Endless Shrimp, Endless Misery

I see going to Red Lobster as mostly a celebration / special occasion place. The prices are way up there, the portions aren't really that great, but when the ol' anniversary rolls around, I know the little lady is going to want lobster and as long as we're paying for lobster, I might as well do so at a place where they have endless Cheddar Bay Biscuits to keep me happy.

In fact, Red Lobster pretty much has accepted that's all they're good for, since every time you come in, they seat you and flat-out ask you if there's a special occasion you're celebrating. Because they know it's a rare event that someone just says "I'm hungry for dinner - let's just go to Red Lobster."

Well, the special occasion we were celebrating tonight was the seasonal return of the Endless Shrimp promotion. It's one of the only times I'll volunteer making the trip and paying the price to eat here, because it's one of the only times I feel I can finally get some of that lost money back and really make it worth my time. But the past two times we've been to this place for the Endless Shrimp, it's just gotten worse and worse. Today just topped it all with a one-two combination of ineptitude and inattention.

To start, we had a comfort issue situation. The booths are Red Lobster are not fat-person-friendly, and when we were seated at such a table, it took about 20 seconds of wedging and squirming trying to fit my ass and gut in appropriately that as soon as our server came, I asked if it would be possible to get seated at a table with chairs. She was very polite and could see exactly why we were requesting it, and she went to ask the hostess about it. Sure enough, 2 minutes later we were on our way to a table with chairs where I fit much more comfortably (as long as we staggered seating with the other tables so my chair could pull out enough with nobody behind me and they could do the same for our empty chair).

Unfortunately, this table was located in what I am calling the "Inattention Zone". Read more!

Ronald McDonald and the Food Liberation Army

No, this picture is not a fake. It is, however, a horrible spoof of an Al-Qaeda video - a spoof perpetrated by a Finnish group calling themselves the "Food Liberation Army". They have kidnapped a Ronald McDonald statue and are holding it 'hostage' unless the McDonald's corporation answers certain questions about its manufacturing process.

Questions that specifically include:

1. Why are you not open about the manufacturing processes, raw materials and additives used in your products? what are you afraid of?

2. How many tons of un-recycled waste do you produce each year? Why do you not publish that figure?

They state that if the questions are not answered, Ronald will be 'executed' on Friday the 11th of February at 6:30pm. I believe that's in England's time zone.

These kids need a goddamned Happy Meal, if you ask me. Because they apparently do like the food. Which just makes this thing 3 extra levels of ridiculous.

I found out about this news event from Fark.com, referencing me to this website which was in turn sharing the information from a UK news website. So forgive me for the fact that this is not all that new of news.

The video released by the FLA group goes on to state that "though they are fans of McDonalds burgers and fries, they believe that the food they love is being destroyed."

You. Idiots.

First of all, you're calling yourself the "Food Liberation Army" - yet you haven't liberated any goddamned food, other than into your gullets. How the fuck do you even "liberate" food in the first place? You can't set something free that's already dead, especially after it's been processed into food. All you've done so far is steal a statue and place a hood over its head in a mocking video. It's not food, and you haven't freed it. You want to KILL it. The "sweet release of death" does not count as liberation, especially since it's a fucking statue and not alive or dead at all. In fact, it has clones of itself in every damned restaurant in the franchise!

Is your next plan to rob a McDonald's of all its Chicken McNuggets, and then set them free in a field, where they can live out the rest of their days in peace? where they don't have to suffer under oppressive human rule, awaiting death by consumption, until they are... consumed by wildlife or a passerby hobo?

And how do your random questions being answered make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Un-recycled waste amounts and more detail of the ingredients used in the manufacturing process of McDonald's food? They're a publicly-traded billion-dollar company. This shit is already available information. Try asking the Food and Drug Administration, or the Health Bureau or whatever governmental body in England would have investigated and would know the manufacturing processes after approving them as upholding the health code? Hell, McDonald's spokesperson even said that they are willing to engage in constructive conversations with our customers, stakeholders and the media - which means that if you weren't acting like idiots, you'd get your answers even faster.

This is, all in all, an unnerving trend where groups of idiots think that by giving themselves a ridiculous name and spoofing acts of terrorism, that they are entitled to whatever they want and have the moral high ground.

You are wrong, Food Liberation Army. Your moniker is ridiculous. You have committed an act of theft. You have made insipid demands for information that could easily be attained through various legal channels. You have lampooned the acts of terrorists and deserve to be punished for both making light of actual horrible acts as well as encouraging others to do the same.

I know it comes as no surprise that I would side with McDonald's here, but after such an incredibly-dumb act has been perpetrated by such a group of incredibly-dumb criminals - wouldn't you agree?

What do you think? Should McDonald's negotiate with these "terrorists"? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Doodle - 01/25/2011 (2)

Doodle_110125b, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

It's the LOVE that makes it taste so special. And the GREASE.

*Nugget Not Drawn To Scale

*Margins of Error Estimated at +/- 2%

*Your Nugget Results May Vary

Read more!

Back for the New Year with New Gripes!

Happy New Year 2011 to everyone!

After long last, I'm updating the blog. I really need to get back into writing things, getting a little frustration out (in the form of scathing reviews or opinionated articles, not necessarily related to the actual items frustrating me - that's what my personal journals/blogs are for!) and getting back into the swing of things.

Also - reaching out to the world again. Tired of hiding here in the apartment with my girl and my pets, especially now that the winter is upon us and there's even less enticement to leave my comfy jammy-jams and into the great wide cold void that is the outside world for the next few months.

Oh, and you can also chalk this up to "New Years Resolutions" that will undoubtedly fail. I hope it won't, but I know I can't keep up with daily updates or anything. Work schedules and girlfriend schedules simply won't allow that. But I can say that I'll give it some effort to keep this blog up.

Maybe in time I'll get comments that aren't spambots.
Maybe in time I can generate some revenue on this blog somehow.
Maybe in time I'll do all those things I've been meaning to do...

Write reviews on Yelp, write about my recent travels to L.A. to visit family and some old familiar places, write about the current state of the world and all of the things that just piss me off in general.

You know, the usual.

SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT PISS ME OFF:

"Truvia" Commercials.



I can't fully explain just why this commercial fills me with such misogynistic rage. Perhaps it's the insipid way that the following words were combined in mind-numbingly-dumb jingle format: "made my butt fat", "self-control down the drain" and "skinny jeans zipped in relief".

That's right - SUGAR is to blame for your lack of self-control and resultant large ass. Not the fact that you're eating DESSERT with your morning coffee instead of even a SEMI-nutritional breakfast. Or that you find comfort in eating due to low self-worth or self-esteem or the myriad of other psychological reasons that make people overeat. Or the fact that you're genetically likely to have a large ass because both of your parents also had large asses.

