macdonalds

a couple of months ago, i posted something about bad journalism. and i was directly referring to yahoo's fit-to-post articles. yup, i know, it is such an such ironic name! anyway, i hardly read their articles these days. and today, i get them writing about how a macdonalds burger looked the same after 6months. why was there no mould? why did it look the same? etc and to a certain extent i thought i felt like the article was trying to hint at the use of preservatives. "macdonald's use so much preservatives, the food stayed fresh after 6-months. would you really want to eat such things?" - this line screamed in my head. well, no, the article did not said it. i just felt it did. it was irresponsible reporting. no research. no mention of what kind of environment the burger was left under. whether there was ventilation, whether it was controlled temperature etc. so, to a person who has some exposure to scientific research, the article carried totally no credibility. it was obvious they were trying to make news out of no news.

yup, i know there are big no-nos against fast foods and there are many people out there who do not advocate eating fast foods. i came back to the article again later in the day and by then, there was a lot of comments. and i was right, there were people who chided the baseless article. i thought about it again, if a burger stays mouldless after 6months, wouldn't it in fact be a good thing? doesn't this mean that macdonalds had in fact observe such strict food hygiene standards that there was not a single fungal spore on their burgers? and looking at it from this perspective, i could only congratulate macdonalds!

:-)