Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 1

[tommy]

a lot of sandwiches look bad after they're closed and then opened. mine looked just like that, however.

i think i read somewhere that ads have to represent the product pretty much as it is in real life. now whether that means they can place bits in strategic spots for the camera, i don't know, although that seems likely.

[slkinsey]

So, I'm reading through the NY Times Food section this evening and what should I see but the following paragraph in an article on "sustainable beef" called Balancing Cattle, Land and Ledgers:

"Grass-fed steaks are stronger in flavor and have more texture," said Rick Bayless, owner of the Mexican restaurants Frontera Grill and Topolobampo in Chicago, and a member of the Chefs Collaborative, a group of restaurateurs who promote sustainable food. He uses only grass-fed Montana beef.

[caroline]

OK, I'm going to jump in the deep end. I'm gong to down a scotch and I'm going to throw any claim to taste or discretion to the winds. And I'm going to cheer on Rick Bayless and his Burger King venture.

Of course, let me hasten to say, I never eat at fast food chains (oh don't we all say that)? I'm a burger loather and it doesn't matter whether they are lovingly cooked over a grill or churned out in the millions by a chain. I'm a terrific home cook (to boast a bit but I need all the credit I can get) and have a repertoire honed on five continents. I'm not likely to encounter Rick's sandwich soon. I live in Mexico amd McDonald's McNificos has only just hit, so it'll be a while before Rick's sandwich gets here. And I've never met Rick in my life. But enough of an apologia and on to the substance.

Let's start slow. That photo. It's not styled and let's be grateful for that. But what induces the horror? I must be missing something. A piece of bread, a grilled chicken breast and some veg admittedly a bit messily distributed. My mouth doesn't water but neither does my stomach churn.

That's the least of it though. There's the mega-question. Where does food go in the twenty first century? Is the Chef's Cooperative spearheading culinary change? I don't think so.

Here's an alternative story and an alternative moral.

The story is simple. In the twentieth century there was a quite extraordinary culinary revolution. 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.

And to say this was forced on people by corporations, capitalism etc won't wash. People voted with their mouths. And they voted for this food.

Indeed most of us would not be on egullet chatting about food if this revolution had not occurred. We'd be eating porridge or kasha or polenta, praying that we could scrape by from day to day.

But guess what? The revolution left women in the kitchen. They were the ones who had to make the family meals with their roasts and gravies and cakes. The second stage of the revolution has to be to allow the freedom to all women (or all families) that the rich have always had. The freedom from food preparation. That's what the fast food chains have started to offer.

OK OK, often it's horrid. But it's better than what went before. And more important it doesn't divide rich and poor. It's a start. Rome wasn't built in a day.

So the mega question for the twenty first century is the delivery of ready-to-eat food. Not easy.

"The best is the enemy of the good" goes the old saw. The good may have been what Rick B was groping toward. Certainly just diddling about with foams is not going to deal with the mega culinary question of the twentieth century. If culinary leaders continue to sniff at fast food chains they will become irrelevant to the mega culinary question of the twenty first century.

Rick Bayless, if he contines this track, won't be irrelevant. Sneered at, derided, run out of the Chef's Cooperative perhaps. But not irrelevant.

And that Scotch that's given me courage--hand crafted by Domecq I think,

Down the tubes,

Rachel

[fifi]

Bravo caroline! I agree with everything you said. And I haven't even had a scotch. (I am eyeing that bottle of rum, though.)

What I keep getting out of this thread is (and maybe I am mis-reading) that RB has taken a somewhat extreme (IMHO) position with CC. A step in the right direction? Maybe. Will it feed the world? Probably not. Is it realistic for the masses? I doubt it. Do the masses care? Even more doubtful. But he has taken that position. That makes his BK endorsement somewhat questionable.

Hell... I like some of the things Taco Bell makes. And I am famous for being in love with McD's sausage and biscuit and I don't feel that I have committed a moral lapse. What does dismay me is that someone who has taken a really strong position (whether I agree with it or not) seems to betray all that he stands for. That is disingenuous. And the commercial is just plain misleading.

