Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 1

[hollywood]

Certainly, nobody who is familiar with Bourdain's work would accuse him of being utopian, yet he's coming down on Bayless as hard as anyone.

Over on Chowhound, they've been discussing the "scandal" of Tony's being caught eating health food! In a way, it might have made more sense if Bourdain had endorsed the sandwich. And probably would sold more sandwiches in the process. And, frankly. more people would have been pissed off when they didn't like the sandwich. Maybe Bayless had it his way.

Edited October 9, 2003 by hollywood (log)

[Fat Guy]

Maybe Bayless had it his way.

I can't believe how long it took for someone to work that slogan into a post.

[FoodMan]

If Boulud does indorse something like "Krispy Kreme" donuts it will be because they simply taste good and he likes them. Bayless on the other hand is claiming that the sandwich is "A step in the right direction". I do believe I might walk into a Krispy Kreme and see Boulud enjoying a greasy donut but I would not expcet RB to go to Burger King because he wanted something fresh tasting and fire grilled.

FM

[Fat Guy]

Burger King, McDonald's, and the other major fast-food chains have been making steps in the wrong direction for ages, and this sandwich is more of the same. The health issue is a red herring -- the issue is that it's a poor-quality sandwich. Back in the day -- say, the 1960s and 1970s -- you could go into McDonald's or Burger King and get a very decent hamburger with very good fries. Now it's all this highly processed frozen garbage, and the new chicken sandwich is as processed and junky as most everything else. There's absolutely no reason why Burger King can't deliver fresh chicken breasts to every restaurant, flame broil them, prep and cook peppers and onions to go with them, put them on bread with crust, add a decent quality tomato-based sauce, and sell them for hardly any more than they're charging for the Bayless sandwich. It's not rocket science. It can all be done with an extremely low level of employee competence. They used to do exactly that sort of thing at every fast-food restaurant, so there's no lack of proof that it's possible.

[hollywood]

There's absolutely no reason why Burger King can't deliver fresh chicken breasts to every restaurant, flame broil them, prep and cook peppers and onions to go with them, put them on bread with crust, add a decent quality tomato-based sauce, and sell them for hardly any more than they're charging for the Bayless sandwich.

It's a competition. They are trying to become the Lowest Common Dominator.

[ronnie_suburban]

There's absolutely no reason why Burger King can't deliver fresh chicken breasts to every restaurant, flame broil them, prep and cook peppers and onions to go with them, put them on bread with crust, add a decent quality tomato-based sauce, and sell them for hardly any more than they're charging for the Bayless sandwich. It's not rocket science. It can all be done with an extremely low level of employee competence. They used to do exactly that sort of thing at every fast-food restaurant, so there's no lack of proof that it's possible.

Sure...but at what price point? And if their margin will suffer, the idea will likely be scrapped.

=R=

[Michel Nischan]

..and what I believe to be the utopia of freshly picked dew kissed vegetables and wholesome, quickly served meals presumed, by some, to be available for the workers of the world and the attendant moralizing that seems to go hand in hand with such judgment.

I hear you on the over-expounding of some culinarians. And there are those who use the banner for their own personal image enhancement, however, there are dozens, if not hundreds of chefs who wolk the talk in restaurants ranging from white tablecloth to diners. Chefs like Dan Barber, Wylie Dufresne, Peter Hoffman, Peter Davis, Diane Forely-Otsuka, Nora Pouillon, Floyd Cardoz, Michael Romano, etc. None of these mentioned wax overly poetic. They just do their thing. They do the normal stuff like market it on their menu, take customers on green market tours and do farmer dinners. There's nothing wrong in getting excited about or loving and celebrating food that's been prepared as close to nature as possible -- as long as you really mean it.

For the first time in about 5000 years, the poor (at least in the west) could eat basically the same things as the rich. They could eat white bread, meat, gravy, cake, cookies and fruit. Something utterly new. Something that came with democracy. And something that was so difficult to achieve that it transformed world financial institutions, world transport, world business organizations, world agriculture.

