Cynthia, the assimilation of spicy foods into the very general, democratic street eats of Chicago I think is partly and reasonably explained by your point.

I'll leave it to the gentlemen from Indianapolis to verify your claim that London has vastly more Indian-Brits than Chicago has Mexican Americans. Despite the large Desi population, I'd bet the two populations are in the same ballpark. Anyway, once a metropolis has in excess of one million souls from a particular ethnic group, I'm not sure how much the marginal influence of more matters in terms of influence on food and restaurants -- especially with restaurant-happy cultures such as Mexican and Indian.

Jonjonjon, while I understand your point, I'd suggest it is contrary to several basic premises of this particular board. No reason not to share minority views, of course. Also, I don't think anyone actually said locally owned beef joints are better than Mickey D's. Let me remedy that now, nunc pro tunc.

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.

Except when you're eating greasy, fried sublimity, of course.

What's true, I think, is that there is less difference than you think between the fast food outlet and the average (or below-average but typical, if that's possible) single-store operation, if the latter is using a large number of pre-fab products from his food suppliers and cooking them in no more interesting a manner than a chain joint does. A frozen patty is a frozen patty.

What this board is about is surely identifying and celebrating the above-average place who cares enough to make stuff that is clearly superior to the run of the mill, chain or independent. Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) is surely as true for hot dogs and beefs as it is for science fiction or anything else.

jonjonjon wrote: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.

Many of the local "Hot Dog and Italian Beef" joints are serving hand cut fries that are just fresh potatoes and vegetable oil, beef that is roasted on premisis, burgers from beef that they ground themselves, bread that's baked fresh daily in Chicago, house made giardineria.

This food at these joints (usually) tastes better because it's fresher, made closer to the time that you're eating it, by people who care about what they're doing and are putting their own personal spin on each item.

At McDonald's you're eating garbage that was previously frozen, contains questionable ingredents, and is the same everywhere you go.

When I go to Al's, I'm eating beef (just beef) that was roasted on the premesis, served on a bun that was baked that very same morning.

When I go to Roma's on Cicero, I'm eating fries that were hand-cut from potatoes and never frozen. The Italian sausage was made here in Chicago from a recipe constructed by the owner.

I'll take that garbage any day.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:

jonjonjon wrote: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.

Many of the local "Hot Dog and Italian Beef" joints are serving hand cut fries that are just fresh potatoes and vegetable oil, beef that is roasted on premisis, burgers from beef that they ground themselves, bread that's baked fresh daily in Chicago, house made giardineria.

This food at these joints (usually) tastes better because it's fresher, made closer to the time that you're eating it, by people who care about what they're doing and are putting their own personal spin on each item.

At McDonald's you're eating garbage that was previously frozen, contains questionable ingredents, and is the same everywhere you go.

When I go to Al's, I'm eating beef (just beef) that was roasted on the premesis, served on a bun that was baked that very same morning.

When I go to Roma's on Cicero, I'm eating fries that were hand-cut from potatoes and never frozen. The Italian sausage was made here in Chicago from a recipe constructed by the owner.

I'll take that garbage any day.

Best,
Michael

Unfortunately, we're entering an ideological impasse; the same that makes self-deluded Chowhound "foodies" so irritating. Aside: I despise the qualifier "foodie" it's entered the colloquial lexicon debrided of it's original prejorative intent. I suppose it might be amusing if a self-described "foodie" were deploying the word as a form of reverse-approbation as originated amongst identity politicians in the late-80's/early-90's. That's not going to happen.

Moving on...

I acknowledge an impetus of this board is the uplifting of unsung cuisines and modes of distribution thereof, however, I don't consider blanket chains "garbage." Maybe cultural garbage.

We can talk of the Sysco-ization of the world, sure.

Basically, I enjoy McD's, Taco Hell, Long Dong Silver's, Dairy Queen, and BK. Are they a regular part of my diet? Hell no.

Outside of socio-gastronomy wherein certain demographics feed from the chain trough with regularity(like plebes, like pigs) and not as dillettantes(a la "foodies")...outside of that paradigm...I can live with the chains of the world, I can criticise them, certainly, I can seek sustenance elsewhere, but, by the same token I will still be intrigued by a McD's "spicy" chicken sammy, I can still enjoy the fake-broiled whopper, I will always love Long Dong's malt vinegar chicken-esque planks and Taco Hell's hard shell "beef" "tacos."

