Mc Donald's Spicy Chicken Sandwich? - Really?

LTH,

I have not eaten a sandwich item from Mc Donald's in quite some time. In fact, I believe it was while driving to Michigan last summer. The other day nostalgia hit me when I saw an advertisment for Shamrock Shakes on a MD marquee. I loved shamrock shakes growing up, and decided to stop in during my lunch break.

Rather than have to continue to another eatery I decided to purchase my entire lunch during this visit. In the past I had been sorely disappointed with the claim of spicy from any fast food establishment (ie Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich) So upon opening the box I was not anticipating anything special. To my surprise the sanwich was tasty, and you could tell that there was some spice to it. Now, I'm not saying that I will be eating at MD's very often, but this sandwich actually give the option of something palatable other than the fries.

Flip

Every fast food post should start with a disclaimer...
anyhow, interesting that it was actually spicy... i would have never guessed it.

I've had one of these things, and let's not exaggerate the spice level. It was just spicy enough to cause heartburn, but not hot enough to warrant the pain. Plus, underneath, it was just like every other McDonald's chicken sandwich -- i.e., a pretty boring bird.

McDonalds has also added a spicy Buffalo sauce to their Chicken Selects options. This sauce also has a little kick to it. It's not real hot, but it's much hotter than I ever would have expected to get at McDonalds.

Yes, but are any of these reasons good enough to make you want to step into a McD's for lunch or dinner?

If you want something spicy, just about every hot dog stand has sport peppers, giardinera for beef and sausage, and even the sausage is spicier. Just about every submarine chain has hot peppers of some kind (only near Chicago have I seen giardinera, though).

That's ignoring the hundreds of other "act locally" options for ethnic eating.

Admittedly, the fast food places are often (a) faster and (b) cheaper than most other places, but I'd prefer food that isn't as heavily processed (but weren't you just touting hot dogs, Joel? Shut up.), and more deeply flavored than just a sugar-and-oil sauce.

That being said, I do have an occasional lapse of an Arby's Beef and Cheddar with a lot of Horsey sauce.

Unfortunately there are lots of reasons to go to McDonalds. When I worked 3rd shift it was either that or Steak & Shake. Other times you might be in an area you're unfamiliar with. While there are lots of places in my neighborhood that are better than McDonalds, there are also some that worse, much worse. When in an unfamiliar area you could just as easily make a worse choice.

This is from today's Financial Times, but I cannot get to the whole article because it is subscription only (bold text is my emphasis).

The spicy chicken sandwich was added to McDonalds' core menu in one of the company's biggest menu expansions ten months ago and is being dropped in favor of a new chicken wrap, according to a company spokesman. The bold flavor may have proved too much for consumers' tastes, but the sandwich will still be available as a "promotional item" in select markets.

I like the Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich much more than the McDonald's version. It's too dry at MCD.

On a somewhat related tangent: Did anyone ever try the Bayless-endorsed sandwiches that BK came out with a couple of years(?) ago? I had heard they were pretty good, but never had one. Are they still around? I am never, ever in a BK.

I certainly did, and as fast food sandwiches go, they actually were very good. The chicken tasted like chicken, the vegetables had real flavor, and there was even a modicum of spice.

They weren't great by any stretch of the imagination, but again, compared to the other chain fast food choices, they were very good.

Looks like the market isn’t ready for the spicy chicken sandwich at McDonald’s. This is according to an article in the Tribune on the front page of the business section (7/12/06).

Mario wrote:Looks like the market isn’t ready for the spicy chicken sandwich at McDonald’s. This is according to an article in the Tribune on the front page of the business section (7/12/06).

First the foie gras ban, now this??

The culinary landscape of Chicago will never be the same.



Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:

Mario wrote:First the foie gras ban, now this??

The culinary landscape of Chicago will never be the same.

On the other hand, the Trib said that Chicago is one of a handful of markets that will have the Spicy -- at least until supplies run out.

Pro: We're not the wimps that couldn't take the heat
Con: Visions of heaps of spicy chicken patties being trucked to Chicago in open-topped dumptrucks

When I first moved to Chicago, I was struck by the fact that hot giardiniera and sport peppers are common fast food condiments, eaten by most everyone. The widespread affinity for relatively hot food seemed unusual compared to most of America (with exceptions, LA, both of them, come to mind), especially 15 years ago.

