I feel like you're playing to the knee-jerk reaction crowd that will decide you've won the argument through buzzword bingo, the buzzword in this case being "chemicals".

Saying a foodstuff has come into contact with a chemical somewhere in the process means nothing without more information, yet you expect it to be taken as an automatic negative.

There isn't a big conspiracy at McDonalds, the sliced apples are real food:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/product_nutrition.snacks...

> Ingredients: Apples, Calcium Ascorbate (a blend of Calcium and Vitamin C to maintain freshness and color).

Scary stuff! I guess the wax that is on apples at the grocery store is missing, but hey it still seems like real food to me.

I never said the apple slices were fresh. Of course they're not, they come pre-packaged, who would think they were fresh? That doesn't change the fact that they are slices of apple, and that they're not fried or baked. I'm replying to your delusion that you can't get worse than that meal, I'm not claiming it's the best or most nutritional meal in the world.

> I'm replying to your delusion that you can't get worse than that meal,

And that is wrong, it doesn't matter what you eat at MacDonalds. You can swap the coke against "chocolate milk" to reduce sugar, therefore you get more emulsifier and more preservative. You can swap french fries for apple slices to get less fat, but therefore you get another mix of chemicals without any vitamins left. And all this discussion when the Deli around the corner sells fresh apples ...

> You can swap french fries for apple slices to get less fat, but therefore you get another mix of chemicals without any vitamins left.

That's quite an amusing statement, given that the "mix of chemicals" you're criticising is Vitamin C and Calcium.

I don't like McDonald's either, but they're not the personified evil you insinuate them to be.