Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 2

[Dave the Cook]

Welcome, Tess.

There are several reasons why you might want to inject (or soak, or tumble) chicken in a saline solution. The ability to sell salt water at chicken prices might be one of them, as you suggest. For some better reasons, please see my eGCI course on Brining.

Done properly, brining tenderizes proteins. You might or might not consider that "improvement." It is true that the texture changes.

Having had one of these sandwiches, I don't think brining is the issue. I'm not convinced that the chicken in it is not chopped and formed meat, rather than a natural breast. At the least, it's sliced too have much texture at all; it doesn't feel like meat. On the other hand, Bayless aside, the product is hardly the work of the devil. It's a fast-food sandwich.

[jbraynolds]

At the very real risk of keeping the log rolling past the expiration date...I don't think it's about blood lust. I think that, and this goes right back to the original points made: it's about Bayless being a hypocrite. He's made a career and created a persona around the promotion of regional, authentic foods made from sustainable ingredients grown by small farmers. Burger King has made a mega-business by doing exactly the opposite - selling processed, reformed, preserved, re-heated, artificially-flavored food products made from Frankencrops and served up by poorly-compensated employees who are treated by BK as so much chattel. And, much evidence suggests, the stuff is unhealthy for any number of reasons. You don't need to get into the subjective matter of how the sandwiches taste or lust for Bayless' head on a pike to see the disconnect here. I've been a happy patron of Frontera/Topo for, what, 10 years, and RB would have been one of the LAST people I'd expect to see shilling for an operation like BK.

[picaman]

If you want to try the sandwich for free, there are coupons for a free sandwich in November 10 People magazine (cover: Reality TV Couples) and December Parenting. If there's interest I can get a more comprehensive list of titles (I work for a magazine publisher.)

Sorry if this is old news.

Jamie

Edited November 4, 2003 by picaman (log)

[mags]

Celebrity is to a very large extent a function of a created persona. And these days -- and maybe forever -- the public demands a relatively simplistic persona. We're not interested in complexities, seeming contraditions....you know, the stuff that all of us real people have. Nope, we want our celebrities to be two-dimensional cutouts, capable of being summed up in no more than a sentence or two.

Furthermore, we the people seem to have a (to me, at least) peculiar habit of investing a lot of emotional capital in these simplistic personas. It seems to matter to us -- in a way I honestly don't understand -- that Meg Ryan be eternally perky, that Al Roker be eternally a jolly lover of big portions, that sports stars be not only good at sinking baskets or hitting homers but also at representing Good Wholesome Value, that Keith Richards be a permanent poster-boy for All Hedonism All the Time. And we get really pissed when they deviate from these simplistic personae. We don't want to know that Keith coaches Little League and listens to Celine Dion in his spare time. For some reason -- and again, I really don't get this, but it seems to be true -- we regard this kind of deviation as a personal betrayal.

You want to talk about hypocrisy? Al Roker has been so damaged by his love of big portions that he had gastric bypass surgery and cannot now eat fatty food or indeed any food in portions more than about a quarter-cup. And yet he still shows up on the Food Network gladhanding the winners of pie-eating contests, and rubbing his (now all but nonexistent) tummy at the sight of grease-dripping ribs. The very stuff he's shilling for ruined his health to the point where he required radical, highly invasive surgery. Why aren't you dinging him? For that matter, why aren't you dinging Mario, for his apparently horrible sauce?

Jinmyo aside I don't think any of us could live up to the standards of moral austerity that we're demanding of our celebrities. That's one problem I have.

Another is our failure to understand that their personae are PERSONAE, packages designed to make a particular product alluring to consumers. You want to feel like a jerk for buying into the packaging -- fine, I'll join you. You want to throw up on the system that puts dollars into marketing rather than into finding and cultivating the best possible products -- the system that promotes Brittney Spears rather than, say, some fat black middle-aged chick with an amazing set of pipes and exquisite musical sense (Phoebe Snow, are you listening?)? I'll join you there, too. But blaming the product -- Bayless, in this case -- because he turned out to be more complex than the persona you bought into...that I don't go along with, and I don't understand.

You know, I didn't know anything about Rick Bayless before this started, beyond having read reviews of his restaurants and cookbooks, and having occasionally bought his bottled salsa (which I like). His success, for me, was entirely a function of his ability to cook well. And the demand that he do more than that, that he somehow represent our highest moral aspirations ...well, all I can think of his Charles Barkley pointing out that we hire ball-players to PLAY BALL, not to be role models for our children. I think we hired Bayless to cook. The rest, as they say, is commentary.