JeffB wrote:When I first moved to Chicago, I was struck by the fact that hot giardiniera and sport peppers are common fast food condiments, eaten by most everyone. The widespread affinity for relatively hot food seemed unusual compared to most of America (with exceptions, LA, both of them, come to mind), especially 15 years ago.

I wonder if this affinity for hotter/spicier food may be due, in part, to the influx of Mexicans to this part of the world. Of course, people move from Mexico to all parts of the US, but for some time Chicago has had a hefty share of folks coming up from south of the border, bringing along their preference for more piquant condiments.

Hammond

David Hammond wrote:

JeffB wrote:When I first moved to Chicago, I was struck by the fact that hot giardiniera and sport peppers are common fast food condiments, eaten by most everyone. The widespread affinity for relatively hot food seemed unusual compared to most of America (with exceptions, LA, both of them, come to mind), especially 15 years ago.

I wonder if this affinity for hotter/spicier food may be due, in part, to the influx of Mexicans to this part of the world. Of course, people move from Mexico to all parts of the US, but for some time Chicago has had a hefty share of folks coming up from south of the border, bringing along their preference for more piquant condiments.

Hammond

I think so. Of course, the giardiniera element -- a quintessentially Southern Italian(-American) condiment -- surely doesn't have anything to do with the Mexican presence in its introduction and original popularity here, but I'd agree with your suggestion in the sense that the Mexican presence certainly would not have affected any decrease in the overall application of hot giardiniera (or sport peppers on hot dogs, for that matter). In Italian enclaves (easily seen at feast day gatherings) and in home cooking on the East Coast, an abiding Southern Italian affection for hot peppers -- sott'aceto and otherwise -- continues to exist. I would imagine that that's the case among the Portuguese in Southern New England and Newark, as well, though I can't say that for sure. And of course there are parts of the US south where piquancy is popular. But still the use of spice stays within certain bounds.

So, anyway, I think JeffB's observation above was/is very much true and the Chicago situation was/is relatively exceptional. Certainly, the general population of New York hasn't embraced hot giardiniera in the way that Chicago has, though here the vehicle of 'beef' exists. In NY you'll get hot peppers but it's more closely tied to the ethnic (sausage with fried hot peppers... that's tasty).

And as you suggest, the large Mexican presence may well have indirectly supported the use of hot giardiniera and sport peppers by broadening the overall exposure to and appreciation of hot stuff.

Antonius

(The below was written before seeing A's post)

My thought was that the heat of giardiniera came from Southern Italy (but we do have that bias), while the sport peppers came up from the Delta with blues, BBQ and tamales. A direct Mexican influence on hot dogs seems less likely, given the black/Jewish connection surrounding much of the hot dog/polish/Maxwell St. food. I suppose that assumption has mostly to do with the tamale work that has already been done and the fact that sports remind me of pickled peppers common enough in Louisiana/Mississppi and other parts of the South.

I would like to know more about the history of both condiments. Giardiniera, in its Chicago form, seems sort of unique -- though I have had similar Campanian relishes packed in oil rather than vinegar.

JeffB wrote:(The below was written before seeing A's post)

My thought was that the heat of giardiniera came from Southern Italy (but we do have that bias), while the sport peppers came up from the Delta with blues, BBQ and tamales.

Just to clarify, I was suggesting that the Chicago predilection for heat might have been influenced by presence of pepper-loving Mexicanos in the area (not that giardinera came from anywhere other than Italy). This local predisposition toward things piquant might also account for Chicago's ready acceptance of heat in Indo-Pak and Thai foods...but perhaps it'd be good to be cautious with such sweeping claims.

Sport peppers from the Delta? Could be.

David "Make mine extra hot" Hammond

Makes sense.

David Hammond wrote:Just to clarify, I was suggesting that the Chicago predilection for heat might have been influenced by presence of pepper-loving Mexicanos in the area (not that giardinera came from anywhere other than Italy).

That's how I read your post above and I hope what I said in agreement and as elaboration wasn't too muddled . This discussion is interesting too in light of some of the comments (e.g. from Binko) in the Buffalo and its wings thread over in Beyond...

Antonius

I would look beyond Mexican influences, as mass Mexican migration to Chicago is a rather recent phenomenon (e.g. in the last 30 years). Ever since I was a child, I've been eating Italian beef sandwiches with spicy giardinara. And everything else spicy.

Anyhoo, my personal perspective is that a taste for spiciness can come from many places -- mine, from my Polish heritage (believe it or not) which encouraged piling fresh, sinus-clearing horseradish on absloutely everything.

