289388 Wed May 22 09:29:54 -0700 2002 74 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1566454 Goodness. Link: http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_Life&newDisplayURN=200205200011 Wed May 22 09:29:54 -0700 2002 0 John Tracey 1 1566466 C'mon. look at the website address. It ends with .UK. Left leaning British journalists look for the most insignificant American thing and build up a huge anti-america campaign around it. They constantly pegs all Americans as small minded, tacky, stupid and ignorant. We are to blame for every thing wrong in the world. Typical drivel. Wed May 22 10:33:59 -0700 2002 1566454 0 pAT I. 2 1566469 Mr. D. is hardly a left-leaner - he is a physician practicing in the slums of Manchester, I think, who writes a rather good regular column in City Journal, "Oh to Be in England" or some such that deplores the decline in morals and manners in the UK. He is a supporter of traditional and chowish values if anything - to wit his lauding of the Singapore food scene and natural foods. Eveni if he is a bit overthetop, the US food industry (not perhaps the lady in Des Moines) is trying to take over the world. Wed May 22 11:03:34 -0700 2002 1566466 0 jen kalb 3 1566496 He is, however confusing the abominations served at McDonalds with the heavenly burgers we have enjoyed at our homes and at places where the cooks know what they are about. Not all hamburgers are equal. Wed May 22 13:22:20 -0700 2002 1566469 0 Terence 4 1566506 Amen. There's nothing I love more than to take derisive European visitors for a really GOOD hamburger. folks, we've had five replies to this posting, therein baiting flames on the fronts of politics, US vs. UK (who's "better"?), cultural imperialism, and orthodontics. Can I ask that we keep this discussion chowish? We do real good around here with food talk. We do real bad around here with all that other stuff. ciao Wed May 22 13:55:43 -0700 2002 1566496 0 Jim Leff 5 1566513 OK, so if we could entice the author to the United States, where would we take him for a really excellent burger to show him the error of his ways. I'm not under the illusion that Cousins 2 on Court St. is the greatest place in the world but the burgers are good and the people are extremely friendly and the beer is cold. After work on a Friday, its an excellent place to suck down a few. Just get out before the karaoke starts. And while we are on the subject of burgers, what sort of ground beef do you folks feel makes a really great burger, and where do you get it and what kind does McDonalds use? Also, any home cooking burger techniques that you haven't seen in your favorite burger joints? I like to chop up a just little bit of fresh thyme or cilantro and work it into the meat, before cooking along with some very small-dice onions that have been sweated in olive oil over a low flame... Wed May 22 14:11:58 -0700 2002 1566506 0 Terence 6 1566521 Coincidentally, there's a thread below regarding making a "great burger". Wed May 22 14:35:17 -0700 2002 1566513 0 Hunter 6 1566525 where would we take him for a really excellent burger to show him the error of his ways.>> Although I'm frequently optimistic that others will share my enthusiasm for chow, it doesn't always work out. I once spoke with an otherwise rational Scotsman about burgers as we wolfed down In N Out burgers. His attitude was, So? Tactfully, I did not bring up haggis. Wed May 22 14:51:38 -0700 2002 1566513 0 mc michael 7 1566556 Not bringing up Haggis is harder than getting it down in the first place.... Wed May 22 16:27:54 -0700 2002 1566525 0 gourmound 8 1566562 We all have our comeuppances. Wed May 22 16:57:00 -0700 2002 1566556 0 mc michael 6 1566573 What is the culinary tradition of American restaurants? I mean, let's review history. Restaurants became an industry late in the 19th century when the industrial revolution created a huge, itinerant urban working class, and upset the traditional role of wife as housekeeper, cook, and babytender. I'm willing to bet they stunk, since they were essentially troughs for grubby proles. You didn't take a date out to a restaurant. In fact, "dating" didn'y become a social convention until the same time period, the late 19th century. Rich people dined at home. Fine dining occurred in fine homes. There were taverns and pubs, but those were largely for travellers, drinking and socializing -- hardly fine food. Restaurants had an advantage over single-family shoppers at the market, buying foodstuffs in high volume. The could turn a nice profit, adding value to the food they sold by saving tired workers the trouble of cooking at home. Most restaurant food was usually prepared in volume: beans, stew. (Think Ebenezar Scrooge and the potato gruel he suspects causes his hallucinations.) Dullsville, man, but a worker emerging from a factory after sixteen hours is happy to eat cabbage soup. A starving dog will eat onions. As the restaurant industry developed, some places tried to get classy. In Europe, many restaurants tried to appeal to the middle class by emulating the elaborate culinary tradition of their aristocracy. In America, we did not have such a clear model for emulation. Some American restaurants emulated European ones. But other more chowhoundish tarditions also emerged. The native culinary tradition in America was a hodgepodge of ethnic and local homecooking. In cities, people encountered the cooking of unfamiliar cultures wafting out windows. Also, as transportation became more available, city dwellers with money became able to explore the cooking of distant localities. A Manhattanite could take a train to Brighton Beach or Coney Island, where crafty bastards were inventing hotdog stands. A Bostonian could take a train to Cape Ann to discover fried clams, or to Cape Cod to discover clam chowder. Etc. Chowhounds travelled, and skulked around other family's kitchens, and tasted stuff. Restaurants serving beans and potatos began to seem very dull. City restaurants SLOWLY began to try new menus that included "foreign" foods and regional novelties. So chowhounds are part of the American culinary tradition. You're an underlying trend. On the other hand, a restaurant is a business. The clever guy who opens one of the first Italian restaurants might love to sell good veal; but, it's harder to make a profit on expensive, perishable veal than on spaghetti and meatballs. Hell, spaghetti is cheap, and it stores dry, and you can cook up one huge pot in the morning and then have time to do other work. (ps. Them meatballs don't have to be filet mignon, if ya know what I mean.) The guy who opens a Chinese restaurant might hope to sell fine steamed fish, but he makes a better profit whipping up one huge vat of chow mein. Or better yet, he could invent something even CHEAPER, like chop suey, and PRETEND it's real chinese food. And the guy at the Italian place could invent pizza. What could be cheaper? And the guy at the fried clam place could invent onion rings (on a steamship in California actually, or so the legend goes). And the guy at the drive-in will find a way