I'm a fat person, and you know who I blame for it? Me. I don't blame the food for making me fat. I blame me for shoveling that food into my gaping maw. Just like YOU SHOULD, YOU BITCH!! Are you really telling me that the fact that you decided to sprinkle sugar into your coffee in the morning causes you GRIEF? How about NOT sprinkling sugar into your coffee??? DID YOU TRY THAT???

No - you were waiting for science to come up with something magical that gives you all the satisfaction of sugar but without the meager 40 calories or whatever that a normal human likely adds to their morning libation of caffeine.

(They did that a number of years ago. Several times. Like with Sweet 'N Low, Equal, Splenda, and a number of off-brand products made with a variety of calorie-free sugar substitutes.

Oh, but this one comes from a plant. Awesome. Enjoy having plant-based artificial sweetener in your coffee.

I still hate you, Truvia Bitch. At a subliminal, liminal and superliminal level. I loathe you and the marketing company that decided to come up with one of the worst commercials of the year that I would expect has singlehandedly led to a rise in the number of random violent attacks on women, who likely all happened to be using this particular brand of artificial sweetener.

What do you think? Do you also feel something in your subconscious when watching this commercial that fills you with something dark and evil and violent? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Fact of the Day - May 5, 2010

100505, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Been a while, but I needed a pick-me-up and felt like making fun of jellyfish and doing a crappy drawing after-hours would suffice.

Jellyfish are the worst combination of attributes: deadly, immortal, and not at all tasty.

So be careful in the water - and avoid any smacks of jellyfish you encounter. Stay safe!

Read more!

The BBQ Pork Bun Off

Every time I make my way through Chinatown here in Chicago, I try and grab a BBQ pork bun. There are so many places where they can be found at any number of bakeries, both along Chinatown Square and Chinatown on Wentworth. The last few times I've been given a BBQ pork bun by my girlfriend after she's visited, I've instictively asked, "Which bakery did you buy this at?"

Funny thing is, she doesn't always remember. And even when she does, I don't really remember if that place is specifically good or not.

So I've decided to start a comprehensive list and rating system.

And so, let the "BBQ Pork Bun Off" . . . BEGIN!


The rest of this post has been moved to its new official home on the RedEye Royalty page!

Read more!

The FDA and Misleading Labels

I eventually plan on writing a long series of FDA-related posts, but for now I will settle with this news article about how the FDA has sent official warnings to 17 different food companies about misleading claims on the labels of their products, including threats to take further action (including product seizure) if they don't correct the labels.

While it's a nice idea to try and "protect the public" from misleading labels, in most cases the public should be able to defend themselves and the corrections can be just as misleading thanks to the FDA's twisted logic.

Of course, this is the governmental organization that thinks the serving size of Fig Newtons is "2 cookies", ice cream is eaten by the "1/2 cup" and a normal person will eat HALF of a ramen packet for a meal and save the other half for later.

I'm partially torn on the issue. On the one hand, people are generally idiots and usually (1) don't care about the nutrition info and just want to buy tasty food, (2) are easily swayed by the label when choosing a product and don't bother with real nutritional info or (3) bother to check the nutritional info but "abuse" the servings and overeat.

Those in Group 2 are the people who the FDA is trying to "protect" with this crackdown on misleading labels by citing their guidelines and the company's failure to adhere to them by improperly using certain words on the label.

Now while I both loathe the coddling of those who deserve what their idiocy brings them as well as the government forcing their rules on the free market and making it less free - I do agree that false advertising is just plain wrong and I applaud the FDA for cracking down on falseties in the advertising on the labels of these food products.

On that other hand, though - the FDA has some pretty frickin' insane rules. Insane that they made the rule in the first place, insane that the rules have so many stipulations, and insane that the stipulations in and of themselves sometimes make the rule pointless.

Just to give you an idea, one of the companies that was targeted for mislabeling was Ken's Foods, Inc. for their salad dressing line called "Ken's Healthy Options™". The crime? The content claim of "healthy". Here's what the FDA requires in order for a company to put the word "healthy" on their product label:

To bear the nutrient content claim "healthy," a food such as a salad dressing: (1) must be "low fat" as defined in 21 CFR 101.62(b)(2) (total fat content of 3 g or less per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) and per 50 g of food); (2) must be "low saturated fat" is defined in 21 CFR 101.62(c)(2) (saturated fat content of 1 g or less per RACC and no more than 15 percent of calories from saturated fat); (3) must not exceed the disclosure level for cholesterol set forth in 21 CFR 101.13(h) (60 mg cholesterol per 50 g of food); (4) must contain no more than 480 mg sodium per 50 g of food (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(ii)(B)); and (5) must contain at least 10 % of the Daily Value per RACC of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(i)).

Ken's "healthy" salad dressing options apparently exceed the 3 g of fat per 50 g of food maximum in the "low fat" definition and do not not contain 10% of the Daily Value of at least one of thosee nutrients. And that's the definition of "healthy"!

Another letter recipient was Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. for their product called "Organic All Vegetable Shortening". Sadly, the violation was not regarding the "organic" label (which is a hilarious can of worms to open) but the fact that the label says it is "cholesterol free".

The term "cholesterol free" may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food with a Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) of two (2) tablespoons or less that contains more than 13 g of total fat per 50 g only if the following criteria, set forth in 21 CFR 101.62(d)(1)(ii), are met: (1) the food contains less than 2 mg of cholesterol per RACC and per labeled serving; (2) the food contains no ingredient that is generally understood by consumers to contain cholesterol; (3) the food contains 2 g or less of saturated fatty acids per RACC; and (4) the label or labeling discloses the level of total fat in a serving (as declared on the label) of the food.

The shortening exceeds the maximum 13g of fat per 50g of product and also exceeds the maximum 2g of saturated fatty acids per RACC. But did you notice that a product is cool with the FDA to say they are "cholesterol free" even if it contains 1.9mg of cholesterol per RACC? That's the FDA for you!

In the "totally deserves it" category for the FDA calling out a company's falsehoods - POM Wonderful got a very long letter basically chastizing them for claims made on their website (included on the label).

"The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of this product with these claims violates [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]."

Even worse is the fact that in additional to blurring the line between food and drug, the product fails to meet EITHER label, as the letter itemizes how POM Wonderful is misbranded as a food (claiming a high level of a nutrient that doesn't even have a Recommended Daily Intake) AND misbranded as a drug (saying they treat diseases means they are a drug but they don't provide adequate directions for use).

I could go on. These are just 3 of the 17 company letters that were sent out, including one to Gorton's, Inc. for their Gorton's Fish Fillets and to Dreyer's Ice Cream Inc. for some products of theirs for advertising "0 grams trans fat" but not also notifying the consumer to "See nutrition information for fat and saturated fat content". Which apparently is part of the FDA's rule about saying your product contains no trans fat...?