If his letter had said something like... "I know that the BK introduction doesn't adhere to my principles but I think it is a step in the right direction so I will support it because I know that strict adherance to those principles is unrealistic for the mass market. You have to start somewhere." I could respect that kind of statement.

[Janedujour]

There's the mega-question.  Where does food go in the twenty first century?  Is the Chef's Cooperative spearheading culinary change?  I don't think so.

The freedom from food preparation. That's what the fast food chains have started to offer.

Well, in a small way my family shops and eats differently because of a new awareness brought to us by folks like the CC, and people commited to changing the way the planet eats.

We belong to a local organic farm and participate in a "share out" program, try to buy as many fresh and organic foods as we can afford. And yes I still go to the grocery store and buy "regular" food now, but maybe 25% instead of 100%. We don't buy farmed fish, only ocean caught because of the horrers we've heard about the fish farms. We get lists of "good" foods and "bad" foods from various publications.

This genetically engineered food shit is scary!

And yes, we do occasionallly eat at fast food joints but not 3 meals a day.

"Freedom from food preparation is what the fast foodchains have started" Yes, and they've also contributed dramatically to the obesity epidemic, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer in this country.

I made a point earlier that there are so many corporations that chef Rick could have endorsed that would hve been much more approprate.

Or, my god, wouldn't it have been great if he made a deal with BK to do the commercial if they promised to say purchase all their veggies for their salads and sandwiches from local organic farms???!!! They can afford to do it. It would keep many farms in business, and the press would be great, they'd probably sell more product. I wish...

[Fat Guy]

But guess what?  The revolution left women in the kitchen.  They were the ones who had to make the family meals with their roasts and gravies and cakes.  The second stage of the revolution has to be to allow the freedom to all women (or all families) that the rich have always had.  The freedom from food preparation. That's what the fast food chains have started to offer.

OK OK, often it's horrid.  But it's better than what went before.  And more important it doesn't divide rich and poor.  It's a start. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Before I'd be willing to buy into a "fast food is a feminist issue" line of argument, I'd have to be convinced that all these premises are correct. And I don't think they are.

Setting aside for the moment that "freedom from food preparation" is a bogus goal -- food preparation at home can be shared just as easily as it can be eradicated -- I just don't see how the international fast-food chains uniquely serve that goal. Prepared foods and convenience foods can just as easily be delicious, healthful, and diverse as they can be flavorless, fatty, and monolithic.

If people have voted with their mouths, they have voted badly.

Nor is this an economic issue in any way. It costs no more to eat Mexican, Chinese, or other interesting and delicious convenience foods than it costs to eat at McDonald's or Burger King.

So why do people choose McDonald's and Burger King over Chinese and Mexican? And why do they choose McDonald's and Burger King over good hamburgers, and Taco Bell over good Mexican? It's definitely not because these foods taste better. Nor is it because they're all that much more convenient. It's mostly because of a combination of ignorance (also known as a failure of parents to teach their children what's good and what isn't) and marketing (which Rick Bayless is helping out with as best he can).

[tommy]

So why do people choose McDonald's and Burger King over Chinese and Mexican? And why do they choose McDonald's and Burger King over good hamburgers, and Taco Bell over good Mexican? It's definitely not because these foods taste better.

quite frankly, most chinese food that i've come across is at least as disgusting, if not more disgusting, and certainly not as consistent, as fast food.

as far as choosing McDonald's or BK over "good hamburgers", well, they aren't really filling the same need. they are different products.

[fifi]

If people have voted with their mouths, they have voted badly.

Nor is this an economic issue in any way. It costs no more to eat Mexican, Chinese, or other interesting and delicious convenience foods than it costs to eat at McDonald's or Burger King.

