Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 1

[Priscilla]

Hey, is this the hypocrite discussion?

OK, I wanna talk about Rush Limbaugh now.

[tryska]

i'm kinda thrilled that mizrahi will be designing for target - i can finally afford him. there is no shame in my game - i am a hardcore target shopper - i love their jeans for trendy clubwear.

anywho....i think it's hypocritical that bayless is on about this sandwich. and i won't be buying it. mainly cuz it looks gross.

and commercial mass-market chicken scares me.

and burger king is the devil.

Edited October 6, 2003 by tryska (log)

[fifi]

Won't the quality of any item depend on the restaurant - Who the suppliers are, how they handle the food and how they prepare it?  Yes, consistency is always cited as a hallmark of fast food, but I find the quality varies to a surprising degree from place to place.

I'm willing to believe that the sandwich Bayless ate was substantially better than what you're going to get at the drive thru.  It was the ideal Sante Fe chicken sandwich. 

I would certainly agree with that. I picked up a sausage and biscuit the other day at the McD's near my office. It wasn't so good. My neighborhood drive through makes a sublime S&B.

I guess I just wish that RB had gone through my local drive-thru before he jumped on board.

[Bicycle Lee]

even if the doGdamn sandwich is good, it still isn't up to par with a freshly made product which is, I am pretty sure, how Rick Bayless became someone with a name we all recognize and can argue about over miles of telephone lines and fiber optics...that is my problem...like fargin' Emeril telling me to a use a certain toothpaste cuz it "kicks it up a notch"... WACK!

But, ooooooooohhhh...it has poblanos! And a zippy sauce! Wow Rick really cashed in!

[slkinsey]

I've been waiting for someone to address the points that Matthew has been making.  I don't think the claim of hypocrisy has been substantiated and no one is willing to discuss relativism.

What points are those, exactly? What I have seen MatthewB saying for the last few days is that calling Bayless a hypocrite for lending his image in promotional support of a company with business practices and a product which run counter to the principles he and the organization he helped found have espoused is "fundamentalism."

I'm not sure exactly how MatthewB thinks this definition and argument supports his postion, which seems to be one of vaguely defending Bayless' BK endorsement. He suggests that, "if one takes, for example, the Chef's Collaborative Mission & Principles and then extrapolates those norms into specific applications in order to judge Rick Bayless, well . . . that's a form of food fundamentalism." I think that's a fatuous argument that doesn't really support any point. First, whether or not it is "food fundamentalism" to judge Bayless by his own stated principles is not relevant to whether or not Bayless' contravention of those principles is hypocritical. Second, it is the normal way of "fundamentalism" that the people belonging to a "movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" apply those principles to other people. I am not sure that applying someone's own stated principles to their behavior is "fundamentalism." Really, it is the philosophy of the fundamentalists (in this case, the Chef's Collective) that embody fundamentalism -- if one espouses certain principles, then it is appropriate to judge them by those principles. Third, all we can judge Bayless by are his stated beliefs and philosophies. These are quite clearly stated by the Chef's Collective. Now, if Bayless wants to come out and say, "those principles are not my principles -- I don't agree with points 4 through 7" or if he can demonstrate that his BK endorsement is somehow in line with the other things he has been saying since he came to wide public attention... then that is a different story. Until such time, we have things like this to go on:

1. Food is fundamental to life. It nourishes us in body and soul, and the sharing of food immeasurably enriches our sense of community.

2. Good, safe, wholesome food is a basic human right.

3. Society has the obligation to make good, pure food affordable and accessible to all.

4. Good food begins with unpolluted air, land and water, environmentally sustainable farming and fishing, and humane animal husbandry.

5. Sound food choices emphasize locally grown, seasonally fresh and whole or minimally processed ingredients.

6. Cultural and biological diversity is essential for the health of the planet and its inhabitants. Preserving and revitalizing sustainable food and agricultural traditions strengthen that diversity.

7. The healthy, traditional diets of many cultures offer abundant evidence that fruits, vegetables, beans, breads and grains are the foundation of good diets.

8. As part of their education, our children deserve to be taught basic cooking skills and to learn the impact of their food choices on themselves, on their culture, and on their environment.

There is not a lot of wiggle room here. If you can come up with reasoning why this endorsement is in accordance with points 4 through 7, I'd be interested in hearing them.

You make a good point about the CC's dogmatic and absolute approach. However, we didn't choose that approack -- Chef's Collective and Rick Bayless chose it. And, like it or not, if you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Or, as in this case, you end up being a hypocrite and a sell out (sell out, in this case meaning "commiting an instance of gross hypocricy for financial gain").

[tommy]

I've been waiting for someone to address the points that Matthew has been making.  I don't think the claim of hypocrisy has been substantiated and no one is willing to discuss relativism.

me too, sort of. and i think his shortness at times is almost a response to posts like "BK is the devil" and "Bayless is a liar".