to bastardize his hamburger meat, and cover it with sauces to confuse the customer. And the ice cream shop will find a way to pump air into liquid ice cream to create "soft serve." Fried chicken isn't bad, but what if we sliced chicken into strips, breaded the strips, and sold 2oz. of chicken and told 'em it was a meal? Or better yet, if we ground up chicken scrap and told 'em it was a "tender." Or found a stable way to dry out soup -- sell 'em the powder, and let them add their own darn soup! That's a cuisine built by a single-minded drive toward profit. I'm not saying that's bad. But if you raise generation after generation of Americans who eat such food -- to the EXCLUSION of anything clever or elaborate or unfamiliar or hard-to-achieve -- well, you're gonna get fools. That's why I love chowhounds. The writer of that article was taking cheap shots, but he did have a point -- in that the tradition of American cuisine DOES include a tendency toward cheapness: easy stuff that can be produced in volume, made of inexpensive ingredients that may be bought en masse and stored indefinately. This American tendency toward unchallenging food is a problem! --a problem I believe chowhouds strive to overcome. Wed May 22 17:31:09 -0700 2002 1566513 0 Clams247 7 1566624 Very right on that.... kudos to that. I think he draws the distinction to Singapore, being a native of that country, because food there (if bought in a hawker center) is very much CHEAPER than a fast food meal anytime and its ingredents and taste is so much better than the fast food stuff. And the hawkers are rich so that's not an excuse for Mac's... some of them drive a Mercedes Benz that cost 200K there. The American culture has been about capitalism largely and that over shadows the other cultures that could and should have developed. Food culture for instance. Been here for quite a while, good American food I believe is the fusion and melting pot of different cultures together. Fusion cusines I believe is the hall mark of the American food culture. The writer is just pointing to the fact of the lack of this Fusion style cusine that should have been exported out to different parts of the world rather than the fast food stuff to better represent the US. The lack of such a representation is what forms the writer's opinion. Because after all, fine italian, french, thai, chinese, etc can be found all over the world but there is no fine American cusine that can be easily found in the world... with maybe the exception of Morton's which I don't think is a good enough an example of the fine stuff that can be found here. I mean non-American people eat the fast food not because its better per say, its just different... but in my country, hawker food still rules.... =] Thu May 23 03:30:30 -0700 2002 1566573 0 icecold 7 1566662 Great points. Thanks for the post. Can you suggest more reading on US culinary/food-industry history? I have read Fast Food Nation, but that only touches on history. A disturbing read, that. Thu May 23 10:07:35 -0700 2002 1566573 0 Katerina 8 1566697 I'll find you some books and articles, Katerina. I should have included a qualifier that I was bulldozing through history, and that all sorts of corrections are welcome. Thu May 23 12:04:53 -0700 2002 1566662 0 Clams247 8 1566827 It may be out of print now, but I have a good book by Harvey Leventhal called "Paradox of Plenty: A Social History of Eating in Modern America." It covers the Depression through the late '80s/early '90s, and not only discusses restaurants and other culinary topics, but also things like food processing, wartime rationing, food stamps & other government programs, chemicals such as cyclamates, etc. Fri May 24 09:10:02 -0700 2002 1566662 0 Stephanie L. 9 1566839 Thanks! I'll try the library. Fri May 24 10:53:58 -0700 2002 1566827 0 Katerina 9 1566965 It's a very good book indeed. The author's name is Harvey Levenstein and the book is available used through Abe (see below). Link: http://www.abebooks.com/ Sun May 26 08:39:50 -0700 2002 1566827 0 John Whiting 8 1566982 Food is tasty, much better than politics. The emergence of the restaurant industry, "dining out," and the dinner date are touched upon in MADCAPS, SCREWBALLS, AND CON WOMEN; THE FEMALE TRICKSTER IN AMERICAN CULTURE by Lori Landay. The book gives an interesting historical perspective on "womanly arts" as a means toward control of a household or romantic relationship. COD; A BIOGRAPHY OF THE FISH THAT CHANGED THE WORLD by Mark Kurlansky is another neat historical examination of how economics affected the American food tradition. SEEDS OF CHANGE; FIVE PLANTS THAT TRANSFORMED MANKIND by Henry Hobhouse mentions why America was not hit as hard by the potato famine that nearly destroyed Ireland. Excellent argument for genetic diversity in farming and livestock. Sun May 26 14:29:34 -0700 2002 1566662 0 Clams247 7 1566684 Yours is a very thoughtful post. However, as you point out restaurant cuisine has really only operatedon the margins historically and even now, cooking is predominantly an artisanal tradition carried forward in the home and in attitudes to food fostered in the home. That home-based tradition is in serious danger from the rush of modern life and from a transition to industrially-produced foods. The same insensitivity that causes us to open the can of chef-boy-ar-dee at home allows us to tolerate industrial mediocrity when we go out to eat, from cottony bread and individual packs of "creamer" to mix-based pancakes (the same at every diner) and "chicken tenders". While realizing the benefits of modern food technology (food preservation, disease prevention, out of season availability, etc), the ease of preparation and increased availability of these foods drives out local foodways in other places just as it does in the US. Dalyrymple mentions the Columbian cooking teacher using processed rather than local foodstuffs in her cuisine - some time ago I saw an article about how kraft was finding a big niche market in the Dominican Republic for dried mac and cheese dinners. If the ladies there go to the supermarket and buy dinner in a box rather than cooking up pots of rice and beans, something significant has been lost, both in terms of distinctive local deliciousness and economic self sufficiency (often the replaced items are produced by local farmers and businesses). Thu May 23 11:01:02 -0700 2002 1566573 0 jen kalb 8 1566696 A former professor of mine, while attending a cocktail party among local bigwigs in Liberia, was surprised to find the featured delicacy: cheese doodles. I see no contradiction between your comments and mine. The economics and convenience of prepared foods in the home -- in the same way as the economics and convenience of mass-stocked chain restaurants -- in itself is swell. Yes, I said it; I recognize the specific value of easy, familiar fast food, in the home or out to eat. The danger comes when such food excludes any alternatives. One way, as you say, is that it messes up what food supplies are available in the home. My ancestral hometown of Danvers, Massachusetts was nicknames "Oniontown" in my mom's day. It also produced its own breed of carrot, and Danvers carrot seed is available online. It is not, however, available in Danvers. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, is there one damn onion farm left. One reason fried clams are so expensive in Massachusetts is that the largest part of our clam production goes directly out of state in cans, or in those swell chowders you enjoy in pub-style chain restaurants. My point is, it's expensive to make quality clams and chowders even in Massachusetts in part because it's more economical to dump clams into the universal grist mill that pumps out third-rate canned products and ships 'em to Phoenix. (Nothing against Phoenix -- I'm describing a a trend in the shared national cuisine tradition. I know my friends in Florida are similarly frustrated by the low-quality orange juice we enjoy so ignorantly in New England. And plenty of New England restaurants simply shrug and serve the same canned New England chowder to their patrons as the restaurants in Phoenix. Why not? Hardly any customer knows the difference between a canned chowder and the real thing.) This tendency is indemic to the American culinary tradition. I'm accustomed to it. On the other hand, I'm also grateful for the chowhounds who seek an alternative. The danger that worries me, though, is not so much the disappearance of the Danvers onion. What bugs me is that the trend leads, generation after generation, to more knuckleheads who are happy with canned spaghetti, and who feel no curiosity for more. The eaters get dumber! My boyfriend considers himself "white trash" with no local or ethnic food tradition -- man, he wouldn't eat RICE when I met him because it reminded him of maggots, nor noodles because they reminded him or worms, nor chicken "with the bone in it" because it reminded him it used to be a living animal. He's coming around gradually, but he puts up a lot of resistance! Strong ~American~ resistance. I think as we accellerate inevitably toward "protein tenders" and soylent green, chowhounds will grow ever less common. The English guy has a (poorly-made) point, that the American culinary tradition includes an organized drive that produces dumber and dumber diners. That's why chowhounds are important. Thu May 23 12:02:11 -0700 2002 1566684 0 Clams247 9 1566719 Clams, you post has set me to wondering whether it is actually more economical to grind up clams to send out of state, reduce our food crops to 3-6 types of apples out of the 100's that could be used, etc. Or is it that it is more profitable to the corporate producers that are taking over our food production? My speculation: As there ARE dairies & farms & people producing heirloom produce, organic poultry, dairy products (such as specialty cheeses, butters, yogurts we all write about here), artisanal breads, wines, etc., there must be sufficient economic benefit in it that sustains them. But if they were after the kind of mega-profits that would support a corporate superstructure, stock investors, etc., then they would not be able to operate profitably. When we speak of the economic benefits of scale, the question is WHO reaps the benefits? In it's original use, the word "economy," had a much larger reference than the market place. Economy in the larger sense would include health care costs if people are impaired in some way by their diet or are undernourished, lost wages when someone cannot work because of obesity, alcoholism, etc. It would include the costs of transportation to faraway markets, of the trash retrieval of food packaging, and many other items. Economy is a much larger issue than a PL statement or even the GNP. When a butterfly flaps its wings in the forests of Brazil, we feel the breeze, we just may not recognize it. Thu May 23 13:50:07 -0700 2002 1566696 0 saucyknave 10 1566767 I suppose I'm suggesting that mass-production of food -- on corporate farms and in corporate restaurants -- yields more food per expense. In this sense, corporate mass-production of food profits the entire nation, increases the gross national product, decreases the cost of food, and decreases the cost of living generally. I almost said it increases the quality of life, but that would be pushing the truth toward a lie. Profit is what's left after you subtract the cost of production and marketing from the value of the product, right? By reducing reduplication of effort, by buying stock in bulk, and by limiting disruptive variables and waste, corporate food production provides product at far lower cost than artisinal food production. Food becomes cheaper in the market as a whole. The act of producing something will precipitate other effects as well, and I encourage you to write that chapter. You could, for example, explore how cattle ranching uses up farmland that could otherwise produce grain and vegetables -- and that Americans cause international starvation by demanding that tillable soil be devoted to feeding a few steer when it could be putting cabbage and corn in the mouths of so many more starving humans. My aforementioned hometown, formerly a farmtown, now supports only two small farms -- both heavily subsidized by the government, at least one operating NOT as a profit-making business but as a "historical landmark." The farms around me may SEEM to be surviving against corporate competition, but would not survive were this a circumstance of pure free trade. Surely a chowhound farmer will support my proposition that family and artisinal farms find it nearly impossible to compete with corporate farming without subsidies and support. Me, I'm glad to have those farms because the corn is so much better than that flavorless cowcorn sold at the nearby chain supermarkets. To me, good corn has greater value, but I'm not sure how its "value" adds to the general profit of the American or world economy. Would a man on a desert island with a bushel of corn from Conners's farm be wealthier than a man on a desert island with a bushel of supermarket cow corn? Artisanal food producer certainly can profit. Some consumers will happily spend extra money to enjoy fine chocolate prepared locally over packaged chocolate prepared in a grist mill somewhere. Those same consumers might also happily spend a couple nickels more on good corn, and not mind having to shuck it themselves. But more and more kids grow up eating supermarket cow corn, and would never think to stop at a farmstand. That means fewer farmstands. And that means fewer kids becoming chowhounds. And that means fewer people to support good food. It leads us into greater ignorance among our countrymen. I honestly think a crude palate contributes to crude thinking generally. I'm saying this downward spiral is an American trend. It's an effect of capitalism. I'm no darn commie; I'm a Yankee who fries clams for profit! But I don't think the American tradition is PURELY capitalist. I think it's also curious and hungry and innovative and lusty and adventurous and skeptical and critical, proud in each region yet often inclusive of its own diversity. The British guy seems to think the only chowhounds in the world ride around in a two-seater motorcycle and quote Gilbert and Sullivan. Let's argue more. [For the record, I don't fry clams anymore.