So back to my original point - I'm not sure whether to applaud or boo at the FDA for these letters. Sure, according to the Federal Law, their products were in violation due to improper labels. But what does any of it mean? The Pompeian, Inc. company got hit because of the usage of the word "light" on their bottles of "Pompeian Imported Extra Light Olive Oil" - but Frank Patton, the company's president, said the label should have said "Extra Light Tasting Olive Oil" and that it was a printing error, which he intends to correct when the next labels are printed.

So the FDA only cares about a product using the term "light" as long as it's not followed by the word "tasting"? How does that protect consumer Debbie Dumbass who sees the word "light" and couldn't give a damn what the rest of the label says? Am I allowed to market a line of ice creams that say "Fat-Free Tasting Ice Cream" and rake in the money from people who see the words "fat free" and couldn't be bothered to do the legwork and investigate the nutritional info to see that I use extra lard for that "perfect fat free taste"?

What the hell does "Extra Light" taste like, anyway? It's OLIVE OIL! Are there seriously taste testers guzzling shots of olive oil and checking off the "tastes like 'extra light'" box instead of the "tastes like 'light'" or "tastes like my arteries are clogging" boxes?

(Note to self: "Uncle Aaron's Artery-Cloggin' Tasting Olive Oil" will likely not sell well in today's marketplace.)

In the end, I think I'm still on the fence. I like to think that the free market should decide what is or isn't appropriate marketing for products and that the government should butt out. But I'm also sick and tired of Debbie Dumbass suing large corporations because a nightly cup of their "Extra Light" olive oil still made her fat despite claims of being "Extra Light". In these cases, I'm glad that the FDA can nip these in the bud by having companies adhere to these nonsense laws.

So if I had to choose, I'd be forced to tip my hat to the FDA. Their laws may be nonsensical and outdated, but at least they're helping to curb the frivolous dumbass lawsuit population.

What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of the FDA and these letters? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Deep-Fried Butter!

Wouldn't you know it - right after I post a lovely article mentioning the State Fairs and all of the wonderful foods that they manage to deep-fry (and sometimes place on a stick), along comes this news article with the entrants in this year's upcoming Texas State Fair.

And topping the list, Deep Fried Butter.

It starts off by recognizing the top honors from the 2008 Texas State Fair: Chicken Fried Bacon and the Fried Banana Split.

And then comes the parade of new entrants.

My favorite item, and the namesake of this post:

Deep Fried Butter

According to the article, "100 percent pure butter is whipped 'til light and fluffy, then specially sweetened with a choice of several flavors." It is then surrounded by a "special dough" and quick-fried.

Is there anything more delicious-sounding than this? I mean cooking shows have already taught me that fat = flavor, so taking a mass of solid flavor, then cooking it in a flavor-based medium should equal doubly-flavorful flavor. If only there were a way to get rid of that pesky dough!!

Sweet Jalapeno Corn Dog Shrimp comes in as my #2 choice because it's so simple as a basic remake of another traditional fairground treat.

"Shrimp on a stick is coated with a sweet and spicy corn meal batter, then deep-fried to a golden brown and served with a spicy glaze."

It's got everything I love about corndogs (the corn batter and deep-frying) and then they replace those nasty hot dogs with something wonderful like shrimp! My only worry is that the shrimp being used is not of a high-enough size rating, which would yield tiny treats more resembling fried shrimp gone wrong than corn dogs gone horrifically wonderful.

While I'm not much a fan of pork, my next choice has to be Country Fried Pork Chips because it's about damned time that we spread the tradition of "country-fried" to other meats (though I love steak nonetheless).

...seasoned, thin-sliced pork loin "surrounded by a tasty corn meal batter and deep-fried."

All I know is that it had better come with country gravy.

Back into the dessert region for Fried Peanut Butter Cup Macaroon - which seems to be more intriguing regarding the peanut butter cup being crossed with a macaroon than it is about being deep-fried.

It is, of course, "dusted with powdered sugar" after the oil drains. And you probably wouldn't want to get it without the available scoop of Blue Bell ice cream, would you?

I'm not sure how well peanut butter and coconut go together. But I'm sure a few quarts of liquid fat will help them get along better than if they were left to their own non-fried devices.

Getting back to simpler dessert fair options, we have Texas Fried Pecan Pie, which I'm sure delivers exactly what it promises - pecan pie and deep-frying.

It is served with caramel sauce "then topped with whipping cream and chopped, candied pecans."

Me, I'm not so much a fan of pecans, let alone a pie consisting primarily of them - but when at a Texas State Fair, do as the Texans do (and deep-fry it), right?

Ahh, and now we venture into the "healthy" side of deep-frying with Fernie's Deep Fried Peaches & Cream.

...ingredients include "a delicious batter of cinnamon, ginger, coconut, graham cracker crumbs, eggs and milk." It is then (natch) deep-fried and served on a plate, drizzled with raspberry sauce, sprinkled with streusel and topped with whipped cream. Wait — there is vanilla buttercream icing provided on the side.

Fruit? But where's the chocolate and sugar and candy bars and such? Oh - it's been deep fried? Then I think we'll manage. At least it's got buttercream icing to flavor it up a few extra points, right?

Lastly, we come to Twisted Yam on a Stick - offering nothing but nutrition, which must be taught a lesson with some deep-frying justice!

"a delicious, towering, spiral-cut sweet potato on a 13-inch skewer." After being plunked in the fryer, it is then "gently rolled in butter" and dusted with sugar and cinnamon.

You can add all the sugar and cinnamon you want, it's not going to hide a big giant skewer full of yam.


So that's what will be going down at the Texas State Fair this year - at least all of the deep-fried awesomeness I've been able to find so far. I really need to buy tickets and take a vacation out there or something!

Or at least locate a recipe for that deep-fried butter!

What do you think? Are you disgusted by the amounts of calories and saturated fats being discussed in this article - or are you drooling with anticipation as you imagine all of these greasy delights? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Top 5 New Food Tricks

I love food.

Not only do I love food, but I love unique combinations of food and new ways to prepare food. I'm the kind of guy who was intrigued enough by the thought of bacon-infused vodka to pick up the ingredients and trying the process out. (I'm too scared to taste the results, though, but the trip itself was quite amazing.) If there's a new way to enjoy some of my favorite foods, I want to know about it and be on the cutting edge of the technology.

I even managed to score tickets to the ALL CANDY EXPO the past two years and got to find out about all the new products and flavors before they hit the market.

So I've done a little rummaging around the 'net and here are the Top 5 new food tricks that have really got me interested and I either loved or would love to try:

Honorable Mention: 50 New Things + Deep-Fried + A Stick = State Fair Deliciousness

I'm always hearing about the new food that is now available (mostly at state fairs) that is being deep-fried and often put on a stick for easy eating. In recent times, this has included Oreos, Twinkees, Snickers bars, Coca-Cola (an intriguing one) and cheesecake. I believe there's even a deep-fried ice cream that someone made available.

