[vitaminc]

> In 2009, nutritionist Joann Bruso decide to keep a McDonald's Happy Meal uncovered on a shelf for a year. Apart from a few cracks in the bun, it remained unchanged. "Food is supposed to decompose, go bad and smell foul eventually," she wrote on her blog.

> "The fact that it has not decomposed shows you how unhealthy it is for children."

How does that show it's unhealthy for children? I'm not saying that a burger from McDonald's isn't unhealthy, but why is this evidence of it?

Also, beware if you copy and paste from that page—a "Read More" link is appended to your clipboard.

[derefr]

Indeed; it's the most basic form of "begging the question."

The fact that it has not decomposed shows that A. it is made with preservatives, and that B. the ingredients were manufactured to dessicate before they decompose. (The burger mummified, basically.)

To write a proper article, you must take those two premises, and explain how either of them entails "bad for children." It's not hard, but you actually have to do it if you want to write an article that properly convinces people of something; you can't just go "look, it still exists, that means something something biology!"

[Lazare]

You're right, it doesn't. But it's great for pageviews, and that's the important thing.

[stevek]

>> "The fact that it has not decomposed shows you how unhealthy it is for children." > How does that show it's unhealthy for children? I'm not saying that a burger from McDonald's isn't unhealthy, but why is this evidence of it?

When something differs from the natural order, I think it's fair to treat it with a large dose of suspicion (even horror!) and put the onus on the unnatural to justify itself as safe.