} Thu May 23 17:22:59 -0700 2002 1566719 0 Clams247 11 1566781 You seem to be making the Panglossian argument: this is the best of all possible worlds because it is the one we've got. Food and taste are less good, but that's just the price we pay for a corporate economy. (BTW: the large corporations are probably more heavily subsidized than the few remaining independent farms.) You tacitly acknowledge that there are costs in our present system that are left out of the expense/profit corporate balance sheets in terms of land degradation, deforestation, possible unknown environmental danger from gm's, etc. You imply that this is balanced by cheap food. But is it cheap if nutritional needs are not being met by an unbalanced diet now and may result in less and more expensive food in the future? Is it, if you factor in the medical costs that may ensue to either the individuals involved or the society that supports them when they cannot care for themselves? I would not argue that occasional use of ff will bring the world to an end. But we are not speaking of occasional use if the billions spent on it are an index. We are talking about a massive corporate system that is almost totally in control of our food system on several levels. People who live in priviledged urban areas are not aware of how hard it is to buy any other food than this in many areas. Or how many people live in small towns where the ff restaurant may be the only one in a town that lacks diners, luncheonettes, etc. You seem totally ambivalent: at the end you speak of the downward trend we are in, but unwilling to completely critique it because to do so might be construed as criticism of the US and elitist to boot. I find these contradictions in your arguments completely understandable as there is relatively little we can do individually except to avoid ff and demand better products of our merchants, and perhaps put pressure on our governments. But Clams, I suggest that we bring this discussion between us to an end as the big hounds are growing restive in fear of flames errupting, though I believe ours to be a civil discourse. Thu May 23 18:44:39 -0700 2002 1566767 0 saucyknave 11 1566794 I don't know how to make this a link, but ewg.org is a very interesting site that has a place where you can see farm subsidies over the past five years. and guess, just GUESS which farms are the MOST heavily subsidized!!! THE BIG ONES. The really big ones. the little ones hardly get any. no matter how you look at it, its totally unfair that these huge "farms" get so much more than people holding something together with their bare hands, as many family farmers are doing. The price we pay for cheaper food is in dirty water, unclean air, ill treated animals, questionable genetically engineered food and food that tastes like NOTHING. support your local producers. if you have no local farms (key west doesn't) buy local fish, or beef from the organic guy or lemonade from the kid on the corner. If you can't afford to support the little guys, at least let them know you appreciate what they are trying to do, go to the greens market and look. nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. tell your friends. best, renee Thu May 23 19:28:14 -0700 2002 1566767 0 renee 5 1566517 Sorry, I did think the article I linked to was chowish. I also think he's all wet. Wed May 22 14:21:58 -0700 2002 1566506 0 John Tracey 6 1566529 No, MY apology for not making clear that the article/link/posting was indeed fine and chowish. It's just that the replies are hinting further afield into off-topic flame bait. So, I'm "urging restraint", as they say (gg) ciao Wed May 22 15:10:05 -0700 2002 1566517 0 Jim Leff 4 1566575 Ever see Barcelona? It is a decent film and one of the themes concerns an expatriate American's concern that US bashing abroad focuses on hamburgers, with the false assumption that bad Euro fast food burgers bear even a passing resemblance to the glory of a stateside burger. As I recall, it has a happy ending. He wins the girl, moves her to the US of A, and closes the film serving her a perfect backyard grilled burger! Wed May 22 17:52:42 -0700 2002 1566496 0 Oohlala! 3 1566504 Trying to take over the world? Oh yes I forgot - We're talking about Mcdonald's the evil that frightens most of Europe like an all beef Maginot line. I may sound harsh but I will defend McDonald's to the death (and yes I am a chowhound). McDonald's is a business. A McDonald's in your country or region your standards have been raised enough for them to risk investment in your country. But mcdonald's is the Pariah of left wingers-especially across the pond. Anti-Mcdonald's=Anti-Americanism. And it stinks. Still with all the protest, bombings ect - a Mcdonald'd opens every 17 hours somewhere in the world McDonald's buys all its materials local. For all the carping the Euro-weenies do about Mcdonald's (and they say it's all America good for -which puts a hamburger on a higher footing than the space shuttle, tele Communications technology, B-1 bombers, semi-conductors Microchips and Boeing 747s?)According to National Review, France's 800 Mcdonald's buys 85% of it's good from local vendors. it's beef purchases sustains over 45,000 french beef producers. Wanna know more? here's an article from national review. http://www.nationalreview.com/05june00/goldberg060500.html Wed May 22 13:53:45 -0700 2002 1566469 0 Pat i. 4 1566515 And yet their stock is falling. Wed May 22 14:16:04 -0700 2002 1566504 0 Saucyknave 5 1566537 As a retiree living on investments, let me assure you that everybody's stock is falling. Why should they be any different? Wed May 22 15:41:49 -0700 2002 1566515 0 Plano Rose 4 1566578 just wondering what "local" means when you discuss where mcdonals buys its materials...I live in key west and we don't have cows here. no cows in miami 150 miles away...seems to me there are very few cows in florida. key west doesn't support any agriculture that i am aware of... When i was in 8th grade i went to russia, stood in line for hours (with tons of tourists) to go into Mickey D's. this was on the itinerary, just days after i stood in a bread line for hours. at the end of one wait i got a yucky burger. at the end of another, a bit of moldy dark bread (which i guessed might have been pumpernickel) was handed to my host. when i was there only the upper middle class could go to eat at mcdonalds and the rest scowled as they walked past us in our lovely winter coats and our noticeable accents. I wanted borscht. Wed May 22 18:12:59 -0700 2002 1566504 0 renee 5 1566803 Not that this is truly related but as an ex-central Floridianif you don't think there are cows in Florida, you seriously need to get out of the keys every now and then! Thu May 23 20:37:57 -0700 2002 1566578 0 Hunter 6 1566851 "seems to me there are very few cows in flordia." I didn't mean