So why do people choose McDonald's and Burger King over Chinese and Mexican? And why do they choose McDonald's and Burger King over good hamburgers, and Taco Bell over good Mexican? It's definitely not because these foods taste better. Nor is it because they're all that much more convenient. It's mostly because of a combination of ignorance (also known as a failure of parents to teach their children what's good and what isn't) and marketing (which Rick Bayless is helping out with as best he can).

What I think you are not getting is that the alternatives in suburbia are not there. I live in suburban Houston. In the Bay Area to be exact. If I wanted to exercise an option for a Chinese or Thai or taqueria option I would have to travel at least 25 miles into the inner city. There are a few places that can dish out a pho or other options but they are limited and inconvenient. That is the reality for those of us in "fly-over country".

[tommy]

So why do people choose McDonald's and Burger King over Chinese and Mexican? And why do they choose McDonald's and Burger King over good hamburgers, and Taco Bell over good Mexican? It's definitely not because these foods taste better. Nor is it because they're all that much more convenient. It's mostly because of a combination of ignorance (also known as a failure of parents to teach their children what's good and what isn't) and marketing (which Rick Bayless is helping out with as best he can).

fg, i'm a little confused.

how do you explain the adults, who perhaps know better, or know "what's good and what isn't", who go to fast food places? i suppose you and i fall into that category.

[Fat Guy]

What I think you are not getting is that the alternatives in suburbia are not there.

Because there's no demand. See ignorance and marketing above.

[Fat Guy]

how do you explain the adults, who perhaps know better, or know "what's good and what isn't", who go to fast food places?  i suppose you and i fall into that category.

We all have cravings for fat, sugar, and salt. And there's nothing wrong with a diverse diet that includes occasional crap, just as there's nothing wrong with intelligent, educated, well-read people enjoying the occasional mindless action film.

Then again, I hardly ever go to Burger King because just about everything there, with the exception of the chicken tenders and the onion rings, is terrible.

[Fat Guy]

most chinese food that i've come across is at least as disgusting, if not more disgusting, and certainly not as consistent, as fast food.

Not to mention, most of it is just as unhealthy. But that's not the point. Even in New York City, where good, cheap, relatively healhtful ethnic restaurants are a dime a dozen, McDonald's and the other fast food chains do a booming business. I'm simply making the point that, both in theory and in practice, it's possible to have fast food that isn't junk. Women and the proletariat can just as easily cast off the yoke of food preparation by eating good food as they can by eating the shit that Burger King serves. All they have to do is vote with their mouths and the restaurant industry will immediately and aggressively accommodate them.

[herbacidal]

So why do people choose McDonald's and Burger King over Chinese and Mexican? And why do they choose McDonald's and Burger King over good hamburgers, and Taco Bell over good Mexican? It's definitely not because these foods taste better.

quite frankly, most chinese food that i've come across is at least as disgusting, if not more disgusting, and certainly not as consistent, as fast food.

as far as choosing McDonald's or BK over "good hamburgers", well, they aren't really filling the same need. they are different products.

don't forget the price factor. although mcdonald's is creepin up there, they're still a few bucks cheaper than burgers anywhere else.

i'm thinking diners, local pizza joint, etc.

[Richard Kilgore]

Let me mention a few other considerations.

Fifi mentioned unavailability in suburbia. That depends upon the suburbs. The Dallas area has an enormous number of good to great small ethnic restaurants in the suburbs as well as within the Dallas city limits. Within five minutes of my home are two very good Thai restaurants, and one each very good Indian, Vietnamese, and two Chinese -- all very reasonably priced ($5 - 9). Also three more-than-acceptable to very, very good Italian places (Tuesday was Lasagna night -- $4.95 included salad and tasty rolls), and many more options if you go another four to five minutes. There are also all the fast food places. The demand is here because an affluent "Asian" population is here, otherwise I would be without.

You know one of the things that has trouble making it here is a great Mexican-Mexican restaurant. Villa Maria (white table cloth Mexico City cuisine at bargain prices), one of the two or three best in the area, closed its doors last week, and is due to re-open as a Tex-Mex Grill next week. No demand in the suburb it was in.

