It tastes like a sin. (theimpuslivebuy/Creative Commons)
Mark Bittman's new column on the New York Times' Opinionator page has trained its critical focus on the Golden Arches: "From a marketing perspective, [McDonald's] can do almost nothing wrong; from a nutritional perspective, they can do almost nothing right."
The editorial, "How to Make Oatmeal...Wrong," runs through the many reasons (including a list of 21 ingredients, many of them chemical) that McDonald's new fruit and maple oatmeal is not the healthy option the franchise insinuates it is.
The mush contains more sugar than a Snickers Bar and has only 10 fewer calories than a cheeseburger—hardly evidence of a nutritious new option. Get the nutritional info for the oatmeal here (pdf).
"Why would McDonald’s, which appears every now and then to try to persuade us that it is adding 'healthier' foods to its menu, take a venerable ingredient like oatmeal and turn it into expensive junk food?" Bittman fumes. "Why create a hideous concoction of 21 ingredients, many of them chemical and/or unnecessary? Why not try, for once, to keep it honest?"
Bittman asked that same question to McDonald's via email. The corporate answer, like its oatmeal, leaves a lot to be desired. Read the full article here.
Photo: theimpulsivebuy/Creative Commons via Flickr