that we had, oh, like three cows, just that we don't seem to have enough cows for McDs to be buying "locally"! Fri May 24 13:00:42 -0700 2002 1566803 0 renee 7 1566865 I believe the "buying locally" comment referred to McD's not importing ingredients into countries where it has stores, i.e., buying French meat and produce to supply its French outlets, etc. McD's certainly doesn't buy in Key West, or even in Florida, for its Key West stores, save for the lettuce and tomatoes, probably. It uses large suppliers and prepares and freezes its food centrally somewhere, then trucks it out. But it uses "local," as in US, products for its US restaurants and so on. Fri May 24 14:35:06 -0700 2002 1566851 0 Caitlin McGrath 4 1566638 Would you like some artifically flavored bbq sauce on your freeze dried french fries? Thu May 23 08:19:20 -0700 2002 1566504 0 John M. 1 1566467 This twit is just jealous that even though Americans eat mounds of fast food crap and export it to all corners of the globe, we still have far better teeth than he and his mates. When Lisa Simpson's orthodontist wanted to scare her, he brought out "The Big Book of British Smiles." Wed May 22 10:34:28 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Bob W. 2 1566685 Yeah. The US is also envied for its lithe and slender populace, which the British can only dream of gradually acquiring with dutiful consumption of fast food. Thu May 23 11:04:54 -0700 2002 1566467 0 Katerina 1 1566478 Worthy target----shallow thinking BTW, on a recent trip to London I was enjoined to note that the English have learned how to cook. "Have the vegetables" I was told. Well, I did. The brussels sprouts were perfectly cooked, as were peas &c. I was MOST disappointed. English vegetables are supposed to be cooked into a sodden mass of grey-green goo. It's just not right....the Empire is truly gone. Wed May 22 11:26:29 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Hazelhurst 1 1566501 What a bunch of crap. Jealousy perhaps ? As much as some people like to badmouth the US, there certainly seems to be many more who are trying desperately to immigrate here. Wed May 22 13:44:46 -0700 2002 1566454 0 gourmound 2 1566514 We needn't get defensive about America! We can admit that our fast food-chain system is a contender for the world's worst. We can admit that many choose to cook processed out of the box stuff that is an expensive alternative to real food. After all, we also have the choice to make wonderful meals at home or find individually owned restaurants that serve fine food ranging from little holes in the wall to the now pre-eminent French Laundry. Wed May 22 14:13:26 -0700 2002 1566501 0 saucyknave 3 1566554 You are correct I do not have to become defensive, I simply choose to. I also flatly disagree that we have the worlds worst fast food. I am just tired of hearing what is wrong with the US. Definitely not perfect, but show me another country that has a quality of life approoaching ours. Wed May 22 16:22:04 -0700 2002 1566514 0 gourmound 4 1566582 I'm glad we have someone on the board who has sampled ff all around the world and can flatly defend ours. I know my cat can be enticed off a hunger strike by some kfc or popeye's chicken. That's two votes. But isn't it a leap to equate ff to the American "way of life"? I thought that had to do with principles of equality, fairness, the old bill of rights stuff. Love of country, to my mind, does not require a blind defense of anything, everything that happens within its borders, even ff. Wed May 22 18:27:16 -0700 2002 1566554 0 saucyknave 5 1566636 I believe the author did in fact equate fast food with the American Way of Life. My point is that regardless of what some people think, this country is NOT what is wrong with the rest of the world. And yes ,I have traveled extensively and can tell you that 75% of the people of the world envy the American Way of Life and for good reason. We have the best healthcare, the best judicial system (by far) and most of all the freedom to discuss all the above in public. I have defended this country before and will continue to do so, from enemies real or imagined including drivel from anonymous Cyber dilletantes. Thu May 23 08:02:36 -0700 2002 1566582 0 gourmound 6 1566682 Oh gaaahd... Please, this is NOT a discussion about the Capitalized (as in letters) "American Way Of Life". Just calm down. Thu May 23 10:59:26 -0700 2002 1566636 0 Katerina 6 1566689 How is criticizing McDonald's low quality frozen beef patties, freeze dried french fries and labratory manufactured tastes an attack on the american way of life. I can tell you 100 places to get better burgers, fries and milkshakes. Thu May 23 11:24:58 -0700 2002 1566636 0 John M. 1 1566512 Ignore the cheap-shots in the article (they're designed to generate talk with the hope the message will get through) and focus on the point: Why is the all-sodium, all-fat grey hockey puck dominant when quality food could take its place for a similar price and convenience? I've pondered this a lot and all I can come up with is that fast food is the result of an accountant, factory designer and a promoter opening a restaurant. Some of the worst food I've had was at a company cafeteria in Lyon, the heart of French gastronomy. But then again, if no one goes there, they can't stay in business. Wed May 22 14:09:22 -0700 2002 1566454 0 muD 2 1566557 Amen! To paraphrase a common saying: "Suppose they opened a McDonald's and nobody came." Just like any other business, a McDonald's can -- and sometimes does -- close due to low sales volume. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to eat there. But given the success of McDonald's and other American fast food outlets abroad, it is obvious that lots of Europeans, Asians, etc., are patronizing them which should then lead us to assume that they like the taste of what is being served even if it isn't what we would consider the best representation of what a truly delicious American hamburger can be. In the end, those who complain about American fast food taking over the world have only their own countrymen to blame. Wed May 22 16:29:03 -0700 2002 1566512 0 RR 1 1566534 Reminds me of Howard Stern's reply to his critics: If you don't like it, change the station. McDonald's is to Wimpie's as French Laundry is to Olive Garden, yet Mr Priss churls. Go figure. Wed May 22 15:31:57 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Mr Grub 1 1566561 I very well may have missed something here, but what is the first-worst culinary tradition in the world (implied by the article?) At first, I assumed he meant English food. Or maybe he thinks it's Irish food? Wed May 22 16:55:06 -0700 2002 1566454 0 cypressstylepie 1 1566574 If anyone knows Mr. Dalrymple's e-mail address, please let me know. I will be happy to pony up a gift subscription to Chownews for him. Some of the best food I've ever had was in England. He's missing out on it if all he is eating at is fast food joints. On a trip to London I went with the mindset that the food would be bland, mushy and overcooked. It was wonderful. Those