[Tess]

Welcome, Tess.

There are several reasons why you might want to inject (or soak, or tumble) chicken in a saline solution. The ability to sell salt water at chicken prices might be one of them, as you suggest. For some better reasons, please see my eGCI course on Brining.

Done properly, brining tenderizes proteins. You might or might not consider that "improvement." It is true that the texture changes.

Having had one of these sandwiches, I don't think brining is the issue. I'm not convinced that the chicken in it is not chopped and formed meat, rather than a natural breast. At the least, it's sliced too have much texture at all; it doesn't feel like meat. On the other hand, Bayless aside, the product is hardly the work of the devil. It's a fast-food sandwich.

Thanks for the info, Dave! I haven't tried the sandwiches and I was just guessing. I have by accident bought frozen chicken that's been injected with saline and it was really gross. It seems to me that fast-food chicken is apt to be like that.

[tanabutler]

QUOTING MAGS HERE:

For that matter, why aren't you dinging Mario, for his apparently horrible sauce?

1) I did ding Mario Batali. I am the one who went off topic and said that his is, bar none, the worst tomato sauce I've ever had in my life.

Jinmyo aside  I don't think any of us could live up to the standards of moral austerity that we're demanding of our celebrities.  That's one problem I have.

2) I don't care if Rick Bayless eats at Burger King. I honestly do not care a rat's hairy ass. I have eaten at Burger King occasionally—probably three times in the last two years. I am not invoking snobbery and saying, "Well, how could anyone eat there? It's trash!" I. Do. Not. Care. I don't care where or what Rick Bayless eats.

I have a big, big, big problem with him making commercials for Burger King, who IS part of the Evil Empire, for all the reasons mentioned in the Tony Bourdain Rant, above. Why? Because Bayless helped create the charter for Chef's Collaborative, and BK is the anti-Christ. Sing the "Sesame Street" song: "One of these things is not like the other/One of these things just doesn't belong."

Here are the things. One of them is not like the others.

Local • Organic • Seasonal • Sustainable • Burger King

Hmmmmm.

But blaming the product -- Bayless, in this case -- because he turned out to be more complex than the persona you bought into...that I don't go along with, and I don't understand.

3) I can't begin to count the ways that this is incomprehensible to me. Oh, I understand the difference between Janis Joplin, who would never have gotten a recording contract today, not with that face and hair, and Mariah "I Sing Notes Only Invisible Dogs Can Hear" Carey. I don't buy into celebrity idols. My disappointment in Bayless has nothing to do with his persona. It has to do with his betrayal of some very high values, values he helped form, put into words, and share. It has to do with him trying to have it both ways. Human? Yep. And wrong.

Like I said, this thread was, for me, deader than Seabiscuit, until I read the Bourdain post, which offered alternatives to climbing in bed with a multi-national corporation that is toxic and greedy. Having seen what I believe is "the light," I have clarified and renewed my belief that Bayless absolutely did the wrong thing (for whatever reasons—I am trying not to judge his motivations, though I could do that if I wanted to re-read the 1000+ posts in this long-winded thread). I think he made a huge mistake, and maybe, just maybe, he could turn down future commercial opportunities with this greedy chain, and admit he did The Wrong Thing. The publicity of turning "traitor" to Burger King would surely inspire a new maelstrom, and he could use that publicity to get attention for an intelligent endeavor: perhaps putting some of Tony Bourdain's good ideas to work.

And Jinmyo, I have already heard from one woman at the Chef's Collaborative, and she said (I quote): "Thanks for forwarding this along. I have to say that I appreciate the rant."

She is going to check with CC and apprise me of any news.

[mags]

Hell, Tana, Seabiscuit's on the bestseller list, or was until recently. And besides, this is the season when the dead rise.

As for your dinging Mario, yes, you did. But nobody picked up on it -- not meaning to diss you, meaning only that your point didn't seem to make a dent in the general group pile-on on Bayless.

As it happens, I do see a disconnect between Bayless' work for Chefs' Collaborative and his decision to pitch for Burger King. But I'm willing to believe he regards this sandwich as a step in the right direction, and what I see here is people twisting themselves in knots to avoid seeing it that way.