I believe the original intent of fast food was good and spoke to the points of access you mention. It is unfortunate that this good intent, much like the original intent of harnessing the power of the split atom which now has resulted in neuclear weapons, has been used by large comapnies, governement and agribusiness to turn that access into guaranteed markets.

I disagree that this change was so difficult that it transformed world business and politics. I believe that the opportunity to change to the current model proved too temptingly lucrative. There is much truth in the saying: "He who holds the food, holds the power."

The current system has been acheived through a variety of well know tactics like eliminating competition (therefore choice), over-saturated marketing techniques, the ability to offer cheap food by paying un-livable wages (thus inadvertantly creating more bordeline poverty -- the kind that can afford a happy meal but can't afford an apartment with a working stove), owning agricultural trade commissions via volume purchasing presssure to ensure unsustainably low pricing, and so on.

This doesn't take into account the poverty created by turning food into a global export comodity (much in support of international fast food franchising). Most poor people throughout the globe once at least squatted on some land, had chickens or goats and grew their own food. They were poor but not hungry. Enter global food politics and peasants are removed from land for corporate mining, corporate-conventional labor efficient farming, etc. Some of the result is seen in the slums of Rio, Brazilia and coutless other cities in developing nations, East and West; not to mention the elimination of millions of entry level agricultural jobs (farm hand work) which once supported areas like Apalacia.

Corporate farming produces cheap french fries because the planting, growing, pest control and harvesting practices are mechanized with the sole intent of eliminating labor costs. Rotating crops, introducing predatory insects, composting are all labor intensive yet kind to the environment. It's interesting how we have taken billions out of the labor pool, only to spend the same money on water diversion, toxic waste clean-up and health care costs.

All of this leaves us with the ever widening gap between rich and poor, and the poor, many of whom were once just poor, are now poor and hungry. Those who are locked into the "cheap, accessable" fast food model can afford the value meals but can't afford the health care costs that result from having no alternatives other than chips and soda. Rampant type 2 diabetes among Blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos -- especially in their children -- will soon be affecting one-in-two of these combined polulations as opposed to one-in-five of whites (real statistics). Is this worth being able to say that the poor have equal access to the quarter pounder?

A messy scene brought on by what was once originally good intent.

There's no question that we're all going to have to work together to see meaningful change. Groups like Chefs Collaborative, Environmental Working Group, Eco Trust, Earthpledge, The Center for Health and the Global Environment, will have to work with companies like McDondalds and BK and they eventually will feel they need to work with us. However the work needs to be pursued through meaningful threads of discussion over longer periods of time with much give and take -- all of this in an atmosphere devoid of personal financial incentive.

Profits do need to be protected and it's no secret that these fast food laviathans can only survive a few changes at a time. Everyone needs to survive here. It's also no sectret that BK and McDonalds are experiencing significant backlash because of the healthcare crisis and have tried to react by cutting calories. This is useless if the calories are empty as a result of over processing. When they actually start producing a 350 calrie sandwich that's larger than four bites and will actually sustain someone for a few hours, that might be considered a step in the right direction.

[eliotmorgan]

Michael Nischan—here’s to walking the walk and indeed there are many chefs who just do their thing. Indeed, you’re right, but for every Michael Romano there’s a Danny Meyer and chef owners have to fill both of these rolls if they want to keep their doors open. Fantasy rules the high end of the market.

Steven I’m a little taken aback that a veteran food writer would pass along the old canard that higher quality products and more costly food techniques can be done for the same price. They cannot. If you have such business acumen then open the shop yourself and teach agri-business and the restaurant industry a thing or two. I quoted the use of the word “sin” in the context of this thread, and no matter how positive you are about processed onion rings at BK I’d still like to focus on the language of morality you chose.

Bourdain is primarily a writer and polemicist. The Howard Stern to most chefs Jerry Seinfeld. With all his bulls*it about Emeril Lagasse, he jumped at the chance to join the Food Network and I say, good for him. He’s a hustler with wares to sell of his own. He’d be a fool not to. Recently he wrote that he was flummoxed when a child asked him what it was that he currently does for a living. I love his honesty, and own every book he’s written up to Typhoid Mary—can’t bring myself to buy Cooks Tour.