little lambs munching away in all those emerald green pastures make a mighty fine chop. It was also the week that Mad Cow disease hit England. You don't suppose Mr. Dalrymple....no, of course not. But, that wasn't a very well thought out article, was it? Found it interesting that a number of people thought he was talking about McDonald's. Burger King was British until recently. Long live the king. Anyway folks, don't forget it's time to feed the dog.... Link: http://chowhound.safeshopper.com/23/cat23.htm?933 Wed May 22 17:50:53 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Stanley Stephan 1 1566608 This has been a really interesting thread. I feel like McDonalds The Company gets a bad rap because McDonalds The Restaurant serves meat-laden, and generally unhealthy food. From all I've read about McDonalds The Company, they are actually an excellent example of what is Good about American capitalism. McDonalds The Company has wielded its huge amount of purchasing power in very responsible ways. The attached link is to two articles about McDonald's efforts toward improving the conditions of the animals they purchase. Especially interesting is the article about Temple Grandin, an autistic woman, who uses her empathy with animals to make slaughterhouses less cruel. I remember reading a case study in college about McDonald's struggle to find a cost effective and environmentally friendly way to recycle. They went back and forth between boxes, styrofoam, quilted paper, etc. They had a very hard time deciding which packaging method was least bad. There are tradeoffs between recycle-ability, bulkiness (as in landfills), degrade-ability, etc. Moreover, they had a really tough time finding a market for the recycled plastic. The main hurdle both for animal rights and for recycling, was getting the "activists" to tell them how to make things better. It's very easy to complain about a situation, but much harder to come up with a viable solution. I love Ms. Grandin's solution for evaluating the slaughterhouses: -Does the animal vocalize? (moos indicate unhappy animals) -How often are cattle prods used? (obviously bad) -Does the animal wake up after it is supposedly dead? (very bad) Very simple, very easy to measure. McDonalds is forcing the standards on its suppliers (and paying extra for happier meat). Same thing with its chicken suppliers. American business is ruthlessly efficient, but it is also amazingly good at adapting to the marketplace. McDonalds decided that it was in the company's interest to improve the ranching practices of its suppliers. Unfortunately, people aren't always willing to pay for "happy meat" as I learned at a recent tour of the Niman lamb ranches, which will be written up in my next installment. Link: http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/mcdonalds/ Wed May 22 21:24:26 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Dan Raffle 2 1566626 "Defending McDonalds (long)" Now there's a prescription for instant turn-off. I'll read it with close attention, after I've finished "Gourmet Recipes with Processed Cheese". Thu May 23 04:01:55 -0700 2002 1566608 0 John Whiting 3 1566641 John, One can concede that MD may try to do something for animal rights or the environment without having to concede that the food is either healthy or tasty or that the ff industry benefits either its customers or society at large in an overall way. Even Dan acknowledges that the food is "generally unhealthy." His defense of MD is that they are making some effort to buy their products in a socially progressive way. He further acknowledges that MD is ruthlessly efficient in the "best" tradition of American capitalism. It appears he thinks this is good, but for many of us this rationalization of food production and labor conditions solely from the point of view of maximizing profits is not good for the consumer, for labor, for society at large. It's a question of whose greater good is to be priviledged, business or the public or those they "serve." Notice that neither Dan nor other defenders of fast food defend it as healthy or tasty. They defend it because to them it represents AMERICAN capitalism and/or way of life or because to their way of thinking the article that started this all off was another example of America-bashing. Some may also defend it because (sadly) it represents the food of their childhood and any attack on it is a personal attack on them. What strikes me is the emotional charge to some of the answers in this thread, in the context of political and economic chauvinism (the two are now often conflated). Thu May 23 08:45:41 -0700 2002 1566626 0 saucyknave 4 1566655 I didn't grow up with McDonald's since we didn't have much ff back home then. However, I don't think having memories of growing up eating at McDonald's is something to be ashame of. Who of those raised in the US didn't have McDonalds--or other equivalent ff--growing up? I think it would only be sad if you had to eat it every single day because either you didn't have a mom, or she was too lazy to cook a decent meal so she raised you on ff. Even if this last scenario was the case I still don't see how that would be the child's fault and therefore shameful for him/her to admit to it. I am not a fan of McDonalds, but I do prefer their fries to those at other ff places. I also love having their hash browns now and then. So there, I am not ashamed to say there are things in McDonalds I like! Thu May 23 09:49:30 -0700 2002 1566641 0 Maria 2 1566680 McDonald's also pays lousy wages and provides no health coverage or benefits to its employees. It, and other fast food places, has vastly contributed to the unprecedented levels of obesity here. Nowhere in the world are people so obese as in the US. It's hard not to see the connection. Thu May 23 10:49:43 -0700 2002 1566608 0 Katerina 3 1566692 I doubt that a typical meal at McDonalds has significantly more fat or calories than a typical meal in Italy, France, Germany or China, all cultures known for not skimping on the fat. So I dont think the link to obesity is as obvious as you make it out to be. There are other, more obvious factors to me: snack food, soda, sugar-laden items, and a car oriented society being more obvious I dont have any information about the first part of your statement, but if it is true, they and all the other companies that take advantage of the fact that we have a health system based on employer-employee relationship so as to not cover their employees should be ashamed of themselves. Any lawmaker who votes against changes in the health insurance racket should be voted out of office. Please dont think I was comparing McDs to the other quisines in terms of quality, just about the link to obesity. jake Thu May 23 11:43:27 -0700 2002 1566680 0 jake pine 4 1566699 In fact, I wasn't even talking about fat as a component of fast food. I think the reasons for people getting fat due to fast-food places are roughly the following: - the foods are laden with empty carbs and are not satisfying in the way "real" foods are, therefore you consume