[tan319]

To tanabutler and mags,

I saw the post about Batalis sauce and didn't have the energy at that moment to post about it, as I was still trying to come to terms with my daily bouts of not being a "noble" person, as Mags pointed out to me.

If Batalis sauce is inedible, and I for one can't see why he would bottle a sauce anyways, as his recipe for his own "mother" tomato sauce is so easy and good, he's a sellout too!

I just didn't care as much about the Batali thing, he doesn't really do it for me ( I feel that he has legions of fans on this board anyways).

I was looking thru an old Food Arts mag today at work and saw Bayless endorsing a brand of Muscovy duck in it, as well as other chefs endorsing products. So Bayless isn't new to this.

And , have to address this. I doubt Al Roker was obese because he likes to look at, talk about, and eat food.

He had a condition that dieting couldn't help and got a gastric bypass. About the only person I know of who had that kind of weight problem who has dieted down to a decent weight is Drew Nieporent, God bless him.

Has Roker espoused a lifestyle that's at odds with what he does? What product is he endorsing?

Just curious.

And tana, you have probably put the best points forward consistently thru this whole thing.

[Jinmyo]

As it happens, I do see a disconnect between Bayless' work for Chefs'  Collaborative and his decision to pitch for Burger King.  But I'm willing to believe he regards this sandwich as a step in the right direction, and what I see here is people twisting themselves in knots to avoid seeing it that way.

I can see it that way but it makes my eyes burn and tear until I uncross them.

[tanabutler]

Thanks, Mags, for the swift reply.

Seabiscuit, the horse, is dead, and all the yeast in the world can't change that. The bestseller is one of my three favorite books last year (and the only non-food book).

I don't think people are twisting themselves into knots, except the people who decry his endorsement because they think the food is shitty. I think that's snobbery, and it is the most uncomfortable aspect of this entire thread to me. "Lynch the Chardonnay drinkers!" Wears. Me. Out.

I just don't think anyone who's getting money from Burger King can be on the board of overseers for Chef's Collaborative. I don't suggest putting him in leg irons, but clearly this kind of situation is more than a disconnect.

I can only state it thus: Tony Bourdain's post rang the bell for me. I believe it rang the bell for many people, and here's why. (Mr. Bourdain, don't read this up-suckage.)

Mr. Bourdain's got the authority—in the original sense of the word, the etymology of which means "to create." He has put himself in the same trenches that Mr. Bayless has. Probably a few more, given the disparity between the holistic leanings of Mr. Bayless and the jaded, smoke-coated, orgiastic self-indulgence which we all enjoy about Mr. Bourdain. Nevertheless. The notches on their belts are similar. Best-selling authors. Well-known chefs. Too bad no one ever publicly lusts over Rick Bayless, but that's life.

In the non-celebrity quietude of his life, Rick Bayless helped a group of people forge an alliance and a charter and something with real purpose. Chefs Collaborative. And then who knows how he got to the point where, when approached by a corporation against whose stances he has publicly stood (without actually naming them by name), Rick Bayless compromised. "Compromise" means "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions." Burger King conceded $650,000, possibly, and Rick Bayless compromised his integrity as a spokesperson who opposes, strongly, the values that BK throws out into the world.

I regard BK as I would a political machine. They find out what's popular and find a way to sell it, but with their own not-very-well-hidden agenda. As Mr. Bourdain put it—and I am assuming that, unlike the inhabitant of the White House, he does not pay people to write for him—emphasis mine:

They suck. They're bad for America. They're bad for the world. They're ultimately about dumbing down the whole concept of the meal, standardization and consistency over quality, narcotizing and brand-imprinting children, removing the whole concept of skilled labor from food preparation and selling Super-Sized soft drinks to fat kids. They can sell all the damn salads and hi-concept "healthy" sandwiches they want--they know full well that they'll get 'em on the other end-meaning a mile-high vat of soda (the moneymaker).

When Mr. Bourdain says, "They suck," it kind of cuts to the chase. It rings the bell. l pay attention. That is the effect on me when someone with personal authority and authenticity [and from what I've read, a genuine concern for the betterment of people's lives (who else would heroically want to liberate Berkeley vegans from a life of anemic despondency?)] writes about a fellow chef who took the path of least resistance. And in so doing, offers truly thoughtful and intelligent ideas about how Mr. Bayless could have played his hand differently.