We've certainly come a long way from the corndog, haven't we?

5. Donuts + Bacon Cheeseburger = Krispy Kreme Cheeseburger

I have to admit, this isn't exactly a new trend. In fact, I believe I read about it back in 2006 when a minor league baseball team's stadium just outside St. Louis (the Gateway Grizzlies) decided to slice up some Krispy Kreme donuts and slap a burger, bacon and cheese in-between and the Krispy Kreme Cheeseburger was officially born. And yes, that link has photos and video of the 1,000-calorie delight.

But donut burgers have spread, and as recently as last year they are still being created, even turning up at a Google cafeteria. That Slashfood article even has a gallery of pictures of the Krispy Kreme Burger from around the world. Disgustingly enough, picture #3 is a "Veggie Krispy Kreme Burger" - for the "health-conscious" donut-burger lover?

What I'm noticing in the pictures is that there's a clear line on the donut-burger battlefield:

Glazed side up or glazed side down?

I'm on the fence, frankly. It just makes more sense to do it glazed side down if you're trying to get some nice grill marks on the dough side, and it makes for a less-messy burger as you don't have to get glazed sugar all over your fingers. But on the other hand, that layer of sugar is separating donut from meat - by doing it glazed side up, the juices from your bacon and meat patty can meld with the sweet donut dough and while it's a messier endeavor, I suspect there's oodles more flavor if you venture down that path.

Where do you stand?

4. Bacon + Chocolate = Mo's Bacon Bar

I've never been a huge fan of the salty+sweet combination attack. Kettle corn's flavor actually confuses my taste buds sometimes. Chocolate-covered pretzels, I devour them by licking off all the chocolate and then having my way with the salty piece all on its own. Yea, that's even how I tackle the Peanut M&M. But when it comes to bacon, I had to give it a try and I did actually purchase and consume the Mo's Bacon Bar made by Vosges Chocolate a few months ago. I'll let Vosges try to explain itself first:

Breathe…engage your five senses, close your eyes and inhale deeply. Be in the present moment, notice the color of the chocolate, the glossy shine. Rub your thumb over the chocolate bar to release the aromas of smoked applewood bacon flirting with deep milk chocolate. Snap off just a tiny piece and place it in your mouth, let the lust of salt and sweet coat your tongue.

So I tried it (the bar, not the touchy-feely instructions that told me to close my eyes but also to notice the color of the chocolate) and despite a semi-loathing of salty-sweet treats, I enjoyed it. I was a little disappointed to find that the bar was something like 85% chocolate and maybe 15% bacon at best - and that they used tiny bacon bits, which seemed to be getting confused in my mouth with the added Alder wood smoked salt that was supposed to compliment the applewood smoked bacon. I found it to almost overpower the bacon, of which I could find very little taste without only tasting salt. (It could have been the salty bacon, could have been the pure salt.)

I was hoping for something more like this chocolate-covered strip of bacon on a stick, which I'm certain would taste more of bacon while still not overpowering its chocolate coating in the flavor department.

(Luckily, there's several recipes online, which do actually consist of more than "dip bacon in chocolate, ya big dummy!")

3. Booze + Potatoes = Beer Chips and Intoxi-Tators

This is a discovery I got to make at the 2008 All Candy Expo here in Chicago with my girlfriend, as we found ourselves at a booth marked "Beer Chips" with several bowls of potato-y treats for us to sample. Sure, there was the original Beer Chip, made with beer (and maybe what seems to be a malt powder to give it that extra beer taste, though BEER is listed in the ingredients). It's not going to get you drunk or anything, though. But it also comes in additional flavors, like Chip Shots (margarita with salt flavor) and Hot Potatoes (spicy bloody mary flavor) and all three were delicious. I spread the word to my friends and they were very much shocked when a few months later the amber-colored bags were available in our local grocery stores.

And then a year went by, and 2009 All Candy Expo was here. We went searching frantically to find the Beer Chip booth to thank them for an awesome product, but instead we found a different alcohol/potato pairing booth: Intoxi-Tators. They were also sporting a beer-flavored chip as well as the margarita and bloody mary flavors. (Aren't there any other salty alcoholic beverages that would mesh well with potato chips?) Anyway, they also had a fourth offering in the form of Designated Driver, in case you wanted the thrill of the Intoxi-Tator brand without the thrill of chips tasting of alcoholic drink flavorants.

It seems that the Intoxi-Tators website lists some future flavors in development: Mimosa, Pomegranate Mojito and Ale.

2. Bacon + Chicken Sandwich + Chicken Sandwich - Buns = KFC's Double Down

So this one's really on the cutting edge of food technology. Well, food technology that's actually endorsed by the food providers themselves. (While we've all been tempted to make our own Big MacChicken with chicken patties for buns on a Big Mac, McDonald's isn't endorsing it on their menu or advertising it or likely condoning it in any way.) KFC, on the other hand, has selected test markets to try out possibly the first chain-approved burger that uses meat patties instead of buns.

The KFC Double Down - two KFC fried chicken patties as buns sandwiching in some bacon, two slices of cheese and "Colonel's sauce".

It's gaining notoriety on the interwebs as footage from the commercials and poster advertisements and in-store advertisements are being posted to internet forums and being discussed and debated by both food connoisseurs and the general troll population. Is this going to be a new trend? Will it take off and expand outside the test market areas? Will heart-attack lawsuits be pending?

Only time will tell, but my mouth is salivating and my brain is cursing the fact that I am not located in one of these test market areas.

Am I crazy for thinking this is worth a road trip?

1. Beef Jerky + Energy Drink = Perky Jerky

The story starts out so innocently: two buddies on a ski trip who drunkenly left both a bag of beef jerky and an energy drink open inside their backpack. Lo and behold, the next morning the jerky has retained its flavor, become more tender from the energy drink, and has absorbed some of the energy-laden chemicals providing a boost of energy during their ski trip.

And thus, Perky Jerky was born - a combination of meat and caffeine that can probably only be topped by some coffee-rubbed Kobe beef or something.

Sadly, I have not yet been able to get my hands on some of this seemingly-splendid snack food - but will likely be making a purchase order in the very near future (unless some Perky Jerky sales exec stumbles across this blog and would like to contact me for an address where a sample for product review can be sent).

Doesn't this seem like an excellent pairing? Some claim that some of the scientific elements of meat (beef in particular) can cause one to become logey or drowsy - so combining beef jerky with caffeinated guarana seems like the perfect counterpoint to produce a snack that satisfies your taste buds and keeps you on your toes!

What do you think? Do you have better food combinations that you've discovered recently that top some of these food-based math formulas? Do you think we've gone too far and are officially through the looking glass when it comes to foods? Is there something new you'd like to see deep-fried and put on a stick? Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Korea and Dogmeat

South Korea is the only country where dogmeat is consumed. In fact, every year dogs are consumed by the millions in the country. Frankly, I wish that this notion could spread to the USA - where the pet population is out of control and animal shelters are filled to capacity and we have PETA killing 96% of the animals being "rescued" and we have old celebrities hawking the idea to "spay or neuter your pets" to try and ease the overpopulation.