Why not enjoy simulacra? It is our culture as well. And it's good.

JeffB wrote:I'll leave it to the gentlemen from Indianapolis to verify your claim that London has vastly more Indian-Brits than Chicago has Mexican Americans.

Jeff - As a gentleman from Indianapolis, I have no idea what you are talking about. However, in the spirit of flexibility (and cooperation) that is part of the Midwest social fabric, I wholeheartedly support and verify the claim that London has vastly more Indian-Brits than Chicago has Mexican Americans -- or not? What is it I was supposed to be doing here? And do I need to get Matt986 or my dad or somebody to chime is as another "gentleman from Indianapolis?"

[By the way, excellent use of "nunc pro tunc."]

eatchicago wrote:At McDonald's you're eating garbage that was previously frozen, contains questionable ingredents, and is the same everywhere you go.

(emphasis added)

Michael - I agree with everything else in your post (or at least agree that it's an opinion rather than a statement of fact), but I wonder what you mean here -- i.e., what are the "questionable ingredients" in McDonald's hamburger? They have always advertised "100% pure beef," or some such. So at least at the level of truth in advertising, McDonald's product is as much "all beef" as Al's (if not the same type or quality of beef, of course).

Or were you referring to the french fry controversy of a couple years back (i.e., the undisclosed use of "meat flavoring" in the fries)?

Or something more sinister?

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Or were you referring to the french fry controversy of a couple years back (i.e., the undisclosed use of "meat flavoring" in the fries)?

Or something more sinister?

I am referring to many things: the french fry issue, the ingredient lists of their "sauces", the fact that their fish sandwich contains odd things like "cellulose gum", the list of ingredients of their bun:

mcdonalds.com wrote: Regular Bun:
Enriched bleached flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, folic acid, reduced iron), water, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, yeast, contains less than 2 % of each of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, calcium silicate, wheat gluten, soy flour, baking soda, emulsifier (mono- and diglycerides, diacetyl tartaric acid esters of fatty acids, ethanol, sorbitol, polysorbate 20, potassium propionate), sodium stearoyl lactylate, dough conditioner (corn starch, ammonium chloride, ammonium sulfate, calcium peroxide, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, enzymes), calcium propionate (preservative). Contains wheat and soybean ingredients.

..I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. These things don't necessarily make the food bad tasting, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a place that roasts their own beef fresh and serves it on a Gonnella bun is culinariliy superior to all that stuff.

(I'm sure all of those ingredients serve some sort of purpose, but the fact taht they would need to be explained to me deems them "questionable").

Best,
Michael

Christopher Gordon wrote:Unfortunately, we're entering an ideological impasse; the same that makes self-deluded Chowhound "foodies" so irritating. Aside: I despise the qualifier "foodie" it's entered the colloquial lexicon debrided of it's original prejorative intent. I suppose it might be amusing if a self-described "foodie" were deploying the word as a form of reverse-approbation as originated amongst identity politicians in the late-80's/early-90's. That's not going to happen.

Moving on...
....
Why not enjoy simulacra? It is our culture as well. And it's good.

Christopher,

I am not trying to dismiss McDonald's as something that should not be enjoyed. I am trying to dismiss the blanket notion that if it's fast food, it's all the same garbage.

If it tastes good to you, eat it and celebrate it.

And while taste is tantamount, I believe culinary merits extend well beyond taste.

Best,
Michael

Good point, the fewer the added ingredients, the less chance for something harmful. However, do take a look at the following:

Gonnella Bread wrote:Enriched Flour (Bleached Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, Contains 2% or less of thefollowing: Yeast, Salt, Dextrose, Calcium Propionate & Erythorbic Acid (Preservatives), Soybean Oil, Yeast Food (Monocalcium Phosphate), Corn Syrup, Dough Conditioners (Datem, L-Cysteine & Ascorbic Acid), Natural Flavor.