The situation isn't tragic. As we say in our house, "No babies died." (Apparently not, anyway, but I could play the "but babies are dying in third world countries where Burger King is raising beef instead of growing crops that could feed more people" card.)

That's why I am involved all over again in this issue. I am not particularly moral. But I care deeply. I am trying to be as respectful as I can, but I'm human, too. (Human enough to resent food snobbery, but only when it's applied to me.)

Thanks.

[Richard Kilgore]

As one who did not care for the taste of the Sante Fe Chicken sandwich, I thoroughly resent being lumped in with those scurilous food snobs who look down on poor Chardonnay drinkers! As several others have said, I would rather have a Whopper if I have decided to do BK. How egalitarian, yukky-sandwich-embracing can we get?

[rgruby]

OK,

I haven't waded into this one yet as an infrequent poster on these boards - and someone who has never tasted RB's creations (Chicagoland or BK).

But, as the one who started the Alice Waters in Saveur thread a couple o' months back (which involved a much less egregious compromise) - I'm gonna wade in.

Bayless, whatever his strengths as a cook, restauranteur and promoter of honest Mexican food (and I made the chipotle Chicken soup out of his first cookbook this weekend and it is fucking fantastic - so you know I am not completely against the guy) set himself up on a pedestal as a promoter of good, small production, organic methods by beiong involved with the Chef's Collaborative mission. First, I will say good for him for being involved in the CC in the first place. Really. He may have fucked up, but he had a hand in getting this thing off the ground. It seems like a very worthwhile project. So, kudos where kudos are due I think. However, is that what people are really pissed off about - that he set himself up to a very high standard, and then let us down?

Or, are we just pissed that he's a high-end resto-dude that became a shill for the ENEMY?

I'm not sure the sandwich in question is even available north o' the 49th. And I don't much care to try it, so that may be moot. My opinion - as I understand the general drift of this thread - is that Bayless sucks because of his involvement in the CC, and that this sandwich seems to stand against their general principles (which he helped author). A hypocrite then.

In reading this thread my opinions have gone back and forth. At the end of the day, I don't give a rat's ass if restauranteur X shills for company Y. Whatever. But, if you stake your reputation on representing one way as more "pure" - in foodie-land that'd be organic corn-fed yadda-yadda no pesticides bathed in mermaid's milk etc (I went out to eat with a raw foodie this week - forgive my curmudgeonlessness (sp??)) - it'll bite you in the ass if you take $$ from BK unless they truly embrace your position. Which BK clearly has not in this case - at least Bayless hasn't made a case out that they have. It may be a "better" sandwhich than their usual stuff, but so what? - that still don't make it a step closer to responsibly raised beef, organic veg and grains, and healthy (see debate elsewhere re: sodium levels). It does seem relativley low in fat, for what that's worth.

OK, enough typing from me!

Geoff Ruby

[hillbill]

The latest Burger King Chicken Baguette TV commercial.

[ExtraMSG]

Just read Rick "BK" Bayless's response.

It strikes me as a pretty weak-ass justification for a fait-accompli--remarkable only for its stunningly egocentric world view and lame logic.

My take on Burger King--and its indistinguishable brethren over at Ronald's is this:

They suck. They're bad for America. They're bad for the world. They're ultimately about dumbing down the whole concept of the meal, standardization and consistency over quality, narcotizing and brand-imprinting children, removing the whole concept of skilled labor from food preparation and selling Super-Sized soft drinks to fat kids.

But then, according to Les Halles' website, you get $15.50 for some chopped raw beef and fries. But I'm sure those fries are made of the magical fruit, the more you eat, the more you...lose weight. btw, didn't I just see you eat a weiner in a wonder bun from a twirly mahjig the other day? Also, I couldn't find a policy regarding a cola-cutoff for non height-weight proportionate children in your restaurant....

BK and McDonald's don't suck. Some of their stuff sucks, some doesn't. I don't go to fast food chains that often, but occasionally, at my little brothers' prompting or from the prompting of my wife or some friends. I prefer some of the lesser chains -- Carl's Jr or Arby's, eg. But there's usually something on the menu at the others that doesn't suck. It may be mediocre, but it doesn't suck.