In 1988, to try and improve popularity with some good publicity before hosting the Olympics, South Korea's capital Seoul banned dogmeat and snakemeat as "abhorrent food." Despite the much-ignored ban, South Koreans still eat between two and four million dogs every year and there are more than 500 dogmeat restaurants in the capital alone.

So what's a government to do?

They're trying to finally classify dogs as livestock.

The whole point of it is that a livestock classification would mean that dogmeat could get the food safety standards of the other meats being consumed in South Korea and protect the health of those eating it. Since dogs are not currently classed as livestock, there are no hygiene regulations on their slaughter at all. I think that even a vegan member of PETA would at least agree that if a slaughter is going to be done, it should be hygienic and regulated for safety.

I, for one, think this is a great idea.

I've always advocated the notion that things made of meat (other than humans) can be eaten. I will admittedly draw the line when it comes to humans - not out of any ethical or moral reasoning, but because that would mean that I could be eaten and that doesn't benefit me in the least. I'm also not that hugely in favor of eating things that could become extinct. However, I do believe that those animals should be bred in captivity like you would on any farm, just to keep the numbers up and set aside a nice fat percentage for consumption.

As for dogs, there's just too many of them running around. SOMETHING's got to thin out those herds. Cars aren't working fast enough, and no matter how many get their gonads removed as advocated by TV celebs, there's three more taking its place and breeding like crazy. The same goes for cats, but they're not as meaty as dogs. Perhaps a cat breeding farm could genetically create some meatier cats that aren't running and jumping around so much that their becomes stringy and tough; that's a possibility in the future. But we should be eating dogs.

It's certainly more humane to slaughter a dog in a hygienic and regulated facility and harvest the USDA-regulated meat to feed a low-income family than to inject it with poison and dump the carcass in a dumpster.

If you don't agree, you're obviously a member of PETA.

(The article about Korea and their dogmeat)


Read more!

Food for Thought

Once again, a small offhand comment triggers a mental debate in my head that needs to come outside and play. It started as I pushed away the remains of my Caesar Salad for lunch with a disgusted look on my face.

"Why don't you finish your salad ever?" she asked.
"Because it's disgustingly bland and they use so little dressing," I replied.
"Well, food isn't supposed to be delicious - it's supposed to maintain life," she retorted.
"No," came my reply.

Just "No." Food IS supposed to be delicious. We wouldn't be here (in America) if the facts were any other way. If she were right (and she is not), we would have vitamins and calorie pills and flavorless mush like you read about in bad (and some good) science-fiction pieces. Such is farthest from the case. Sure, some idiots out there choose a bland and flavorless life in order to get nutrients and sustain life and nothing else - but it's just a minute population that it barely is worth mentioning at all.

The rest of us in the normal human race understand that food is supposed to be tasty. That's why we have taste buds in the first place.

Argument #1: A rational deity/entity would not have provided us with taste buds if food were not meant to have taste.

The atheist corrolary to that would be the concept of Nature or chaos theory or something like that. Fact remains that we HAVE taste buds. Ergo, food is meant to have taste. Otherwise we would have evolved to no longer HAVE taste buds. Humans not only have been focus on taste (and its partner in crime, smell) for so long that we recently discovered a new taste: umami. We continue to strive to understand how we taste and what the building blocks of taste are - which we would never have done if food were not meant to be delicious.

Argument #2: Cooking is proof that flavors can be created, enhanced and mixed - which would never have been necessary if food simply needed to be consumed for survival alone.

It's called COOKING. Recipes exist to remember what flavor creations have been created so that they can be replicated. Some are kept secret (something about 11 herbs and spices?) so that others cannot replicate those flavors for themselves. If food were not meant to be delicious, then why would billions of dollars and jobs be dependant on one flavor or recipe being more delicious than another? Why would billions in advertising be spent to compare one taste to another similar taste just to boast about which is more delicious?

Argument #3: Without spices, exploration would have been stagnated.

Spices have always been where the money is. In fact, ever since ancient Rome, spices have been vital to life and prosperity. Salt, for its curing purposes long long before the days of refrigerators, was a freakin' CURRENCY. That's how Roman soldiers were paid - and how the word "salary" came to exist. In fact, a poor soldier was not "worth his salt". As culture progressed, we searched for MORE flavors and spices, not fewer. With each new spice, new trade routes were established and this led to the whole notion of the "faster route to India" and all their lovely spices. Which accidentally led to, well, Columbus and the New World debacle.

I could go on further. I REALLY could. You don't want to mess with a fat guy who enjoys food and goes on a rampage when you insult his food or food in general. Sadly, though, I must get back to work now.

Your thoughts? Read more!

Smoking and Other Bans

Hopefully by now you've gotten the message that I'm against the smoking ban. If you don't regularly read my blog, let this be your introduction to my hatred for this ban. I'm not as against it as the ban on the sale of foie gras, which is the most ridiculous ban I think I've heard of in the past few years, but I'm still very much against it. Maybe this will help illustrate why.

I'm not a smoker. This isn't about me wanting the ban to go away so I can smoke in places that aren't subzero in temperature. This is about civil liberties being taken away under the false pretenses of "benefitting the many over the benefits of the few" or some nonsense like that. You know, bleeding-heart liberal slogans designed to tug at heart-strings (possibly how the term 'bleeding-heart' came to be?) and basically saying under its breath "we pander to stupid people because stupid people vote in higher numbers and we want it to be for us." Here's a quote from the article I read this morning:

For health advocates, the ban represents a simple idea: The rights of an individual should not come before the health of all.

This is the biggest pile of nonsense I've heard in a while - thank goodness they put it so succinctly, because that makes it all the easier for me to mock it and illustrate a point. Several points, actually. Because it's horrible thinking like THAT which is going to be the end of us all. Forgive me if some of my arguments border on the "conspiracy theory" line, but I'm just following that "simple idea" as my mind takes me. Let's see what the future holds if this precedence holds and indeed dooms us all.

Ban on junk food. Well, the hot-button issue is the "obesity epidemic", which means that if obesity is threatening to somehow spread like a disease, then they can enact laws that take away your rights as an individual to eat how you want for the sake of the health of all. They already started with trans fats, didn't they? How long before they press onward? That basically opened the door, along with this precedence, to allow them to declare a ban on anything deemed by a panel of idiots (like the FCC of food) to be "unhealthy". All the good fast food places shut down, Hershey's goes bankrupt, as well as the Mars corporation. And probably Frito-Lay as well, since their "healthy" chips are disgusting and I doubt anyone buys them, even if there were no alternative good-tasting chips.