Not quite as extensive as the list for the McDonald's buns, but still a fairly lengthy list. A couple of differences: Gonnella doesn't use bleached flour or high fructose corn syrup, and the soybean oil is not partially hydrogenated (therefore, no added trans-fats) -- that's good. But that leads me to another significant point:

Just playing devil's advocate, but one of the advantages of McDonald's over a smaller, local operation (at least in the last couple of years) is that McDonald's discloses its ingredients and, more recently, nutritional data. Of course, I make a point of putting my thumb over the calorie counts on the Super Size Fries ...

jonjonjon wrote: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.

eatchicago wrote:I am trying to dismiss the blanket notion that if it's fast food, it's all the same garbage.

Michael,

Agreed 100%.

Let's take Al's for example.

They roast their own beef.


Slice in-house


Make their own giardiniera


and sweet peppers


Cut and soak the fries


before twice frying.


Sausage is grilled w/100% hardwood briquettes



The end result, a most un McFastFood experience.



Enjoy,
Gary

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Not quite as extensive as the list for the McDonald's buns, but still a fairly lengthy list.

Jim,

Take both of the lists, and remove everything that falls in the "2% or less" categories, then compare the two lists again. I think you will find that these are very, very different breads.

Gonnella: Enriched flour, water.

McD's: Enriched bleached flour, water, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, yeast.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Not quite as extensive as the list for the McDonald's buns, but still a fairly lengthy list.

Jim,

Take both of the lists, and remove everything that falls in the "2% or less" categories, then compare the two lists again. I think you will find that these are very, very different breads.

Gonnella: Enriched flour, water.

McD's: Enriched bleached flour, water, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, yeast.

Best,
Michael

Yep, I already performed that exercise (and other than yeast, I noted the all these extra ingredients in my last post as a significant difference between the two breads; I left out yeast on the presumption nobody considers that a "questionable" ingredient in leavened bread). But keep in mind that 2% = 20,000,000 parts per billion, while cancer-causing contaminants in drinking water, for example, are typically measured at levels of 10 or 100 ppb -- so while the "less than 2%" ingredients may seem insignificant, that by no means indicates they are "insignificant" from a health-impacts standpoint.

I'm not saying any of the additives in either bread, McDonald' or Gonnella are unwholesome, carcinogenic, etc. I have no reason to believe that (or its opposite). But it is definitely worth noting that both breads have significant numbers of trace ingredients - up to 20,0-0,000 ppb. But that said, please keep in mind -- once you pile on that huge serving of fatty beef and dip it in the fatty, salty gravy, the ingredients in the bread are certainly de minimis concerns for the health-conscious diner (if that's what you meant by "questionable" ingredients -- health rather than taste impacts).

I guess my point was, if I had one, that even a place like Al's that uses "basic" ingredients will still be selling some products, like the bread that could include "questionable" ingredients (and probably the sausage -- they don't make that, do they? So I wonder what preservatives, etc. are in there?). So, given that the "risks" of "questionable" ingredients are about equal in probability, if not necessarily in concentrations, these leaves us with the criteria of taste, care, originality, good service -- here, we are in 100% agreement -- on these criteria, there is no doubt Al's and other independents (those who really care) have a vastly superior product compared to McDonald's.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:So I wonder what preservatives, etc. are in there?). So, given that the "risks" of "questionable" ingredients are about equal in probability, if not necessarily in concentrations, these leaves us with the criteria of taste, care, originality, good service -- here, we are in 100% agreement -- on these criteria, there is no doubt Al's and other independents (those who really care) have a vastly superior product compared to McDonald's.

Exactly.

I don't think I ever mentioned any risk-factors or health issues. I do not make the claim that McD's is unhealthy or that Al's beef is healthy. I do not believe that a diet that contains either, in moderation, would significantly more health risks than the other. But, I am not a nutritionist.

My issue with "questionable ingredients" comes primarily from a culinary point of view. My suspicion is that many of the ingredients that I deemed questionable are there for one of two purposes: to increase shelf life or to improve/mask the flavor of sub-standard, heavily processed ingredients.

Thanks for playing devil's advocate

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:My issue with "questionable ingredients" comes primarily from a culinary point of view. My suspicion is that many of the ingredients that I deemed questionable are there for one of two purposes: to increase shelf life or to improve/mask the flavor of sub-standard, heavily processed ingredients.

