Slashdot Mirror

Hmm...

500ml of Coke in a bottle has 53g of sugar http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/coca-cola.html

500ml of Coke at UK McDonalds has 53g of sugar, so there's no ice http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/food/nutrition/nutrition-counter.mcd
(They obviously serve it with ice, but that's not considered part of the drink for the nutrition info.)

32floz = 946ml of Coke in US McDonalds has 86g of sugar, so there is some ice / extra water (otherwise it would be 100g of sugar). 86g of sugar is 811ml worth of Coke in a bottle -- still twice as big as a British medium coke, and 60% bigger than a UK large.

Redoing my calculations taking the ice into account:

At McDonalds (figures from the websites):
- A "large" drink in the UK is 0.5L, a "medium" about 0.4L, a "small" 0.25L (Germany has the same sizes).
- A "large" drink in the US is 0.81L, a "medium" is 0.55L, a "small" 0.38L, and a "child" 0.27L.

That makes the US child size about the same as the UK small size.

McDonalds are quite clear on their website ( http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ourfood/ ) about how they make their burgers - they get cuts of beef, pack it and nothing else into a patty, and freeze it and ship it to the outlets (I hesitate to call them restaurants). 367,000 head of cattle a year, in the UK, apparently.

You have narrow definitions of both "worldwide" and "meat"

Not everything I eat is grown in Britain, or even Europe. Given the choice between meat produced in the UK, EU or elsewhere I'll take the UK or EU meat, but I usually only have a choice in a supermarket. I usually have no idea where restaurants get their meat from.

Some places say, for instance McDonalds (UK) clearly say their meat is British or Irish, and not from ex-rainforest land.

They claim that they "season them with a pinch of salt and pepper after cooking" and that no fat is added.

There's also salt in other parts of the burger. A Big Mac has added salt in the bun, sauce, cheese and pickle.

They claim that they "season them with a pinch of salt and pepper after cooking" and that no fat is added.

There's also salt in other parts of the burger. A Big Mac has added salt in the bun, sauce, cheese and pickle.

Most fast-food commercials star teens and are aimed at teens/young adults

Nope, fast food adverts are aimed at the parents or young children, thats why they have silly Hamburglar toys, a kids zone and a health message. No sign of 13-18 at McDs, and BK are clearly targeting the 18-25 range, with workplace settings and .

establishing their places as hang outs

Did you do know that they design fast food places so that they drive people away after 20 minutes? The seats are hard, the music loops (and is pretty annoying anyway, we used to switch the tape when I did a summer job flipping burgers). The last thing these places want is a bunch of teens driving away other customers.

Most video games are marketted toward teens.

I agree, but you only see titles aimed at older players (Championship Manager, WWII games, The Sims) in the mainstream media. Stuff like Halo and WoW will be pushed in niche media, like gamer mags and review sites.

If you hit the 18-year-old mark, you're likely to attract people anywhere from 13 to 28

Perhaps for some products, but the overlap is tiny. A 25 year old is going to be looking at cars, consumer electronics, and financial products, a 15 year old is looking to buy music and stuff to impress his/her mates.

Take a look at which music gets advertised on mainstream TV, its all Muse, Jack Johnson, KT Tunstall and aimed at the 20-30 segment.

Seriously, its a bit 'media studies' but have a critical look at the adverts on busses, and on mainstream TV (e.g. Lost or Buffy) and have a little thing about whether a 15year old is being targetted by the advert.

You'll need to check your local McDonald's to compare. I bet the India one is about the third the price. So - with all due respect, you appear to be wrong. We could of course cooperate on a more thorough comparative study if you wish.

I don't know if we have the Chicken McGrill here (I am in England), I can't find it on their website (only looked briefly, couldn't see prices) but my rationale for McDonalds as a comparator was based on an article in The Economist. They seem to have thought about this quite carefully.