Ban on fat people. You think I'm joking, right? Well they already have a study showing some kind of correlation between having overweight friends and becoming overweight yourself. Which means that idiots will assume causation, and then obesity will be not only a regular disease but also a social disease to them, and then fat people are banned. We won't be allowed to socialize indoors in public places or within 15 feet of building entrances, lest someone have to talk to us and catch a bad case of obesity or something.

Ban on meat. Think the Atkins diet would help you become skinny enough to be allowed back inside buildings? Well you'd be quite out of luck, because once we have no fat people allowed in buildings to talk sense into the retarded PETA skinny-people brigades, they'll have their run of the show. They'll use their studies showing that cows and other ruminants cause XX billion tons of pollutants and global warming - yadda yadda yadda - all meat is banned for sale because the rights of an individual to eat meat should not come before the health of people who live in the environment being destroyed. (Even if we all know that without the meat industry, the cows will just continue to produce pollution because they're not being slaughtered to become tasty steaks that people can eat in order to save the world.)

Ban on food. All it's going to take is a few idiots who happen to get a peanut-based allergic reaction from being on a train with someone who just had a PB&J or crumbs in a break room resulting in an epinephrin-injection to resume breathing and then we're all up a creek without a paddle. Lawsuits ensue and then we've got mandates about foods. We won't be able to EAT indoors in public places or within 15 feet of building entrances, lest the allergy-prone have to be trapped with a food they're allergic to. Or just food that smells in a way they don't like. Think I'm insane? Follow the logic, and you'll likely get there, even if you're not insane. The rights of an individual to eat what and where they want should not come before the health of the feeble who just don't want to take precautions and place that responsibility on everyone but themselves.

You know, there used to be a thing called "survival of the fittest" where the strong go on to live and breed and the idiotic dumbasses ate too many marbles as kids and died. It's time to stop banning games with marbles that idiot children can eat and start focusing on teaching children to not eat marbles or they don't get to grow up and have kids of their own. I'm sick and tired of watching stupid behavior and wanting to remove the gonads of everyone in that family unit as a way of saying "your bloodline stops here, and the world will praise me for doing it." But I digress - back to the bans.

Ban on profanity. I'm not talking about record labels and TV/radio airwaves. I'm talking about cursing in general, just in everyday conversation. Sooner or later we'll get a study linking a child hearing a curse word and some kind of new psychological mental illness or even the ever-widening umbrella of A.D.D. or something. And the mental health of all, segue to the individual rights to freedom of speech, ergo a ban on profanity everywhere but inside your home and beyond the 15-foot building entrance lines now drawn out like bubbles because of all the bans in effect.

Ban on defending ourselves. Now I'm certainly in the "conspiracy theory" zone, but if all the above has palyed out to the point where we're all starved, weak, repressed agorophobes - we'll have lost our "superpower" status completely. Even Canada could just decide to walk right in and take over. It's more likely to be all of those Middle-Eastern regions that we've had the pleasure of declaring war on in the past. And seriously, once they start their suicide-bombing runs here in the U.S.A., we'd still be banned from even fighting back. Someone would argue that fighting back would cause more Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by fighting in a war to defend our country than the amount of PTSD generated by witnessing an ongoing stream of bombs going off and killing loved ones and other civilians. They'd argue it, and there would be no intelligent people like myself left to argue back due to a severe lack of steak. Our country would be doomed.

And that's how the smoking ban apparently kills us all. Remember that on January 1st, when the smoking ban takes effect. And horde your steak. For the good of the world, people.

EAT A STEAK - SAVE THE WORLD!

(An online version of the article I read in today's RedEye)







Read more!

Pickpocket

Apparently, today I was the victim of a pickpocket. I didn't notice until it was too late, and I can't identify who it was that picked the contents of my pocket. I only know what's missing, and that's the annoying part.

He took my fucking breakfast.

I'm really not sure what emotion to feel right now. Which is probably why I'm calmly and rationally able to put this all down in words. I'm sure that if I were feeling some emotion too strongly about the ordeal, I'd be too emotional to write about it.

So here's the story. I'm at home, pondering what outerwear I should use today, since it's "freezing rain" outside and I'm already wearing mismatched clothing already (because I'm a guy, have no fashion sense, and pick my outfits in the dark). I have a black shirt on with dark blue pants. I'm certain that some women over the course of my life have informed me of blue not matching with black, but I've never been stabbed over it, so I'm not too worried. I decided to go with my overcoat (to protect against rain, and overkill against the "freezing" part) and pair it with my knit cap, so give some barrier for my head. At this point, I decided to crack open a fresh bag (bought yesterday) of blueberry bagels and liberally apply some cream cheese.

I looked at the clock, and I was almost going to run the risk of missing my "late bus". That's the bus that I have to take when I miss my "early bus", which still puts me on a route to arrive at work 30 minutes early. So 'late' is really a relative term. Not that anyone in my office would really know if I arrived late, since I'm scheduled to start work 30 minutes before most everyone anyway. I grabbed a plastic bag, tossed bagel inside and shoved into coat pocket and dashed out the door.

The bagel did NOT fall out of my pocket.

I know I had it with me on the bus, because I sat down and wanted to pull it out and eat my bagel, but I've grown a new respect for the "no eating on the bus" rule and a new disrespect for those who don't abide by it. I think that the only reason I'd ever want to be a cop is to assault and humiliate and and punish those idiots who fuck around in my presence. I'd never want to be on-duty and risking my life. I just want to be an off-duty cop who still has the power to ticket and fine and forcibly remove scofflaws from my presence. It was at this point in the daydream that I realized we were pulling into the station, so I got up and picked up a RedEye and headed to the train platform. Wasn't long before my train arrived and I boarded.

The bagel did NOT fall out of my pocket.

I know I had it with me on the train, because I wobbled when the train started up and I felt for it to see if I'd squished it in any way. I was looking forward to digging into that bad boy once arriving in the office. I whipped open the paper and began reading. We got to the next stop, Roosevelt, and I felt people pushing against me. It's a busy stop, and there's always people shoving to get to the doors long before the train even stops or the doors are getting ready to open. Just rushers and impatience and idiocy. I turn the page as the doors are opening, and that's when I notice that one side of my body is off-balance. I have lost a ballast. I immediately consider that the bagel fell out of my pocket.

The bagel did NOT fall out of my pocket.

It was nowhere on the ground, and I looked up to the crowd of people by the doors that were now open, and I see this one guy who looked about twenty, nervously twitching his leg while waiting for the crowd to disperse so he could leave the train. It really seemed like he was in a rush. Or nervous. He had on a bluish Columbia jacket, and a blue lunchbag. He was also gone before I mentally made any connection and there was nothing I could do (or had the energy to do at 7am) about the situation.