I was stuck in the LAX airport for a couple hours paying way too much to read egullet and my email on their internet kiosks trying to hammer out replies on a faulty keyboard when I read your (bourdain's) comments. Fortuitously, the only fast food in the Alaska terminal was BK so I decided to try the Santa Fe chicken sandwich. It was way overpriced at $4, but it wasn't bad. I had my wife taste it, too, and besides the fact that she doesn't like chiles, she liked it. I was actually surprised at how decent it was from the descriptions here. The roll was rather crusty, a big step above most fast food places, more like the fresh rolls you'd get at a Subway or Quizno's. The sauce wasn't overbearing -- which is one of my biggest complaints with the ranch-morphic and ketchuponaise world of a lot of fast food. The peppers and onions actually had some depth to their flavor. They weren't just sweet or tangy. They tasted roasted.

The chicken itself did seem processed, but what the hell is wrong with that? Isn't that what charcuterie is? Would you complain if they were serving pate? The question is how it tastes, and it tastes like chicken. In fact, to the extent it didn't taste like chicken was because it was actually moist and tender, a real problem for grilled or sauteed chicken breast. Could I make better. Sure. Could you? Probably. Could Bayless? Yeah, but from my experience at his restaurants he'd probably fuck it up eventually. But could most people? Doubtful. Most people can't cook crap. Or more accurately, that's what they can cook, merely crap. Give them a chicken breast and it's either going to end up undercooked or overcooked. And they probably won't brine it to ensure it stays moist.

Further, pick a random low cost restaurant -- a greasy spoon, a Mexican joint, a burger hut, whatever. Chances are you're going to pay twice as much for a meal as you would at BK and you're going to get mediocre to bad food. At BK you'll get it quick, relatively cheap, and you'll be assured that it will meet at least a certain minimum level of quality -- and something you know that you at least find decent will be on the menu no matter what country, no matter what locale.

Bullshit, I say.

You fight the enemy. You attack them. You use your bully pulpit--and whatever reputation you have to coerce, seduce, or shame people into changing their chosen eatery. Fast food--and cheap food--as Bayless should know better than anyone--can be GOOD food. He's been making a fortune off it for years. Nothing is faster, cheaper and better than a freshly made taco, a bowl of posole, a tamale--made by an independent operator.

Really? Fresh masa has to be ground out of lime-water cooked maize that then has the sheath removed. But maybe we can cut a corner and use masa harina. That takes 30 minutes to hydrate, then you must press and griddle the tortillas for a few minutes each. So we use premade tortillas. Pozole requires a good stock. That takes time. A tamal takes about 45 minutes to steam. They masa issue again arises, even moreso here, especially since you need to whip it to the right consistency with some lard. Then the effort involved in wrapping a tamal. Try teaching that one to high school kids. Burgers and hot dogs seem a hell of a lot easier and quicker.

btw, do you think if you grabbed 10 people off the street and randomly chose a taqueria and had them eat a carne asada taco or a carnitas taco they would like it better or worse than *whatever* Taco Bell had to offer? I tend to think they would choose the latter. Maybe you mean something other than "what people like" for "good".

I'm not saying, by the way, that the Good Guys will ever WIN this war. I'm just saying that no self respecting chef or citizen of the world should stop TRYING. Bayless has thrown in the towel--and it's smeared with bogus BBQ sauce.

This is such bullshit hyperbole. a) food just isn't that important; the biggest problem with Bayless and his compadres at CC is that they buy into this same faulty notion. If there are good guys and bad guys in regards to food, it is governments who put up impediments to people being fed, not whether we choose Les Halles over Burger King. I need to start a business selling decals with Calvin (or maybe AB) pissing on the BK logo because the rhetoric is getting just as loony as the Ford vs Chevy folks. b) even if you buy into the BS about good guys and bad guys in the restaurant world, what's so wrong with moderation, progression, and not making the perfect the enemy of the good? Why can't someone say, "I think this is a step in the right direction"? Do you make no compromises? You don't have to agree with them to at least acknowledge the intent.

[jbraynolds]

You really believe that BK is stepping in the right direction? That they give a damn about serving anything that might compromise their bottom line? Hoo, boy.

[mikey]

I'm a day late and about 3 pages behind, but I caught the ad yesterday(I think), and at the very end was the tag "not a low sodium food". Has anyone paid enough attention to know if this is an evolution of the ad?

[tommy]

I'm a day late and about 3 pages behind, but I caught the ad yesterday(I think), and at the very end was the tag "not a low sodium food". Has anyone paid enough attention to know if this is an evolution of the ad?

they read egullet and found out that people are comparing the numbers to the RDA so they changed it.

actually, it has been there as long as i can remember. it's probably for the 10 people in the country who are affected by sodium (and they clearly shouldn't be eating at BK to begin with).