Now here’s your out, I can’t buy CT for probably for the same reason you can’t buy RB’s BK gig. Fine. Skp it. But the sermonizing is ridiculous.

Bourdain’s in his criticism of Bayless said it best:

Chefs are indeed--and always have been--"hustlers" of a sort. You hustle your product, your own image, your operation. Fine.”

Fine indeed.

[Janedujour]

Over on Chowhound, they've been discussing the "scandal" of Tony's being caught eating health food!  In a way, it might have made more sense if Bourdain had endorsed the sandwich.

No, no, no. Bourdain just eats or at least tries anything (that's a compliment AB), so the BK spot wouldn't create any controversy.

How about "Tony Bourdain here for The Patch..."

Now that would be controversial! (and I still wouldn't quit)

[hollywood]

How about "Tony Bourdain here for The Patch..."

[Jinmyo]

Elliot, whether we think it a good or a bad thing, I think most are agreed that Chef Rick has sold out.

Except for Chef Rick.

And he's the one who has to know it because he's the one who will have to go on from here because there may be no going back.

[Fat Guy]

Steven I’m a little taken aback that a veteran food writer would pass along the old canard that higher quality products and more costly food techniques can be done for the same price. They cannot. If you have such business acumen then open the shop yourself and teach agri-business and the restaurant industry a thing or two.

The proof that higher quality can be had without a significant price increase (what I said was "hardly any more," not "the same price," and I'll keep pointing it out every time you misquote me or try to evade context, so why don't you try to keep that under control, okay?) is all around us. Nobody needs me to open a restaurant to prove that. Look at In-N-Out Burger, White Manna, or any of a dozen other single-unit and small-chain operations where they sell hamburgers made from fresh, never-frozen, beef and fries from potatoes cut on premises. It doesn't cost anymore to eat at those places than at McDonald's. If that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what evidence you would accept. Yet McDonald's does much better business than those places. There is in fact a McDonald's directly across the street from White Manna in Hackensack and I bet that McDonald's sells more hamburgers per day. Likewise, as I've repeated a number of times now, there are a near-infinite number of potential options, ranging from wholesome and delicious to the nasty garbage that Burger King serves, at whatever price point you want to name. Whatever budget you want to set -- $8, $4, or $2 -- good food can be had.

Bourdain is primarily a writer and polemicist. The Howard Stern to most chefs Jerry Seinfeld. With all his bulls*it about Emeril Lagasse, he jumped at the chance to join the Food Network and I say, good for him. He’s a hustler with wares to sell of his own.

Bourdain is a lot of things -- call him just about any name you like, I won't mind and neither will he -- but there's one thing he's not: a hustler. Tony is the genuine article and is more honest than a fucking Vulcan. You know, Eliot, in your attempts to discredit the straw man you've created, you've managed to introduce quite a bit of sanctimony of your own.

[Jinmyo]

Tony is the genuine article and is more honest than a fucking Vulcan.

Something for Bourdain to put on his next dust jacket.

[hollywood]

Steven I’m a little taken aback that a veteran food writer would pass along the old canard that higher quality products and more costly food techniques can be done for the same price. They cannot. If you have such business acumen then open the shop yourself and teach agri-business and the restaurant industry a thing or two.

The proof that higher quality can be had without a significant price increase (what I said was "hardly any more," not "the same price," and I'll keep pointing it out every time you misquote me or try to evade context, so why don't you try to keep that under control, okay?) is all around us. Nobody needs me to open a restaurant to prove that. Look at In-N-Out Burger, White Manna, or any of a dozen other single-unit and small-chain operations where they sell hamburgers made from fresh, never-frozen, beef and fries from potatoes cut on premises. It doesn't cost anymore to eat at those places than at McDonald's. If that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what evidence you would accept. Yet McDonald's does much better business than those places. There is in fact a McDonald's directly across the street from White Manna in Hackensack and I bet that McDonald's sells more hamburgers per day. Likewise, as I've repeated a number of times now, there are a near-infinite number of potential options, ranging from wholesome and delicious to the nasty garbage that Burger King serves, at whatever price point you want to name. Whatever budget you want to set -- $8, $4, or $2 -- good food can be had.