So why do we eat at the fast food chains? In addition to what has been said, partly the effects of name recognition. Burger King has been around for so long, and there is one everywhere, and the advertising is pervasive. "Ming's Chinese" can't compete for your attention. With BK at least 1) you know what it is (even if every time you drive away snarling about the card board flavor and creepy texture), and 2) you think of it when you think "I'm hungry, gotta grab a bite". It requires less active thinking when you have lots of demands on your time and mental attention. There's security and efficient neuron firing in all that.

Another note -- I am not sure that freedom from food prep is going to be the key food issue for this century. If I had to guess without doing more research, I would bet it's going to be simply finding a way to feed the world's rapidly growing population, which will further accelerate population growth and the potential for food shortages.

[mb7o]

Caroline--

There are two threads interweaved here.

1) Is Burger King eeeevil?

2) Did Bayless sell out?

You're adding 3) Are the CC standards actually good?

While there are people arguing both sides here for #1, the bigger topic is #2: did someone who makes a living espousing a certain set of ethics 'sell out' when they used their particular known style to promote a product which directly contradicts these ethics? Even if you don't agree with his ethics. I'll say yes it's a sellout. If he actually ate in BK every week, that's not selling out. Nor would a comment about likeing the sandwich in an interview. But producing an ad which looks like previous work? That is.

Though product placement would be even worse.

(P.S. I don't find the sandwich all that bad for a fast food item. Though the sandwich sans fries + drink isn't on the menu.)

Edited October 9, 2003 by mb7o (log)

[Varmint]

So why do people choose McDonald's and Burger King over Chinese and Mexican? And why do they choose McDonald's and Burger King over good hamburgers, and Taco Bell over good Mexican? It's definitely not because these foods taste better. Nor is it because they're all that much more convenient.

Steve, when you consider our society's reliance on the old drive thru window, the fast food joints are substantially more convenient. I often wonder what percentage of a typical Wendy's, McDonald's or BK's business comes from their drive-thru window.

[eliotmorgan]

This thread vividly underscores one of the problems of writing and discussing food: everyone is a moralist and an idealist. No room for reality in this virtual gathering of Jim Bakkers’ perpetually in fear of a Jessica Hahn that’ll gum up the works. Anyone who’s ever worked in a 4 star kitchen knows democracy thy name is Krispy Kreme. I doubt Daniel Boulud would pass up the opportunity to endorse these morsels of deep fried dough—they are prominently displayed in his book “Chef Daniel Boulud.”

I think this Rick Bayless issue causes so much controversy because the BK endorsement ruins the fantasy of the “authentic” romances laid out in his books and videos. All of the top chefs spin these stories, and to see any of them eat a meal or endorse a product inconsistent with these marketing ploys is considered heresy, like finding out your favorite gangster rapper grew up in a middle-class neighborhood.

Mexican for me is Topolobampo, it isn’t for most Mexicans. Bayless didn’t “sell-out,” he just sold high. He was always selling something; they all are, and it’s a good thing.

[Fat Guy]

everyone is a moralist and an idealist

I don't think so, Eliot. Most of the people who have commented here have given the issue a fair shake. Many have tried the sandwich, and we've come to a broad range of conclusions for a variety of different reasons. I really have no idea what you mean by the Jim Bakker analogy, which is so completely inapplicable for so many reasons. If the analogy has to do with hypocrisy, which is what Bakker is most famous for (i.e., the failure to adhere to his own stated moral code), then surely the hypocrite-in-chief Rick Bayless is the most appropriate target for that insult. As for whether Daniel Boulud would do a Krispy Kreme ad, have you asked him? If not, I wouldn't make the assumption, nor has Daniel Boulud ever spoken out against donuts and called them immoral.

[=Mark]

Then again, I hardly ever go to Burger King because just about everything there, with the exception of the chicken tenders and the onion rings, is terrible.

There have been several positive mentions of the BK onion rings on this thread and I don't understand it. They suck! They aren't even real onions, they're made of some sort of chopped and processed onions and artificially formed into rings. Are they done differently elsewhere?