I mean, it could have been someone else. But I'm pretty sure it was this college kid. And I'm sure it was taken, because it never fell out of my pocket. I may be a dumb male who stereotypically would assume something was stolen before admitting that I'd lost it - but this is not the same thing. I keep tabs on my breakfast. I think you all KNOW a fat guy like me knows where his food is at all times. And by now, it's in someone else's belly.

They took my breakfast, and I'm mad as hell.

Okay, I'm nonchalant as hell.

But I'm certainly hungry... Read more!

McDonald's Causes Better Eating Habits Than Subway!

And no, I'm not talking about the wussification of McDonald's with the inclusion of salads and parfaits and whatnot. I'm talking about good ol' fashioned Big Macs versus Subway and their Italian sub sandwiches. And you wouldn't believe it, but the Big Macs led to better eating habits than the Subway options. The researcher uses terms like "health halo" for Subway and "health shadow" for McDonald's, but what it all comes down to is that you don't have a freaking clue what's healthy for you and what's not, so you base your guess on asinine advertisements and screw yourself over in the end.

Super Size Me, Jared!

Jared and his whiny little commercials about how all McDonald's food is bad for you and Subway is nothing but sweet angel food that reduces your waistline simply by cramming it down your throat. We've all seen them. So here's what this researcher did: he gave 46 graduate students a coupon for a McDonald's Big Mac, which at the time had about 600 calories, or a Subway 12-inch Italian sub with meat, cheese and mayonnaise, which had about 900 calories. The students weren't told the number of calories in their sandwiches. Participants also were given a menu and asked to indicate what extras they would like to order, if anything.

Thanks to the "health halo" - these students thought that since they made the "right decision" by opting for Subway, and decided to reward themselves for it with what they probably assumed was a caloric difference - ordering cookies and sodas and whatnot. Those with the Subway coupon ended up ordering a meal with an average 1,011 calories. Those with the McDonald's coupon got meals with an average of 648 calories.

Following those lines of logic, in a second test, the calorie count of the coupons were set even at about 600 calories. Not surprisingly, people ate more snacks later in the day if they had eaten a Subway sandwich than a Big Mac. I personally would have liked to see a little interview data about which coupon option left the participant feeling more full or more satisfied. Perhaps the extra snacking isn't JUST due to the "health halo" of thinking you can spare the calories because you ate healthier - maybe it's just that they were hungry again in less time because it was less filling. I personally feel hungier again earlier in the day after eating Subway than I do after eating McDonald's.

More research was indeed done in these studies, though not my idea of fullness. These questions were about guessing how many calories had been consumed, trying to prove that the "health halo" indeed was a culprit. Could the average person accurately guess how many calories they'd consumed at McDonald's or Subway?

Brian Wansink and colleagues interviewed more than 500 people after they had eaten lunches at either Subway or McDonald's. The scientists also analyzed the calories in 320 meals that included a main dish, side order and beverage. Those meals ranged from turkey sandwiches and Italian subs with chips and soda to cheeseburgers or Big Macs with fries and beverages. People who consumed about 1,327 calories at a meal underestimated the calories by an average of 484 at McDonald's and 681 at Subway. That's a 36% margin of error at McDonald's, compared to a 51% margin of error at Subway.

"There's a double curse to the health halo because you grossly underestimate the calories, and you overeat afterward because you think you deserve it," Wansink says.

Okay, so McDonald's isn't actually "healthier" than Subway. I'll still give you that. I'm sure that fat content and sodium levels are probably way worse at McDonald's than they are in the Subway alternatives, even if you're chowing down the same amount of pure calories. But odds are that you're STILL going to screw that up if you're using your little Subway "health halo" to scarf down junk food later on because you think you deserve the treat for "eating healthy". In the end, your eating habits will IMPROVE if you eat bad food and ADMIT that you're eating bad food. Admitting to delving into a guilty pleasure means you'll feel GUILTY about it and will eat LESS afterwards or make it up some other way. On the other hand, eating health halo food can have MORE calories and leave you feeling like you deserve MORE food because of it.

Accept the science, and stop trusting Jared and his stupid commercials.

McDonald's leads to better eating habits than Subway. Chew on THAT, Jared!

And yes, he'd probably want some fries with that.

(Article with the research)







Read more!

Cats are on the Menu!

Hah! I come up with a great idea, and thankfully it is being utilized somewhere around the world! As some of you may remember from this earlier post, I suggested that our response to the overpopulation of dogs and cats in this country should be to simply EAT them. After all, animals are made of meat, and if we have too many of an animal, logic would dictate that we eat them to "thin the herds".

It's already happened in China, that the overflowing lake caused an infestation of rats, so their logical response was to catch and eat the rats. Of course, it was more of catching the rats and selling them to restaurants by the kilogram, where they'd then be killed and cooked and served as a delicacy. Nevertheless, a problem of too many animals resulted pleasantly with "eat the animals" as a solution.

So now we come to Australia. Feral cats (descendants of housecats who were left to fend for themselves) have become a huge problem in the outback. The cats are killing off all of the smaller animals in the wild, which apparently is a bad thing for the Australians. Somehow. Anyway, one woman in Alice Springs has decided to take my advice (I don't know if she got the idea from reading my blog, but I assume she did, because I didn't hear about this until after I'd posted my idea, so it must have logically come from my post) and brought forth an entry in a cooking contest which was a wild cat casserole - kind of a stew with marinated feral cat meat.

The Aborigines have been eating them for years, actually - roasting the meat over an open fire - but apparently some of the others have more refined palattes. One of the cooking contest judges reportedly had to spit out the meat in a back room because she found it "impossibly tough".

For any of your gourmets out there, here's a rundown of the recipe:

Wild Cat Casserole

The meat should be diced and fried until it is brown. Then lemon grass is to be added along with salt and pepper and three cups of quandong, which is a sweet desert fruit.

It is recommended that the dish be left to simmer for five hours before being garnished with bush plums and mistletoe berries.

Wow! Sounds like a nice holiday dish! I guess the question that's on all of your minds (or it at least WILL be after I've posed the question now) is, "So what does feral cat taste like, anyway?" Well, the report says: "The meat is said to taste like a cross between rabbit and, perhaps inevitably, chicken." I guess sounds about par for the course, a bit of rabbit for the speed and jumping talents, and chicken because - well, doesn't everything default to chicken on our primitive tastebuds?

Say what you want, PETA - fact is, I CALLED IT! Cats are on the menu, and maybe someday this recipe will travel across the Pacific to our humble nation and our humble palattes.

(Proof that I can't make this stuff up - and that I totally called it!)







Read more!

Serving Sizes: I've Got Your "Fun Size" Right Here!

If there were ever doubts that the marketing and advertising world is just a tangled web of lies - you'd find it evident in two simple words: "Serving Size". For as long as I can remember, I've had people telling me to "read the food labels" and make "healthy choices". So, for most people, that involves picking up two things, looking at the calorie and RDA numbers sitting on the label on the back of the package, and then picking one with smaller numbers. Of course, NONE of that matters without bothering to take a look at the horrific description sitting next to those two simple words...