But the bottom line is... the fact that a few Chicago condiments are spicy is not really indicative of anything on a larger scale. Rather, I honestly believe it is simply a matter of folks being raised on certain items (e.g. giardinera) and just getting used to them. Do Chicagoans eat a higher proportion of extra-spicy food in other genres? Not really, not in my non-expert opinion. In fact, I find the food in Chicago a bit bland compared to what I ate while living in the UK, NY and even Toronto.

Finally, I would argue that every city has a spicy condiment. For instance, I had cheesesteaks in Philly, and offered at the condiment counter were possibly the spiciest dried chilis I'd ever encountered in a commercial operation. Yet the Philadelphians were gobbling them up. Is this indicative of their majority Italian heritage? Doubtful. They'd all just been raised on cheesesteaks with hot peppers. Yet I'd bet they take their curry mild.

To me, its a case of correlation, not causation.

Back to topic, really. It's not spicy. I had it today and combined with the rough textured wheat (?) roll, it's a pretty frickin dry sandwich. No heat - too bad McD doesnt have hot sauce. The fries and the soda bring it to a level of barely eatable. Edible.

Marno,

Thanks for your thoughts and welcome. This is my favorite kind of discourse on the board.

It seems that people with a broad range of experiences on both coasts, the South and abroad disagree about the relative prediliction for spice in different regions and cities. Clearly, it isn't as simple as "some people everywhere like spicy food." There's no question that the general populations of New Orleans, Madras, and Guadalajara eat more spicy food than the people of Indianapolis, Oslo and Buenos Aires. I think Chicago's pretty spicy for a US town.

I'll stand by my own personal observation, shared by several people whose insight I admire, that Chicago has more of a taste/tolerance for spicy foods than other places, particularly in the Midwest. I guess if you disagree with the basic premise, then it makes little sense to explore the history behind the alleged general phenomenon. Still, I'd like to figure out where the sport peppers came from (which, by the way, are the shared link to the particulalrly Chicago style of giardiniera). I think it's beyond arguing that Chicago is the only big US city where pickled serrano chiles are a long-time, widely used fast-food condiment. Unlike most of what passed for hot in North America north of the border until very recently, the serranos are spicy under anyone's definition. The rings of bannana peppers found on hot dog carts in Toronto and Italian places back East aren't even close.

Also, Chicago has had a significant Mexican population for much, much longer than 30 years.

To expand the discussion, I'm interested to know what spicy foods were common in the UK and Toronto when you were there, other than Indian, which we have in spades and is, essentially, spicy.

Hot pepper flakes, whether in South Philly, North Beach, or Grand Avenue, are pretty standard stuff at modest Italian restaurants. I think that just goes to the same Italian influence discussed above. But unlike here, where hot dog and beef eaters of every persuasion expect sports and giardiniera as an option (at least), I've never seen mention of hot pepper being an essential or even regular condiment on steaks, hoagies or roast pork sandwiches. If a hot dog or beef stand had no hot peppers here, it would be a basic failure. Not so if the red pepper shaker went missing at a steak place.

I used to spend a lot of time in Philly (and was born there). My love of Tony Luke's is well documeted, yet I would never associate those sandwiches with piquance the way I associate heat with a combo form Johnnie's (where, by the way, as with many Chicago beef stands, the standard (only) sausage is well hotter than what's normal in other Italian American enclaves in the US).

Back to Philly, I will admit to the almost extinct pepper pot soup, which has well-documented links to Afro-Caribbean potages that are nearly identical. That sort of gets to my basic point: I'm not claiming that Chicago is better than some other place, or that something in the water makes its population enjoy serrano peppers. I'm interested in how that came to be.

As for every city having a spicy component, I don't really think so. Where I grew up, Tampa, there is a terrific Latin American and Italian street food tradition, but spicy food was and still is exotic. Recent Mexican and Vietnamese immigration is changing that. But Cuban food very rarely uses hot chiles. Nearly never. Other than a bottle of Crystal at the soul food place or oyster bar, not much is bien picante in Ybor.

PS, I'd add another observation that travel writers and critics from all sorts of places invaribly remark/warn about the heat of the aforementioned fast food condiments. That's because folks generally don't expect searing heat with their fast food.

Snark wrote:Back to topic, really. It's not spicy. I had it today and combined with the rough textured wheat (?) roll, it's a pretty frickin dry sandwich. No heat - too bad McD doesnt have hot sauce. The fries and the soda bring it to a level of barely eatable. Edible.