more of them - they are engineered to generate a strong taste response of the average palate, so they are appealing to many - they are ubiquitous - they are always (e.g., at 2am when everything else is closed) available - they are cheap. I think that the main reason why more people in other countries and continents are not fat *yet* are chiefly due to the fact that they have to make a greater effort to acquire food, any food, even if it the effort is relatively small. But fast food "comes" to you. It's always there, it doesn't taste SO bad, and it's just really cheap. Thu May 23 12:08:01 -0700 2002 1566692 0 Katerina 4 1566730 This had been often said, but you do notice when you travel in Italy or France is that their serving sizes are much smaller than ours. Chinese food, at least traditionally contained significantly less meat than veg - not at all like the 2# boxes of greasy moo shu people take out here. People in the US eat too much and our servings are too large. McDs and other ff vendors encourage us to pig out by promoting "value meals", supersizing, combos and the like. If a big burger or soda or order of fries is good a bigger one is even better. And if you dont really want the fries but go for the better deal and eat the fries anyway....Their play to our desire for a good deal and our gluttony is almost irresistable. Thu May 23 14:57:12 -0700 2002 1566692 0 jen kalb 5 1566814 This is not meant as a rebuttal to any of the above, but an interesting point. Recently I read an article in the NY Times about a study done by the WHO that showed that obesity in young children is now a worldwide problem, seen most in the wealthier nations, but also in developing (or not, as the case may be) countries. At any rate, Italy now has a higher percentage of obese young children than does the US; even Ghana (I think it was Ghana) has a a higher percentage of obese young children than malnourished ones. Reading this reminded me of a very amusing piece in the Times from a few years back by Alessandra Stanley, then the Times's Rome bureau chief, that was also quite interesting as cultural counterpoint. It was about the travails of her first-grade daughter at her Italian public school regarding food. Stanley explained that no self-respecting mother would drop her child off at school without a fresh slice of pizza bianca; then there was a midmorning snack of bread slathered with Nutella; a three-course lunch (smaller portions to be sure); and an apple in the afternoon. At parent night, Stanley discovered a wall-sized report card that graded each student's daily consumption at lunch, course by course; not finishing was not good. There was a public uproar when an admistrator suggested that a vegetarian entree be served once a week, even greater than the previous one following the placing of cod instead of meat on the menu once in a while. Now, the thrust of the piece was really to show how important food and traditional ways of eating it are in contemporary Italian culture (each child takes his or her own cloth napkin to school each day; parents picketed the school after a rumor at *another* school that an administrator had a kickback deal with a wholesaler who supplied less-than-perfect produce). Perhaps it is not these foodways but their abandonment that has caused 27% of children under five in Italy to be obese? I don't know. Thu May 23 23:04:33 -0700 2002 1566730 0 Caitlin McGrath 6 1566837 Having worked at a lot of restaurants, I can say without a doubt that a job as a line cook in almost any establishment pays much better than the horrid "wages" paid by McDs. They are underpaid and as far as working their way up the ladder, the highest they can expect to go, on average, is asst. mgr. or mgr. I have nothing against McDs specifically, I just think the fast food industry is NOT a good place to work. Fri May 24 10:24:27 -0700 2002 1566814 0 Hunter 3 1566806 Regarding your comment about McDonald's paying lousy wages, and offering no health coverage or other benefits to their workers; What do you suppose most of the workers in any of the houndish restaurants you and I (and most everybody else on this board) enjoy receive in terms of wages, health or other benefits? This is the a general problem of the restaurant industry, not just MD's. My other point is that these jobs are filled by those who don't have the education or language skills that allow them to seek better paying jobs with benefits. These jobs really are meant to be "starter" jobs that people transition out of as they become more skilled in terms of their abilities and education. Some stay and go into management. One of our more famous ff institutions here in Souther California, In 'n Out, is well known for the people who started out behind the grill and moved up the corporate ladder. MD's has its fair share of success stories in this regard too. All of the ff places give opportunities that help people who otherwise would not have work. Thu May 23 20:54:32 -0700 2002 1566680 0 WLA 2 1566910 Don't we all wish McDonalds were what they used to be.........good bugers and fresh homemade fries.......I long for the good old days, haven't been to McDonalds in 2 years and I won't go back......neither will most of my family....they have lost alot of customers in the last few years......wish they would learn something and start having real beef again and fries and fudge the vegetarians.....at least with the beef fat the fries had taste......they can go elsewhere......anyone else remember the good old days of McDonalds? The resturant they started out as? Fri May 24 22:03:48 -0700 2002 1566608 0 Paula 1 1566639 The most shocking thing about the responses to this article, is my discovery that there are people on Chowhound that eat McDonald's. I am appalled. Thu May 23 08:21:41 -0700 2002 1566454 0 John M. 1 1566645 Look at it this way. The mainstay of the British diet has moved from "worst food in the world" to the "second-worst food in the world." It's progress! David "Zeb" Cook Thu May 23 09:06:11 -0700 2002 1566454 0 David "Zeb" Cook 1 1566646 Ok, we all agree that he's talking about us, right? What I don't get is he keeps pointing out that he finds crappy American fast food in Asia and Europe. Well, duh. You can't get decent BBQ in NYC. There is always trouble when you serve food out of it's geographical home. We have great fast food and crappy fast food here. The fact that they chose to emulate the crappy stuff is out fault, how? I don't buy the Evil Empire of America influence thing, either. People choose what they eat. If people choose to eat crap, it's because they like crap, not because of some corporate mind control scheme. Thu May 23 09:07:24 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Kim Shook 2 1566654 It's a comfort to know that we all have such independent minds that corporations are spending billions per year to no avail, particularly since they are trying to develop brand loyalty by advertising inside schools. Thu May 23 09:44:30 -0700 2002 1566646 0 saucyknave 3 1566659 That's to get us to eat their particular BRAND