[Jinmyo]

I think I could see someone like Boulud doing an advert for donuts without it hurting their reputation at all. Or even hot dogs. He loves hot dogs. He wouldn't be saying donuts or hot dogs are the equivalent of anything else.

He wouldn't be selling out anything, just cashing in.

There is a difference between haute cuisine, even one which stresses fresh ingredients etc, and high-minded cuisine.

[Fat Guy]

There have been several positive mentions of the BK onion rings on this thread and I don't understand it.  They suck!  They aren't even real onions, they're made of some sort of chopped and processed onions and artificially formed into rings.  Are they done differently elsewhere?

I don't think anybody is saying they're real. They are to onion rings as Pringles and Munchos are to potato chips: an interesting departure on occasion. Deep-frying hides a multitude of sins.

[eliotmorgan]

“I really have no idea what you mean by the Jim Bakker analogy, which is so completely inapplicable for so many reasons” Steven A. Shaw

My Bakker analogy grew from reading this thread 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. This is why I’m not surprised you introduced the word “sin” in your latest post to this discussion or why I said this reminds me of gangster rap fans who find out their favorite rapper grew up middle-class.

I believe celebrity chefs are eager to be seen with lower end food outside of their own restaurants because they’ve painted themselves into a corner and the demanding public would like to hold them to the romantic fiction they write in their large format cookbooks.

I’ll quote from one of the canonical works of this religion:

When you see the soil bursting with young lettuce, with tomatoes, with light green vines of peas, all the molecules between your gaze and those vegetables are charged with the energy of cooking. The air sparkles.

A Return to Cooking by Eric Ripert/Michael Ruhlman, page 16

The writing becomes more saccharine by the page. Jonathan Gold and Ruth Reichl are masters of this kind of fiction. Pull a cookbook off your shelf and you’ll not have to read long to find this kind of romance writing. Professional cooks will really enjoy the 8:30 segment of the Boulud book I mentioned earlier titled “To Market.” I haven’t met an Asian chef yet who has the stomach for the village stories and “Joy Luck Club” type nonsense that the public demands from them, but it does pay the bills so I’m not knocking it. I’m just saying at some point “cut, that’s a wrap” should allow these cooks to go about their lives, make the big bucks and not be deemed heretics because they grab a cheap, convenient, and consistent product before resting up for the next busy day. If they can then make the mega bucks admitting to eating such food all the better.

In answer to your query I’ve tried the offending sandwich since seeing the commercial and made a special trip to BK to do so because I’d usually eat there only on road trips while filling the tank. I believe it to be palatable, which means I’ll have it again in a pinch.

[hollywood]

My Bakker analogy grew from reading this thread 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. This is why I’m not surprised you introduced the word “sin” in your latest post to this discussion or why I said this reminds me of gangster rap fans who find out their favorite rapper grew up middle-class.

You've tapped into a certain Puritanical aspect of this thread. It seems inevitable in any "sell out" discussion.

[Jinmyo]

But as well as puritaniasm and morality and whatnot, there's the fact that it's Burger King. Not even McDonald's but a second-stringer.

[Fat Guy]

My Bakker analogy grew from reading this thread 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. This is why I’m not surprised you introduced the word “sin” in your latest post to this discussion or why I said this reminds me of gangster rap fans who find out their favorite rapper grew up middle-class.

Eliot, this is a total straw-man argument. Who on this thread is actually saying the things you're attributing to so many of us? Quoting my use of the word "sin" out of context -- what I said was "Deep-frying hides a multitude of sins" and I said it while speaking in favor of Burger King onion rings, Pringles, and Munchos -- hardly establishes that anybody here is behaving in a utopian manner. Moreover, if there are a couple of people who think that way, it doesn't support the blanket statements you're making. There have been 450 posts on this thread from 79 different people representing just about every possible viewpoint. Among those who have condemned Bayless, there are several lines of argument. 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.