Actually, McD's has hot sauce nee' "picante" sauce; it's for their sausage burritos...absolutely repulsive and I love 'em. I eat them maybe twice a year, at best.

Thing is, once they switch the menu to lunch post-11 AM, I believe, they'd probably balk at offering you any.

digression: that's why BK is so much better---whoppers anytime of day...none of this breakfast-only nonsense...and they do it your way! Don't try that at McD's...the cashier kid's head and/or pretty-picture register/terminal just might explode.

as for the picante sauce, itself: it's akin to a sweet-ish, mild tabasco...there's just a modicum of "chile" heat.

Christopher Gordon wrote:

Snark wrote:Back to topic, really. It's not spicy. I had it today and combined with the rough textured wheat (?) roll, it's a pretty frickin dry sandwich. No heat - too bad McD doesnt have hot sauce. The fries and the soda bring it to a level of barely eatable. Edible.

Actually, McD's has hot sauce nee' "picante" sauce; it's for their sausage burritos...absolutely repulsive and I love 'em. I eat them maybe twice a year, at best.

They also have "buffalo' sauce for their Chicken Selects strips...suprisingly, it actually packs some heat! Putting some of this on the spicy chicken sandwich would solve both the heat and the dryness issues...and it's available during lunch hours...

Jeff, these are some of my favorite kind of discussions, too.

I think a basic premise here, which I had thought close to indisputable, is that regional food preferences exist, and that it isn’t the case the everyone eats everything everywhere, or that everyone pretty much eats what mom served, and looks for that same flavor again and again.

I remember ordering a slice of “picante” pizza in Rome, and the nice lady behind the counter was kind enough to warn me that it was spicy hot, but I swear, I could not detect a bit of heat. To local Italians, of course, this might very well have been a tongue-searing slice of ‘za, but having eaten peppers in Chicago that could take chrome off a bumper, such Italian heat was below my taste threshold. I suspect Sicilians might share my amusement that such mild fare is considered “hot” in the more northerly Italian states.

This summer, a young Florentine lady is coming to stay with us, and one of my planned amusements is dinner at some local Mexican joint. I’d like to introduce her to a type of food that is relatively rare in the boot, but I’m also interested to see how she responds to chili peppers. My guess: she won’t like ‘em.

David "Praise the Goddess and pass the hot sauce" Hammond

David Hammond wrote:This summer, a young Florentine lady is coming to stay with us, and one of my planned amusements is dinner at some local Mexican joint.

I don't know whether to abhor your cruelty or admire your honesty (or vice versa).

The idea that a locally owned greasy-spoon "Hot Dog and Italian Beef" joint is somehow superior to a McDonalds is balderdash, in my opinion. You're still eating greasy, fried garbage at either. If anything, you at least know what you're getting into if you're going to a McDonalds, rather than some random greasy spoon in an unknown part of the city.

I'm not advocating McDonalds by any means (I usually only get coffee there, unless I'm at the airport and have no other options), but in my opinion, there's no advantage of a local place over a McDonalds, culinary or otherwise.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:

David Hammond wrote:This summer, a young Florentine lady is coming to stay with us, and one of my planned amusements is dinner at some local Mexican joint.

I don't know whether to abhor your cruelty or admire your honesty (or vice versa).

Can't you do both?

Seriously, though, I would give the young lady fair warning, as I would any other person not familiar with Mexican heat -- and I would give her credit for figuring out pretty quickly that chillies can be very hot.

Hammond

I wonder if the Chicago appreciation of spicy food doesn't have more to do with the spirit of Chicago on the whole than it does with any ethnic group that has brought heat to town. London, England, has vastly more Indians than we have Mexicans, and yet even my more adventurous and widely traveled London friends were gasping at the spiceness of Indian food that I considered pleasantly piquant -- and I'm by no means fond of the high end of the spice spectrum (out of four stars for most spicy, I'm usually at one star). These friends had eaten heaps of anglicized Indian food, but we were eating in a real Indian place, where Indians were eating (Southall district, if you are in London), and they were dying. So just having people bring it in is no guarantee of acceptance.

Sociologists have found (or so I read in a sociological report that was passed along to me by a friend at the U of C) that folks in the Midwest are, on the whole, judged to be the most flexible and resilient people in the nation. I would think some of that flexibility would extend to dining, as well as dealing with winter weather and construction traffic.