of crap. If I am not in the market for an item, no amount of advertising is going to make me buy it. Subway advertises and has a kiosk in my daughter's school, but she won't eat it. So, does this advertising work on you? Do you buy all this corporate stuff against your will? Or are you just worried about all us other weak minded folks? Thu May 23 09:55:49 -0700 2002 1566654 0 Kim Shook 4 1566667 i disagree with your statement that people only eat CRAP because they like it. first i'd like to make an analogy that most women can understand. HIGH HEELS. i grant that there are some people out there who wear and enjoy them. Some women wear them because in corporate culture no choice is presented, and if there is a choice there are still accusations of being "un-professional" Some refuse to wear these horrid shoes and manage to advance. Some refuse to wear them and pay dearly. In other cultures, eating at Mcdonalds, or a similar american place, is a status symbol, like high heels here. I know people who drive crappy cars because they can't afford a better one. i know people who don't read books because they don't know how. I know children whose parents have never fed them home-made bread or homemade lasagne or even just the pasta sauce, everything from a box, can or paper bag. There are people in this world who rarely leave their homes because they are deeply phobic. Lots of people don't realize that for the price of a burger you can cook something up yourself that is just as tasty. Ignorance or inability or social pressure (and plenty of other causes for choices) do not equal preferance. Advertising is powerful. children demand things by brand names now at just about the time they learn to speak. Does this necessarily mean your child likes Lucky charms? No, but it means your child has, one way or another, been led to believe that they are desireable. Thu May 23 10:14:15 -0700 2002 1566659 0 renee 5 1566690 Hey, I loves me some Lucky Charms!!! Thu May 23 11:33:03 -0700 2002 1566667 0 kim shook 4 1566695 Kim, I believe that advertising cumulatively shapes our sense of what we need as well as try to create specific brand loyalty. Clever advertising has convinced us that we are making our own choices when we follow its suggestive images and deceitful words. We live in a contemporary Faustian drama. My general rule of thumb is that ANYTHING advertised on TV is probably not something I need, and/or it isn't good for me. I try to live by Thoreau's remark that wealth is having few wants. Ironically, the result of having few consumer wants is that one is more likely to have wealth, material and immaterial as one has more to invest. What is not advertised on TV is to save your money and invest it wisely, or even give some of it away to others who have unmet real needs. What is not advertised is to get a good education by paying attention in school. What is advertised is buy this, buy that, buy the other, but buy, buy, buy. But the things that bring the contentment and security of not living pay check to pay check by dribbling away resources on tomorrow’s trash mostly can be fitted into a small boxes: your brain and a safe deposit box. Advertising, cumulatively, stimulates an "I want," "I need" reaction, stimulates us to squander our resources on fast food which barely nourishes us as it fattens us (whatever brand) on flavored sugar water; it fills our cupboards with umpteen chemical cocktails for cleaning when three or four basic ones work as well or better. It makes us lust after new cars that cost more than houses the poor live in, so that we lease or buy them for three years instead of buying what’s merely safe and serviceable and keeping them 10 or so years. It fills our closets and drawers with more clothes than we could wear out in six lifetimes. It teaches us that corporate products can make our lives easier and more comfortable than the exercise of our own judgment as to what we truly need. Even more than all that it teaches people in general to judge others by what they have. And it teaches us (and, worse, our children) to feel bad about ourselves if we cannot buy the newest, the trendiest, etc. It's not that I don't own "things." But when I buy something I tend to ask myself if I really need it. Or will it be just another burdensome possession that will steal my time in caring for it, steal the space that it takes up in my house, steal the money I could spend on my gd's education or simply save for the future for me and to leave to my children. And I will quickly acknowledge that what I have written here were not my opinions when I was in my 20's and 30's. I’ve done the car every few years, designer clothes, jewelry thing only to discover they not only became tomorrow’s trash but enmeshed me in a web of materialism. I do have splurges: books, cd's & performances (jazz & alternative), art, good food (home & restaurant), the equipment to make it, and occasional travel. Ironically, to find out about the sort of books I like to read and music I enjoy, I almost need to do research as the corporate world doesn't promote anything that they cannot sell by the 100's of millions. I find these things by reading (reviews, Consumer Reports, sites like Chowhound). Advertising has no intention of fitting the product to the person, instead they seek to mold the person into the product. Thu May 23 11:55:21 -0700 2002 1566659 0 saucyknave 5 1566712 Well put. Good post. Thu May 23 13:21:56 -0700 2002 1566695 0 e.d. 1 1566647 I hope the author realizes that Burger King, the world's second largest producer of wasted fat calories and artery clogging grease, is a UK company. At least McDonalds has Salad Shakes and Happy Meals. Thu May 23 09:11:55 -0700 2002 1566454 0 Pappy 1 1566751 Attention, respondents to this thread: we don't do politics on General Topics; it's too off-topic. Please keep this board chowcentric and address political discussion (if you absolutely must) to Not About Food.   thanks for your cooperation! Thu May 23 16:21:19 -0700 2002 1566454 2 The Chowhound Team 2 1566766 Totally understand but any discussion about a corporation like McDonald's is gonna get messy. Unlike a restaurant, McD's is a global business enterprise and its business of food affects the world in different ways. Their fries are damned good though, but only when fresh. Have em to go, and they're soggy by the time you get to the kitchen table. Image: http://www.foodtv.com/images/celebrities/rachael_ray.gif Thu May 23 17:21:47 -0700 2002 1566751 0 EatDrinkMan 1 1566866 "One of the more desirable effects of the collapse of the British empire was the retrocession of the worst cooking in the world." This guy's tongue is shoved so firmly into his cheek that nobody has understood what he's saying. The article isn't a rip on the hamburger, but a more general dismay over the acceptance of mediocrity--but he's pointing the finger at the English, not at Americans. He's not saying that all American food is bad, but that what is sold abroad as American food is terrible. I think I agree. Fri May 24 14:38:07 -0700 2002 1566454 0 lucia