Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Fox - as has been mentioned more than once - you are talking about the US recipe. The UK recipe is very different. Also, the people who pay a premium for organic, locally sourced yada yada generally don't eat in McDonald's. You've missed the mark...

According to the McDonalds UK website, ingredients for fries are as follows:


Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Dextrose (only added at beginning of the potato season).

Prepared in the restaurants using a non-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

Salt is added after cooking.


http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/product_nutrition.sides.44.mcdonalds-fries.html

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > My original post was just to highlight that

> 17-19 were used to produce French Fries..

>

> 18 is citric acid. Prime component of lemon

> juice. What's your issue with that?


Nothing at all. But I can make chips at home without using lemon Juice..


DulwichFox

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Nothing at all. But I can make chips at home

> without using lemon Juice..

>

> I've no doubt you can. But can you make 200 tonne

> of them?


FFS..


I'm going to have a nice soak in my tub... Boil my head.. then off out to meet my public..


Hopefully find someone to have a sensible conversation with.


Anyone with a mental age of 8 should do after spending time here.


DF

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm going to have a nice soak in my tub... Boil my head.. then off out to meet my public..

> Hopefully find someone to have a sensible conversation with.

> Anyone with a mental age of 8 should do after spending time here.


Hello, Foxy's off on a flounce.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I know people in the country who take home

> anything they run over and cook it for their

> families because they don't want the animal to

> have died in vain. Ethics are tougher in the

> country apparently.


I have always thought of that as an argument of convenience somewhat.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I know people in the country who take home

> > anything they run over and cook it for their

> > families because they don't want the animal to

> > have died in vain. Ethics are tougher in the

> > country apparently.

>

> I have always thought of that as an argument of

> convenience somewhat.


Personally I thought it was revolting. One friend became such an enthusiast she would sit in her car idling the engine waiting for something to step out. The bloodlust became clear when her family refused to eat it and she carried on.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fox - as has been mentioned more than once - you

> are talking about the US recipe. The UK recipe is

> very different. Also, the people who pay a premium

> for organic, locally sourced yada yada generally

> don't eat in McDonald's. You've missed the mark...


Not to mention the fact, that, to my knowledge, none of the people on here are abject morons.


Fox, do you really think any of us thinks that McDonalds food is good for us? I like good food, but sometimes I eat a Snickers, and I know it's shit, but I am more than ok with that. Beer's bad for you. Smoking's bad for you. Too much cheese is bad for you. But we drink, smoke, eat fondue and go see the personal trainer. I am entirely at peace with the cognitive dissonance.


Oh. And it's not even the bloody UK recipe anyway.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Andy is an absolute star. Have used him for years and he’s become a hugely trusted and valued friend as well as handyman. Always willing to go the extra mile and doesn’t cut corners, but great on pricing. Can’t recommend enough.
    • Surely you are still covered under these circumstances even if you don't have the physical licence? I can't believe you would be prevented from driving? That would be a ridiculous system. I don't recall any delays   when mine was renewed. Why would their medical department be involved if you have no medical issues? Could someone have made some admin mistake somewhere along the line?
    • Does anyone have the same problem.  I am 79 and have sent my licence renewal form to the DVLA on the 21st October 20 which they have received. I have just received a letter from them them dated 22 December 2025 today saying my licence is with their Drivers Medal Department and will be processed as soon as possible. This follows my telephone call to them after three weeks  from the October date as I had not received my licence back as per their time frame. I also followed this up mid December after finally getting through but did not get any confirmation as to what the situation was. Is this normal practice? On the 7 January 2026 I will be unable to drive as my licence has not been sent back. I have no medical issues and meet all the requirements with no problem as per previous renewals in fact nothing has changed health wise.Their the letter states if they need any more details from me, they will contact me directly. Why has it taken 2 and a half months get get this far? Is this some sort of ploy to get older drivers to finally give up their driving by making life difficult as possible.  Has anyone else experienced this. Read Medical not Medal.
    • You're being a little disingenuous here. It is simply not true that "the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum" because: -> the area the development is in isn't 2/3 storeys maximum today - as evidenced by the school on the lot adjoining the development to the south, as well as the similarly-sized buildings to the north and east.  -> the SPG doesn't preclude this type of development anyway. This "genie in a bottle" stuff is desperate barrel-scraping. Now you're raising the spectre of a 9 storey building on the Gibbs & Dandy site (the chance would be a fine thing) but also arguing Southwark is too slow to approve things and opposed to development more than 2-3 storeys!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...