Edited October 6, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

Why am I having a hard time believing that roasted peppers and onions are being delivered fresh? Possibly there is a bag of refrigerated mush that was once peppers and onions?

They sell salads, so I assume they have a mechanism for acquiring fresh ingredients. However, it does seem unlikely that anybody at Burger King is actually chopping onions or even using a machine to process onions. More likely it is indeed a fresh (as in never frozen) product that is not actually prepared on premises. But of course the statement is designed so as to push the average reader towards the conclusion that Burger King's restaurants are cooking with actual whole onions and peppers.

[Jinmyo]

I just saw Alice Waters on an ad for Jello puddin'. "Caramel's myyy favourite! These are a great idea for kid's school lunches!"

Which was even worse than Eric Ripert hustling for Red Lobster's "All We Will Let You Eat" popcorn shrimp special. "Iz like Le Bernadin but more com-for-table!"

[Fat Guy]

...Mizrahi and Target, Halston and Penny's...

One of the big differences between Bayless and people like Mizrahi and Halston, is that I don't think Mizrahi went around spouting off philosophies about clothing and the clothing business that are completely inimical to the kinds of clothing one finds at Target and Target's business practices.

In addition: Mizrahi's firm is actually designing the clothes not just coming in at the last second in a hastily-arranged deal and endorsing some crap Target designed; Mizrahi's Target line may be perfectly nice and should be judged on its merits just as the Burger King sandwich, which is particularly poor with respect to its Southwestern components, should; and the medium of clothing is totally different from the medium of food -- most clothing other than bespoke-tailored clothing (which is not typical of the industry) is more like photography where, once you have an original, you can run off a billion copies with no noticeable variation or degradation, whereas cooked food almost invariably declines in quality with mass production.

[fresco]

Why am I having a hard time believing that roasted peppers and onions are being delivered fresh? Possibly there is a bag of refrigerated mush that was once peppers and onions?

They sell salads, so I assume they have a mechanism for acquiring fresh ingredients. However, it does seem unlikely that anybody at Burger King is actually chopping onions or even using a machine to process onions. More likely it is indeed a fresh (as in never frozen) product that is not actually prepared on premises. But of course the statement is designed so as to push the average reader towards the conclusion that Burger King's restaurants are cooking with actual whole onions and peppers.

Do you think the average reader thinks about or cares whether the onions and tomatoes are chopped on premises or off? The average reader probably buys her or his salads prebagged from a supermarket, which almost certainly does not bag them. Same with "baby" carrots, and a bunch of other semi-prepared vegetables.

Edited October 6, 2003 by fresco (log)

[tommy]

sauce on the sandwich: 130 mg sodium

2 Tbsp of bayless' roasted tomato salsa: 230 mg

[Priscilla]

Wait a minute.

On the fundamentalist front -- is Bayless the fundamentalist? Is anyone who adheres, even putatively, to doctrine (in this case the Chef's Collaborative Rules to Live By), a fundamentalist? Is our starting analogue a literal interpretation of the Bible by groups we consider religious fundamentalists?

Or are we merely saying that the CC doctrine itself is fundamentalist?

Or, are we saying the stance requiring total adherence to a doctrine is what's fundamentalist? (Even when it's nonparticipants doing the requiring OF participants.) In this case, is it the requiring nonparticipants who would be considered fundamentalist, or the participating requirees?

[Fat Guy]

Do you think the average reader  thinks about or cares whether the onions and tomatoes are chopped on premises or off?

No, which is why it's doubly silly to be misleading about it. Because the average reader would care if, after reading that sentence, he or she was told "Hey, guess what, it implied one thing but actually the so-called fresh stuff comes pre-made in a tub."

[fresco]

Maybe I'm missing something. Bayless's statement says that vegetable ingredients are delivered "fresh to every restaurant, not frozen". How is this misleading?

[Fat Guy]

(The average person may also resent the misdirection: pointing to the freshness of the onions and peppers is no doubt meant to distract readers from the likelihood that the bread and the chicken are frozen.)

[Fat Guy]

Maybe I'm missing something. Bayless's statement says that vegetable ingredients are delivered "fresh to every restaurant, not frozen".  How is this misleading?

Because when you tell someone "I am going to give you some fresh, not frozen, onions," the accepted meaning of the term is that you will be given an actual onion not some glop that is only allowed to be called fresh thanks to the fact that everything in the universe that has never been frozen is technically fresh.

[tanabutler]

(I thought I read somewhere that the bread was baked on premises.)

[Fat Guy]

(I thought I read somewhere that the bread was baked on premises.)

It is "finish-baked" from frozen dough.

[hjshorter]

Or, are we saying the stance requiring total adherence to a doctrine is what's fundamentalist?

No, actually I think I would characterize that as rigid and dogmatic.