Bourdain is primarily a writer and polemicist. The Howard Stern to most chefs Jerry Seinfeld. With all his bulls*it about Emeril Lagasse, he jumped at the chance to join the Food Network and I say, good for him. He’s a hustler with wares to sell of his own.

Bourdain is a lot of things -- call him just about any name you like, I won't mind and neither will he -- but there's one thing he's not: a hustler. Tony is the genuine article and is more honest than a fucking Vulcan. You know, Eliot, in your attempts to discredit the straw man you've created, you've managed to introduce quite a bit of sanctimony of your own.

FG, I think you and Eliot are placing a different gloss/value on the term Hustler. Eliot as I get it uses it as a descriptive term but not a pejorative one. You seem to accentuate the pejorative. Which I think is sorta his overall point. Some folks admire hustlers who can pull it off. Certainly, Bourdain does.

Edited October 10, 2003 by hollywood (log)

[Toliver]

There's absolutely no reason why Burger King can't deliver fresh chicken breasts to every restaurant, flame broil them, prep and cook peppers and onions to go with them, put them on bread with crust, add a decent quality tomato-based sauce, and sell them for hardly any more than they're charging for the Bayless sandwich. It's not rocket science. It can all be done with an extremely low level of employee competence. They used to do exactly that sort of thing at every fast-food restaurant, so there's no lack of proof that it's possible.

There are two reasons why they don't do it the old-fashioned way: consistency and dependability. The whole idea behind a fast food franchise is that you are supposed to be able to go into any McDonald's, for example, anywhere in the world and be able to get the same exact Big Mac served quickly and correctly. It will look the same, it will be made the same way and it will taste the same no matter where you get it.

Once you start introducing the on-site personal touch (aka the "low level of employee competence"), you are going to start getting chicken that isn't thoroughly cooked or is overcooked, tomatoes that are sliced too thick or too thin, burgers made with too much ketchup, onions and peppers that aren't diced small enough and so on. It's likely the sandwich you get during one visit won't be anything like the same sandwich you get the next time you order it.

Streamlining the prep work (prepping and cooking everything off-site and just assembling it on-site) is what put the "fast" in fast food, unfortunately.

[Brad S]

I have to admit I have not read all 16 pages of this thread,but,i'm curious.

Does anyone remember when Eric Clapton did a beer commercial using his music?Many people (including Neil Young) said he "sold out".

For Clapton fans,did this erase everything that Clapton did for music?We're his years of developing into one of the worlds finest guitarest (and most respected by his peers)destroy his career?

I can't compare Rick Bayless to Eric Clapton for what each has brought to there craft (Or art)because Clapton has and is an icon and Bayless is not (to me anyway),but there are similarities,No?

[eliotmorgan]

“Hardly any more,” Steve—point conceded, though it’s a distinction without a practical difference if ever there was one. It’s like arguing over the “greatest” ocean since “hardly” and “greatest” share the elasticity in which your logical lapses lie. Your opinions aren’t at all offensive, and I’m rather enjoying your hysterics. What I find strange is your absolutism and near religious ferocity about a cook who decided to cash in with tongue firmly in cheek. I’m trying to tap into my inner Eric Schlosser to commune with you but the attempts have me laughing.

There are many people out there in the real world who eat candy bars for lunch. They don’t have the time or luxury to debate the RAW food movement or Slow Food, and they have no idea who Rick Bayless is—yet.

Hollywood, you indeed understand my use of the word “hustler.” The Bayless issue reminds me of another Burger King Ad campaign when I was in 4th grade. Like most kids on my side of town, and adults for that matter, I laughed at modern art. I remember it being encouraged. The word “modern” itself was considered a pejorative, and modern art was art for the elite. Then Burger King released an advertising campaign where you could get a LeRoy Neiman “lithograph” if you bought a Whopper and had it “your way.” (Don’t laugh, Neiman still isn’t accepted in art circles for this “sell-out” stunt) Much later, in college, I looked up the responses in our more respectable art journals and they read like the true believer rants some have written in this thread. Neiman still receives “thank yous” from people who had doors opened to them in a way some though inappropriate, and had never been approached without condescension.

