, that apparently have led to the unproven concerns and rumors concerning McDs' practices in India. Many people have accepted the rumors as fact despite indications to the contrary. This should surprise nobody, of course, as we all love a juicy story, especially when it involves a big multinational corporation trying to impose outside culture on a non-Western country (well, I do anyway...); it's just that when juicy stories lacking evidence are accusatory in nature it behooves us as responsible adults with a worldwide audience to examine what we can say definitively. And when the only available evidence is contrary to the dish sometimes we have to let that juicy story go.

And another thing, MacDonalds did finally admit they used non-vegetable oil in India, hence the settlement.

I want to believe you (the juicy story factor again...) but I have been unable to substantiate anything like this. Do you have a citation? McDs' making such a statement seems especially unlikely given the fact that McDs originally said and continues to say that their Indian fries never contained beef product, while at the same time they admitting that they screwed up in the U.S. And if they did make that admission about their practices in India it seems like the kind of thing the anti-multinational and anti-meat crowds would be all over -- there should be anti-McDs pages out there documenting this if it happened; but again, there's nothing out there jumping out at me. So if McDs actually did admit using beef in India and are now covering it up that would make the story extra-juicy (Mmm... extra-juicy... :) ) And again, I like those juicy stories so point me to the admission...

Now, McDs DID admit they used beef extracts (including oils) in the U.S. and there's a lot about that on line. If you read the settlement documents on Bharti's page you'll see both the settlement and McD's apology only refer to U.S. restaurants and product; but there's no evidence there or anywhere else I've looked of any kind of settlement concerning Indian fries. The best conclusion I can draw from this right now is that there never was any kind of suit or settlement in India; this is consistent with much of the furor dying down after the Indian Health authorities gave their report. Maybe the fact that Bharti was an Indian living in the U.S. is where some of the confusion comes from, but he brought his case in a U.S. court concerning U.S. business practices and India didn't enter into it.

Obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and nothing would make this conspiracy nut's day more than to see there was some kind of cover-up going on -- but again all I've been able to dig up is web pages and forum posts apparently written using "common knowledge" as acceptable evidence but with nothing solid to back them up. I hate to say it but, as much as it detracts from the gossipy fun, right now I can't conclude anything but that McDs really was selling vegetarian fries in India all along. I know this differs to what is considered to be fact by many but being "commonly known" doesn't make something true -- facts do.

And now I have a craving for a Big Mac

Me too, but not the fries unless they go back to tallow (Man, I loved that stuff...) :)

Nicholas, dear, what is your affiliation with McD's?

You seem to have a vested interest, or maybe you're just really into their product. Or production.

I only read the first few words you wrote because you didn't preface them with "I'm a corporate attorney/lawyer for McD's," so forgive me. But anyone who can use the word "thesis" in terms of the "caloric entertainment" and "not real food" that McD's offers is, let me guess...affiliated with them, or in some kind of sponsored program (the Olympics?!?!?!) whereby what that company does, somehow doesn't count.

But gosh, you sure can type!

Tana,

Sorry to let this response go so long but I didn't want to let your conjecture go without an answer.

First, let me address your suspicions: I have nothing to do with McDs or any other corporation, law firm or anything related to with any of the things they sponsor or anything else nefarious. I'm just a random nobody with too much time on his hands. If you must know, I'm currently taking a break from reality -- that is, I don't work for anybody. If you read today's post on McDs you'll see I have no problem calling the clown on his errors.

Here's my deal: I believe that truth is such a powerful weapon that it bothers me when people I agree with in spirit feel the need to rely on unproven rumor to make a point.

I think that people trying to champion the cause of better food ultimately are more damaging than helpful when they make claims they can't back up with solid facts. Why? Well, for starters their opponents can easily latch onto these claims can be used by their opponents as examples that the message is not to be trusted, taking attention away from more legitimate and possibly stronger points. Sure, this is rhetorical trickery on the part of the opposition but it can be very effective nonetheless (watch any major media outlet reporting on a protest if you doubt me -- they always find the biggest nut jobs to put in front of the camera.)

The good news is that it's real easy to take this weapon away from the bad guys -- people shouldn't lie or tell things that can be proven false to get our message across.

I'm an idealist. I think people seriously convinced their cause is a right one have no reason to rely on anything but the truth. It isn't too much to ask that they should at least be sure what they say is correct (or identify conjecture and rumor appropriately) before posting to a durable medium like the web.

The fight for good food is already stacked against its proponents; there's no reason to be giving the opposition extra ammo by spreading easily-falsifiable stories. Anyway, there seems to be enough horrible truth out there that we don't need to rely on them.

But gosh, you sure can type!

Yeah, I can blab, too -- as a kid I'd do it so much in church my parents thought I'd be a priest. :)