[fresco]

Maybe I'm missing something. Bayless's statement says that vegetable ingredients are delivered "fresh to every restaurant, not frozen".  How is this misleading?

Because when you tell someone "I am going to give you some fresh, not frozen, onions," the accepted meaning of the term is that you will be given an actual onion not some glop that is only allowed to be called fresh thanks to the fact that everything in the universe that has never been frozen is technically fresh.

The whole Bayless question seems to come down to perceptions. I just don't see that he is doing anything satanic or that BK is being misleading, but I guess if you are completely opposed to the whole thing you will see it in a very different light. There doesn't seem to be a way to come to any objective conclusion.

[hollywood]

For some reason, I'm reminded of an Andy Warhol Coca-Cola ad that never aired. Andy stands holding a Coke for a long while, then at the last minute lunges Coke first toward the camera and says, "Eat Coke."

As for fundamentalism, perhaps Heather has a point about relativism. Maybe Bayliss has levels of "purity"--an ideal CC level and then progressively declining, lesser of evils levels.

What if a Dogma film maker were given tons of dough to make an action movie. If he used some of the money to make some really Dogma-tic films then would that be hypocritical? Who knows what Bayliss will do with the money? What if he makes an ad and lunges toward the camera with the sandwich and says, "Eat BK"?

Maybe in the post-Grasso environment, Bayliss thinks getting us to think about this actually furthers discussion of CC principles?

[Toliver]

what i'm saying is that i don't think 1220 mg of sodium is all that much, compared to other sandwiches.  threads like this tend to become about more than one thing, and i think one of the discussions going on is sodium-related.   personally, i'm salty enough.

My only point about beating the dead sodium horse to death is that RB is trying to position the sandwich as healthy. Anything that contains half of your daily recommended allowance of salt in one sitting (see chart) can't be all that healthy for you. It's a lie to say otherwise.

And comparing this BK sandwich to a Subway sandwich (just as high in sodium and also being positioned by Subway as healthy) is like comparing salty apples to salty apples.

Edited a turn of phrase.

Edited October 7, 2003 by Toliver (log)

[Fat Guy]

Anything that contains half of your daily recommended allowance of salt in one sitting (see chart) can't be all that healthy for you.

Why not? It seems all the latest medical evidence points to the conclusion that, if you are like most people and have no particular sensitivity to salt, there is no negative consequence to eating double, triple, or quadruple the recommended daily allowance.

[ronnie_suburban]

My only point about beating the dead sodium horse to death is that RB is trying to position the sandwich as healthy.  Anything that contains half of your daily recommended allowance of salt in one sitting (see chart) can't be all that healthy for you.  It's a lie to say otherwise.

The data suggest that the sandwich is healthy. It may not match up with everyone's interpretation of RB's previously stated values, it may not be "good" food and it may not be the most eco-friendly or wholesome sandwich around, but it is healthy--especially relative to other fast food--regardless of what the historically inaccurate FDA has to say about it. On that count, it's hard to view it (RB's endorsement of the product) as inconsistent with RB's statement (posted by tanabutler upthread).

=R=

Edited October 7, 2003 by ronnie_suburban (log)

[Fat Guy]

Maybe I'm missing something. Bayless's statement says that vegetable ingredients are delivered "fresh to every restaurant, not frozen".  How is this misleading?

Because when you tell someone "I am going to give you some fresh, not frozen, onions," the accepted meaning of the term is that you will be given an actual onion not some glop that is only allowed to be called fresh thanks to the fact that everything in the universe that has never been frozen is technically fresh.

The whole Bayless question seems to come down to perceptions. I just don't see that he is doing anything satanic or that BK is being misleading, but I guess if you are completely opposed to the whole thing you will see it in a very different light. There doesn't seem to be a way to come to any objective conclusion.

I'm not "completely opposed to the whole thing." There's a "Burger King is Satan" contingent on this thread, but I'm not a part of it and neither are several others who nonetheless find Bayless's behavior hypocritical and in poor taste. And nobody is suggesting that this one shaky use of the term "fresh" is the issue here. Rather, it is one of many instances of Bayless pushing the edge of the credibility envelope. Looked at together, these little attempts to misdirect add up to an overall expression of contempt for the reader and the truth. I expect this sort of disingenuousness from politicians trying to avoid the fallout from a scandal. I don't expect it from a chef talking about food. That Bayless has had to haul out the spinmeister's arsenal of dirty linguistic tricks in a letter that is so obviously a piece of propaganda that was most likely scripted by publicists and gone over with a fine-tooth comb by Burger King does not speak well for his veracity. Nor does it leave much room to conclude that this is a short-term sellout meant to service a longer-term goal, though I have no doubt there will be a high-profile, heavily advertised donation to some leftist cause-du-jour that will represent a small percentage of what he earned from that ad -- and I likewise have no doubt that there will be plenty of people out there who will be duped into saying "See! He was a good guy after all!"