Bayless has most likely lined his pockets and opened his message up to a potentially larger audience at the same time. In any case, I hope he’s enjoying the big bucks.

Edited October 10, 2003 by eliotmorgan (log)

[Fat Guy]

There are two reasons why they don't do it the old-fashioned way:  consistency and dependability.

There's certainly a whole generation of food-industry executives who know no other way, but that view is nonetheless completely wrong-headed and every day the chains like In-N-Out prove it with every burger they sell: fresh meat, cooked to order, with a higher degree of consistency and dependability than McDonald's and Burger King. No, it's not really about consistency and dependability -- those are excuses. And it's not even necessarily about profit -- they could increase the price ten cents, switch back to the old ways, and people would pay. Mostly, at this point, I think it's just about inertia -- inertia that could easily be reversed by consumer awareness and perspective (something Bayless is now doing his best to chip away at).

[SobaAddict70]

Rick Bayless, Martha Stewart and Sandra Lee -- a marriage made in heaven (or hell, depending on your pov).

Soba

[Fat Guy]

Then Burger King released an advertising campaign where you could get a LeRoy Neiman “lithograph” if you bought a Whopper and had it “your way.”

We've already been down this path with the earlier discussion of Mizrahi at Target. It's completely different: At least he created the work. As we discussed before, the medium is not comparable: you can run off a billion copies of it and it will stay the same, so for the artist it's a question of getting his work in front of more people. Most importantly, Neiman never dumbed down his art for Burger King. He elevated Burger King. Bayless, on the other hand, degrades himself with his endorsement of a crummy sandwich that he had no hand in creating.

I share none of Schlosser's politics or values, nor do I endorse what a bunch of elitists said about Neiman. I love the Michael Graves collection at Target. My objections to fast-food are in the first instance aesthetic, not political or moral. So I would appreciate it if you'd either stop implying that I have a moral or political objection to fast food, or help me to understand how anything I've said has implied such an objection. Because if I have said it or implied it, I'd like to correct myself.

[sladeums]

8<      <snip>

...

Does anyone remember when Eric Clapton did a beer commercial using his music?Many people (including Neil Young) said he "sold out".

For Clapton fans,did this erase everything that Clapton did for music?We're his years of developing into one of the worlds finest guitarest (and most respected by his peers)destroy his career?

...

8<      <snip>

...

BAYLESS IS GOD!!!

Fuck. I finally saw it...there was no bite, there was no swallow...

It seemed he had his mouth wrapped around it quite clearly, though..

I'll bet he spit.

Ahhhhh man...

It was totally 'One Plate At A Time' , though...if I had no clue about this promo I'd have thunk it was a new episode, for real.

Maybe he is the new Clapton...

BAYLESS IS GOD!!!

[Jinmyo]

a cook who decided to cash in with tongue firmly in cheek.

Hm, Eliot.

I wish that were so. Then he would be at peace with his pieces of silver instead of justifying it with the letter he released. (See around page 9, I think.) I'm not so sure where his tongue is though I have heard some unkind things.

And the CC and his other compatriots and fans would know where he clearly stands.

[slkinsey]

Eliot, I think you're missing much of the point and are mingling separate points in this discussion.

No one has been saying that people shouldn't endorse Burger King or that it is fundamentally wrong to do so. What they are saying is that it is a hypocritical sell out for Rick Bayless to do so because of his high publicity evangilism for philosophies that are incompatible with BK's business practices. Bayless' endorsement of this sandwich is fundamentally no different from one of the principal members of PETA endorsing a BK burger with 50% less meat because it's a "step in the right direction." You state that he made the commercial with "tongue firmly in cheek" as though it is a fact. This is an assertion I would challenge as I hardly see how this is possible for someone in his position. It bears mentioning, by the way, that Bayless put himself in that position. Bourdain or Ducasse could do a Burger King commercial with "tongue firmly in cheek" because they have not spent years morally decrying the business and culinary practices of Burger King and similar corporations -- it has the effect of undermining everything he has been saying over the years and giving people who have been listening to him reason to doubt his sincerity. At least one of his colleagues and idological comrades appears to share this sentiment, and I have little doubt that he is alone in this regard.