[jbraynolds]

"...the ten people in the country who are affected by sodium." Right. What do those idiots at Harvard and Hopkins know?

[jbraynolds]

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/0...10/11-salt.html

...for further reading by those who are following and not annoyed by the salt debate.

[mags]

You really believe that BK is stepping in the right direction? That they give a damn about serving anything that might compromise their bottom line? Hoo, boy.

Since when is "stepping in the right direction" synonymous with giving "a damn about serving anything that might compromise their bottom line"? Is the goal here to turn Burger King into a less profit-minded corporation? I thought the goal was to prompt Burger King into serving food that was "healthier" (by whatever standards one wishes to use), less damaging to the environment, and less damaging to people's taste buds than BK's other menu items. The company will only do this if it can be accomplished without compromising the bottom line.

If your goal is to promote less focus on profitability than what you're talking about is politics, not food. And while that's a perfectly good thing to talk about, it would seem that the actual sandwich -- whether it tastes good, whether it is or isn't "healthy," etc. -- is just a screen, a cover for the real argument.

[tommy]

If your goal is to promote less focus on profitability than what you're talking about is politics, not food.  And while that's a perfectly good thing to talk about, it would seem that the actual sandwich -- whether it tastes good, whether it is or isn't "healthy," etc. -- is just a screen, a cover for the real argument.

and that argument, of course, is "BK bad. Me good."

[jbraynolds]

What I'm saying is that anyone who thinks that RB or anyone else is going to get BK or any of the other mega-chain/franchises to move away from ultra-processed (read: cheap) foods to fresh, perishable, labor-intensive (read: more expensive to make, higher food-cost, requiring more than a robot to put out) dishes must be strung out on one of the couple dozen chemical additives that are in those chicken patties.

[ExtraMSG]

Well jbraynolds, the evidence seems to be showing something different. It may seem like insignificant movement to you, but as Bob learned, it takes baby steps. Baby steps to roasted vegetables. Baby steps to a crusty roll. Baby steps to a salad instead of fries. Etc. I think it's ridiculous a) to want these companies to transform themselives either entirely or overnight, and b) to expect people on a regular basis to cook at home or eat at restaurants that charge enough they can make food that you deem acceptable.

[jbraynolds]

Tell you what, come back in a couple of years and you'll have "evidence". The fast-food titans have dabbled in this sort of thing before and dropped it...I'd say it's a safe bet that they'll keep dancing with who brung 'em when this little campaign has run the course.

[mags]

Tell you what, come back in a couple of years and you'll have "evidence". The fast-food titans have dabbled in this sort of thing before and dropped it...I'd say it's a safe bet that they'll keep dancing with who brung 'em when this little campaign has run the course.

Of course they'll keep dancing with them what brung'em. That's what all companies -- giant and tiny -- do, they play to their audience. If they fail to do that, they tend to stop being companies pretty quick.

It seems to me that it's been pretty definitively proven in this thread that the new sandwich is "healthier" at least in terms of its fat content. (I see the sodium argument as something of a straw man, though it should be pointed out that the new sandwich is apparently lower in sodium than some of BK's other, older menu items.) If BK's customers make menu choices based on health -- or at least on fat content -- they'll opt for the new sandwich. If they don't, the sandwich will fail (it will not have played to the audience), and it will, indeed, disappear from the menu. And yeah, if that happens, BK will probably not be trying any more "healthy" alternatives in the near future, since that marketing ploy will have been shown to be a dog.

But if the sandwich fails (and BK thus bails on the "health" angle), the blame, such as it is, will lie primarily with the customers. Now, that's not entirely fair: BK could serve up toasted fiberboard that would, in theory, be "healthier" (lower in fat) than your standard BK burger; if customers failed to order it, that wouldn't necessarily prove that they were uninterested in "healthier" food, it would only prove that they wanted their lunch to taste ok. But assuming the sandwich does indeed taste ok -- and several people here say it does, even if others disagree -- then it will succeed or fail based on whether the customers want it, and whether they want a lower-fat item at the expense of a certain amount of deliciousness.

Long-winded, and I apologize. My primary point, though, is that your real beef seems to be with BK's customers. You want them to want "better" food. BK, it seems to me, is betting that they do, and attempting, in some small but real way, to accommodate that desire.