Do you want fries with that?

Nobody asked me, but …why are all these food Nazis so up in arms over the deal Weight Watchers has recently done with the fast food chain McDonald's to endorse some items on its menu?
I have no doubt that Green MP Sue Kedgley is in an apoplectic rage at the very thought of McDonald's and healthy food in the same sentence. However, putting aside silly Sue’s (and others of her ilk) mad rantings, surely it is a good thing that all the lard arses - who line up for their daily fat fix at 150 golden arches outlets up and down the country – now at least have an opportunity to pick something healthy rather than scoffing another burger and fries?
Admittedly, there is probably more chance of your regular, triple-cheeseburger-scoffing punter only taking up one seat on an economy flight, than opting for a salad and water rather than an upsized chips and large Coke. But at least there is the opportunity for Parekura Horomia or a member of his family – who are going to go to McDonald’s for their meal anyway – to opt for a healthier option.
Even so, McDonald's branches are now offering three meals - a Filet-O-Fish, Chicken McNuggets and a Sweet Chilli Seared Chicken Wrap - that each add up to 6.5 Weight Watchers' points. (The Weight Watchers’ points system allows people on its slimming programme between 18 and 40 points each day, which they must stay within to obtain and retain their goal weight.) Salads and water or diet soft drinks are served with the meals.
While McDonald's New Zealand’s chief executive Mark Hawthorne over-hyped (no doubt on the solid advice of the fast food company’s fancy PR people) the deal somewhat by declaring the arrangement with Weight Watchers a “noble cause”. He did make a good point about his company serving 1.5 million meals a week in New Zealand, and how this arrangement offered a chance to generate behaviour change in consumers about making healthy food choices.
One would have thought nutritionists and obesity experts would have welcomed the move of people making healthier food choices. But – to coin a fast food theme – fat chance!
The naysayers claim the partnership is a marketing ploy to lure people into McDonald's where they will buy more fat-laden foods.
''Make no mistake, this is about selling more burgers and fries,'' Boyd Swinburn, from the Australian Society for the Study of Obesity at Deakin University, said. ''Mum can go in and feel good about her Weight Watchers meal while she buys the kids burgers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.''
Now I agree that McDonald’s obviously sees a commercial benefit in its deal with Weight Watchers. They won’t be doing it for love. (See, I am not as naïve as Mr Swinburn suggests.) However, this does not make the idea a bad thing.
Even the aforementioned critic - Boyd Swinburn - concedes in his swipe at the arrangement that at least mum may consume a healthy option – even if her kids opt for the burger and chips. While not perfect, surely it is still some benefit to our nation’s collective expanding waistline, even if only one person in a family dining at McDonald’s opts for a Weight Watchers option?
I get the distinct impression that criticism of this arrangement is more to do with the increasingly popular belief – fuelled by the anti-American and multi-national sentiment of politically correct liberals – that anything McDonald’s does is evil and bad. Sorry, but I just don’t buy this argument.
Sure, the fast food giant is out to make a buck – but then again who isn’t.
Outfits like Healthy Organics, the Body Shop and Hubbard Foods – all who trade on a socially responsible mantra – are in business to make profit.
Wouldn’t it be better if the food Nazis took a deep breath, accept the fact that people will continue eat fast food no matter how bad it is, and use McDonald’s new partnership with Weight Watchers to encourage more of them to opt for the salad rather than the fries.