Gonella wrote:Calcium Propionate & Erythorbic Acid (Preservatives)

Pretty much every packaged bread has a preservative or two to increase shelf life. Although I'll bet places like Al's go through so much Gonnella product in a day, the preservatives are sort of beside the point.

The (non-high fructose) corn syrup in Gonnella's product is also probably there to "enhance" flavor, although I doubt it is intended to "mask the flavor of sub-standard ... ingredients." So, Gonnella bread is somewhere less than perfect, but not at all bad. (Disclaimer: I kinda know the Gonnella brothers, more like "friend of a friend").

OK Jim, I relent. McDonalds bread is delicious. I wish Al's would start serving their beef on it.

eatchicago wrote:OK Jim, I relent. McDonalds bread is delicious. I wish Al's would start serving their beef on it.

Now, now, I can tell from your choice of emoticon that you know I was never arguing that McDonald's buns taste as good as Gonnella's rolls! But I was trying to draw you out on just exactly what it was you meant by "questionable" ingredients and whether those ingredients were likely to be the reason the products taste different. And I think the answer is, maybe so, but not every "questionable" ingredient makes a difference in the taste of the end product, and many of the products used by our "beloved" independent food purveyors are manufactured by larger organizations with fewer scruples about "authenticity," and include a significant number of the same "questionable" ingredients used by the mega-foodcorp conglomerates like McDonald's. I think some healthy realism is ... healthy! Like not romanticizing the "native cultures" of Borneo, for example.

Sorry for the relentlessness of my analytical attack, Michael, but it's the only way I know to approach a problem. Put a Master's in Philosophy and a law degree in one head, and it's bound to warp and woof a bit.

Jim "Your Friendly Devil's Advocate" InLoganSquare

P.S. Ha! Ha! I win, I win, I win!!! Ha-ha-ha!

OK, I'm back because I think you're completely missing my point. (I might have left it alone if you hadn't claimed victory )

Just as I never related these ingredients to health, I also never related them to the taste of the end product here. What I'm talking about is culinary integrity. You have successfully taken apart my weakest example, Gonnella, but even as it has been deconstructed, their bread maintains a higher level of culinary integrity than McDonalds' product: that is, it is much purer, much closer to the true recipe of "bread". Had I originally said "higher percentages of questionable ingredients", I suspect this discussion would not have happened.

I noticed that you did not question the fresh hand cut fries, the roast beef, etc.

Jim, we are not romanticizing when we appreciate that our beloved local purveors are, by and large, producing a truer, purer product than the major conglomorates. If Gary's pics weren't enough of a healthy dose of realism for you, I'm sure we could dig up a few more.

Best,
Michael

O.K, you win, you win, you win! (And I'm glad you do!) Again, I completely agree that Al's is better than McDonald's, but I do think it would be fantastic if we could define in unambiguous and objective ways what it is that makes them so much better. Probably can't be done, of course, because regardless of what analysis one makes of the ingredients, the gestalt of the whole recipe and how it is prepared and presented is what keeps us coming back for more. I'd like to discuss more what you mean by "culinary integrity," how that relates to the taste of the food, and whether it's a causal or statistical relationship between the two (i.e., does culinary integrity guarantee good taste, tend to result in good taste more often than not, or simply serve as an indicator of spotst that are more likely to have good-tasting food?) That could be a very fruitful discussion, in the way that dissecting the ingredient lists of various packaged breads never could be. I think you we should talk about your Platonist/Realist ideas ("true" bread, for example). Very interesting concept that warrants thorough analysis...perhaps over a glass of beer rather than online, however.

Keep in mind that what started my inquiry was your initially vague use of the term "questionable," which I originally thought might mean you were accusing McDonalds of using something unwholesome or unreputable in its recipes. You clarified that to mean ingredients you would need explained to you as to why they are in there, and then refined that to mean artificial preservatives and flavoring agents meant to mask or alter the flavor of the food (excuse me if that is oversimplifying). Given that sort of definition of "questionable" up front, I probably would've left this topic alone, because clearly McDonald's is the king of using those types of ingredients!