Who the hell gets to decide what a serving size should be??

Because they're not doing a very good job.

Case in point: A normal package of ramen noodles contains TWO servings.

That means that some people actually believe that while you're boiling water on a hot plate in some dilapidated dormroom to cook up a package of 10-cent noodles, you actually plan on only eating HALF of it. As if you're going to "save the rest for another meal". That right there is an outrage - and it's just the tip of the iceburg. Just about anything you purchase, food-wise or beverage-wise, has unacceptable ideas about how much you should be eating at once.

Fig Newtons: 2 cookies.

As Brian Regan says, "Two cookies? I eat Fig Newtons by the sleeve! Two sleeves is a serving size! Who the hell only eats two cookies? 'Oh, would you like a Fig Newton?' 'I don't know, I already ate two whole entire cookies - I don't know if I could muscle another one in... *mmmmph* No! I am stuffed to the rafters!' 'We got one for the E.R. here, we have a three Fig Newton eater!' 'HOW MANY DID HE HAVE???'"

Snickers: 35g-58.7g!

This one actually varies! I've seen a few wrappers (and I think you KNOW I've seen a few wrappers). The first one I had to look at was the "Fun-Size" wrapper, which thankfully admits that a serving size is TWO bars (40g). Then you move on to the regular-size candy bar, and the serving size changes to ONE bar, which is now 58.7 grams of candy confection. So okay, what about the King-Size bar? Now the serving size DROPS to ONE-THIRD of the bar, which is only 35 grams! As if I'm supposed to eat one-third of that bar, and then fold over the wrapper and go, "Boy, that was a tasty treat! Now I'll save the other two-thirds for two different snacking opportunities at later times!" That's bullshit, wrapped in a lovely chocolate coating.

Doritos: 11 or 12 chips.

Another interesting variance here. No matter what the size of the bag, the servings at least stay at a consistent unbelievable amount. Whether it's a "Snack-Size" bag (which pretty much contains only 11 or 12 freakin' chips) to a normal-sized bag to the Family-Sized bag (because they eliminated Super-Size for no real reason) - it's always 11 or 12 chips. This variance is strangely dependant on the FLAVOR of Doritos being consumed. If it's Nacho Cheese, you get 11 chips in your 28-gram serving. If it's Cool Ranch, you can actually get to eat 12 chips as your 28-gram serving. I guess all that orange powder weighs more on each chip than the green/red powder. Go figure!

Seriously, I could go on all day citing horrible amounts of serving sizes that just aren't true. I didn't even touch upon the nature of a 1/2-cup serving of ice cream. And the fact that most SCOOPS of ice-cream are more than 1/2-cup, so shouldn't that throw up a warning sign that a serving OBVIOUSLY is more than what's being printed?

Bottom line - serving sizes need to be revamped, big time. I'd say that if an average American can open up a package and consume the entire contents and not think twice about it - the serving size is "one package". Adjust the calorie/fat content nutritional label accordingly, so we can understand that we KNOW we're going to be eating the whole thing, so just tell us how bad it is for us. Don't lie and say that my ramen is "only" 38% of my daily recommended allowance of sodium if one actual package really contains 76%! There's too many large packages out there that hide behind the motto of "but we printed that you're only supposed to have ONE cookie as a serving! Not our fault if you ate half the package, which is 6 cookies!"

I also want to briefly touch upon one more FDA-bullshit fact: if a serving contains less than 0.5 grams of fat per serving, a product can be labelled as "nonfat" or "fat-free". Legally. Approved by the FDA. What they DON'T regulate is the serving size! A spraycan of aerosolized cooking spray (MADE ENTIRELY OF FAT) has a serving size of less than 0.5 grams. So it logically doesn't contain more than 0.5 grams of fat in the serving. So it can print "NONFAT" on the label! Imagine! A product MADE OF FAT can declare itself NONFAT if the serving size is small enough!

If that's not enough to convince you to never ever trust the FDA, I've got lots more stories I could tell. But for now, I'll leave it at that - and open the floor for any other complains about poor choices of serving sizes! Feel free to post some of your own!







Read more!

Rats: A New Delicacy?

Gotta hand it to the Chinese. They're really taking advantage of the saying about every cloud having a silver lining. I'm sure we can all recall the famous line from the Simpsons (because that's more likely than knowing the fact without The Simpsons as guidance) that "the Chinese use the same word for 'crisis' as they do for 'opportunity'." All that aside, it really boils down to another age-old adage:

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.

Well, the lemons being handed to the Chinese all started when a Hunan lake flooded, possibly as a result of the Three Gorges Dam project. This flooding displaced the home of a few billion rats, who are now plaguing areas in central China. And staying as true as possible to that adage, they're making lemonade - by selling the rats as a delicacy to Guangdong restaurants in the southern part of the country.

"Recently there have been a lot of rats ... Guangzhou people are rich and like to eat exotic things, so business is very good," the China News Service quoted a vendor as saying, referring to the capital of Guangdong province.

Some vendors had asked people from a village in Hunan province, near Dongting Lake, to sell them live rats, the Beijing News said today.

"The buyers offered 6 yuan for a kilo, but as to where they will sell the rats, they would not say," the newspaper quoted a local resident as saying, adding that villagers had to catch the rats live.

Yes, I suppose that's the REAL catch of it all - the rats they're catching have to be caught alive. No, not for some purpose of cooking them while they're still alive, but I guess it's more along the lines of "the fresher the better" - akin to giant lobster tanks in fancy restaurants so the customer knows his dinner delight wasn't made from frozen meat or something like that.

Maybe they've got nice big cages writhing with rats in these Guangzhou restaurants?

As for the 6 yuan for a kilogram of rats (about $0.79 in USD), the villagers have no problem with that price, since they claim it's easy to catch up to 150 kilos of rats in a night. There's just that many of them, destroying 1.6 million hectares of crops and possibly spreading disease. And the consumer end of the deal? The restaurants have been advertising "rat banquets" and charging the inflated price of 136 yuan per kilogram of tasty rat meat (almost $18) to the people of Guangdong.

And for those who can't get to a restaurant to enjoy this delicacy? Oh, the Chinese media has reported that citizens have posted several recipes for rat on the internet.

I hope a rat version of "lemonade" is one of those recipes...

The delicious original article Read more!

NEWS FLASH: Burritos are not sandwiches!

It was hard to decide a category in which to place this news flash. I first thought about the Legal section, since it was all about the lawsuit over the burrito's status as a sandwich or not a sandwich - but then I thought about the heart of the matter: food logic.

The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.

And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.

Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.

The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.

Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?

In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.

Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!

Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat

Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"

"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?

S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.

Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.

Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?

Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?

Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?

Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?

Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.

You decide. You rule.

Sandwich? No Sandwich?

Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!

(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)

This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!

What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!