McDonald’s Does it Again… to Oatmeal

Not Very McWholesome

McDonald's Turns Oatmeal Into the Next Breakfast Dessert. Photo: McDonalds

As a devout lover of oatmeal (see here and here), I could not help but feel ambivalent about seeing it as a new trend in to-go breakfasts.  When Starbucks started selling the porridge a few years ago — perfectly branded as “Perfect Oatmeal” — I though it was a genius move on their part:  Finally, a truly healthy, real food breakfast at America’s most ubiquitously overpriced purveyor of the morning jolt.

Nevertheless, I’m kind of embarrassed to say, I never tried the Starbucks oatmeal.  And it wasn’t just because I realized that in addition to the real food I would be happy to consume (whole-grain rolled oats and dried fruit), they also added all kind of perplexing stuff (oat flour, calcium carbonate, salt, guar gum, caramel color, reduced iron, vitamin a palmitate, niacinamide, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, thiamine mononitrate, folic acid).   It was because I just couldn’t stomach the $3 ticket price for a food that I could make myself, very quickly, which would be both tastier and healthier, at a minute fraction of the cost.

So back to Mickey D’s.  Echoing its attempt to give us healthier options — or is it to capture a larger share of the market? — McDonald’s has also recently rolled out an oatmeal offering.  And as with their smoothie program, I am open to considering the merits of such an offering.  Because if there is an effective way to deliver food cheaply to communities that need it, it’s through McDonalds.  But, while not surprising, it turns out that just as with their “Real Fruit” Smoothie, the McDonald’s oatmeal is a dish full of promise that fails to deliver — hard.

More on Chipotle vs. McDonald’s

Comparing a Burrito to a Lethal Injection is a Bit of a Stretch.

I’m about a week late on this, guys (the perils of traveling, sorry!),  but I just wanted to thank the folks over at Fooducate for featuring my post about the McDonalds vs. Chipotle controversy.

I appreciate the fact that this issue seems to have garnered a lot of passionate reactions from various perspectives.  I really appreciate the insightful comments and the criticism, too.

And although I do feel like the the issue has been tapped, to some degree, I’d like to respond to the American Prospect’s Adam Serwer who offers the following criticism of my take:

No one expecting to lose weight or stay healthy should be eating either at Chipotle or McDonald’s. And while Cotlear is right that you can find ways to eat at Chipotle and consume a sensible number of calories, that’s not why people go to Chipotle. You go to Chipotle for the giant burrito.

FOODFIGHT: Is a McDonald’s Big Mac Healthier Than a Chipotle Burrito?

Atlantic Writer Claims the Burrito’s Halo of Virtue Hides an Inner Darkness

Is a McDonald’s Big Mac better for you than a Chipotle Burrito?  So claims James McWilliams in yesterday’s Atlantic.

His straight nutritional comparison of the above mentioned menu items leads him to this conclusion: Despite Chipotle’s sustainable and natural image, they are actually selling food that is worse than what we find in the most vilified of fast food chains.  What’s more, he continues, this calls into question the credibility of all food movements (sustainable/local/organic) which also claim to be better for our health.  In fact, the virtuous origins of certain victuals are a veil: they are actually just shielding foods that are really bad for you.  Foods that are “attacking” your body, in fact!