Another, separate point is whether it is possible to produce less processed food at a similar price point, with a similar profit margin, with similar consistenty and with similar or better quality. I am not sure it is possible to settle this point definitively in this forum, but the presence of little places like White Manna, chains like In-n-Out and others similar suggest that it is not out of the question. Autogrill in Italy is a shining example of great "fast food" made with high-quality, minimally processed ingredients -- they are found at every "rest stop" on the autostrade. The fact that the fast food places set the bar so ridiculously low in terms of quality makes this seem all the more feasible. As Toliver points out, one may end up with an overcooked chicken breast from time to time, but even this has got to be better than a BK "chicken breast."

In closing, I have to add that I don't see how you could possibly think that Bayless' BK advert will "open his message up to a potentially larger audience." People who haven't or wouldn't hear of him won't care, and people who might be predisposed to appreciating his philosophies will likely be disenchanted with his apparent two-faced behavior.

[ronnie_suburban]

Mostly, at this point, I think it's just about inertia -- inertia that could easily be reversed by consumer awareness and perspective (something Bayless is now doing his best to chip away at).

I disagree with the assumption that because Bayless made this deal he will no longer work toward his previously stated goals. Even if one concedes (for sake of this discussion) that his BK ad is both a "sell out" and an act of "self-betrayal" that doesn't necessarily equal a complete abandonment of his mission. It only affects how some people perceive him, not his ability to work toward his goals (and, if he has truly abandonned his goals, then the BK deal is not inconsistent after all). Perhaps Bayless' reputation isn't as important to him as getting his message across is. This deal may have felt like a big pay day and an opportunity in Bayless' mind.

But, even if he took the money for the money's sake, that does not preclude him from continuing to create change and spread his message, although it may effect the willingness of some people to listen to him.

I refuse to believe that he is now, because of his association with BK, only able to do it their way; that he is now their puppet. Is there no possibility that he will have an influence, even a small one, on them? Is there no possibility that he will, by having made this deal, create further awareness of the issues he cares most about? Whatever his true intentions, the BK deal gives Bayless the opportunity to reach a greater audience with his message. Who knows what will grow from this association.

Assuming that Bayless is now 180 degrees from who he was before (the BK ad) is not rational. The next time we read or hear about him raising funds or making some other worthy contribution toward sustainable farming, will it be automatically invalidated because he (once) did a BK ad? Does his appearing in the ad invalidate all of his previous work and effort? Someone said upthread that once you sell your reputation, you can never get it back. Maybe Bayless sold his, but that's all he sold. Does anyone here honestly believe that the truly worthy efforts from Bayless are now over for good? And if he continues to work for change, what difference does his reputation make?

Maybe he's no longer worthy of unconditional hero worship but he's still worthy of admiration on many levels. Dismissing this man because he did a BK ad is a bit short-sighted IMO. Implying that he has now "changed sides" is probably not very accurate.

=R=

[Fat Guy]

I disagree with the assumption that because Bayless made this deal he will no longer work toward his previously stated goals.

Because I've never made that assumption, you'll forgive me for not addressing your post. I'm simply talking about the ad, on its own terms, as well as Bayless's totally disingenuous follow-up comments.

Let's go over it again:

- Bayless spent years saying one thing, then did another. He is a hypocrite. There is no "step in the right direction" here because, as Michel Nischan so clearly articulated, "one thing is clear; nothing that BK is doing with its new sandwich program has anything to do with environmentally beneficial, wholesome, sustainable, artisanal food supply, which is what Chefs Collaborative is all about." Bayless's follow-up letter digs him deeper into this hole because it is an example of propaganda and spin-control at its worst.

- The commercial itself is a clear step in the wrong direction: Bayless is shopping in a market for fresh ingredients, ala his PBS show. He then ditches that plan and instead gets a sandwich at Burger King. This sends a message that is exactly the opposite of anything Bayless or a sympathizer could possibly support.

- The sandwich is not good and Bayless had nothing to do with its design.