P.S. You do realize that my declaration of victory was as specious, facetious, and insincere as your acknowledgment of the supremacy of McDonald's bread, don't you? A literary trope and probably a symptom of my just having finished a re-read of Wind in the Willows...went to bed with the final chapter last night. A bit of a Toad impression intended there.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:

JeffB wrote:I'll leave it to the gentlemen from Indianapolis to verify your claim that London has vastly more Indian-Brits than Chicago has Mexican Americans.

Jeff - As a gentleman from Indianapolis, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Jim, you and ab seem to have a handle on various census figures, is all I meant. Turns out, the Chicago metro's Mexican American population (about 1.1 million based on a few recent sources that seemed legit) approaches the Indy metro's everybody population. And Indy's not a small burg.

So anyway, I looked at some UK sites that put the Indian population in metro London at 875,000. Turns out, the Desi presence in London is very much like the Mexican American presence here, at least population wise. But Chicago proper is smaller than London, though the metro pops are more similar, about 3/8 million vs. 7/12 million from what I saw.

Here's the Chicago Tribune article on their spicy chicken sandwich for those who missed it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 5570.story

Years ago I had a chance to talk one of McD's suppliers and he told me that McD's wanted to make sure the quality of their meats were high particularly the hamburger. That said, I typically find it's McD's execution (or recipe) that is poor. We recently went to Chipotle to try their "gourmet" burrito. The ingredients were very good and the steak was better than many tacquerias but when they put the burrito together, it was "uninspired" or as my friend put it "as soulless as a multinational corporation". Not to mention more expensive especially extras like guacamole.

btw, one of my guilty pleasures is the McRib sandwich. LOL.

bontemps wrote:Here's the Chicago Tribune article on their spicy chicken sandwich for those who missed it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 5570.story

Years ago I had a chance to talk one of McD's suppliers and he told me that McD's wanted to make sure the quality of their meats were high particularly the hamburger. That said, I typically find it's McD's execution (or recipe) that is poor.

btw, one of my guilty pleasures is the McRib sandwich. LOL.

I've been working with McDonald's for over 20 years, and I have always tended to believe my own marketing copy when it said that their ingredients were as good as or better than the average potatoes, meat, etc. You have a point, though, regarding execution -- the recipes and execution aim for the common denominator in taste and texture, which may translate into inoffensive (i.e., non-distinct) taste and a certain "softness" of texture.

You're on your own with the McRib.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:P.S. You do realize that my declaration of victory was as specious, facetious, and insincere as your acknowledgment of the supremacy of McDonald's bread, don't you?

Of course.

Best,
Michael

David Hammond wrote:I've been working with McDonald's for over 20 years, and I have always tended to believe my own marketing copy when it said that their ingredients were as good as or better than the average potatoes, meat, etc.

This is an example of one of the few revelations I got when taking Project Management classes: There's a major difference between Quality, which means consistently matching specifications, and Grade, which is the level of the specifications.

A McD's bun may be perfect in shape, spacing of sesame seeds, and exactly like its millions of brethren... but it's not a crusty artisan loaf (I'm not saying a Gonnella roll is either)

Say, Joel, this makes a lot of sense! McDonald's may be the king of quality, based on sheer volume of identical product, but at a relatively low grade. By comparison, a small-scale, artisanal cook or baker may try to match that level of quality - meaning constency - and often will succeed to some measure, but will always shoot for a higher grade of product - and if they are good at what they do, more or less consistently hit that grade (and to preserve the overall quality (consistency), just throw out the relatively few "mistakes"). That's a really helpful distinction for this analysis.

Maybe there's a necessary trade-off; e.g., McDonald's has to aim for a lower grade in order to get that level of "quality" (consistency) by the "billions and billions," because nobody could make a billion (or even a million) truly artisanal loaves of bread, for example, in a year (yes, I know Dominick's and Cub and Jewel slap the "artisanal" label on everything, but that's not what I mean by truly artisanal).

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Maybe there's a necessary trade-off; e.g., McDonald's has to aim for a lower grade in order to get that level of "quality" (consistency) by the "billions and billions," because nobody could make a billion (or even a million) truly artisanal loaves of bread, for example, in a year...

It's not impossible, it's just a decision, with cost being just one factor. I'm certain that McDonald's corporation is looking for a mild-flavored, soft-textured bun that doesn't interfere with the rest of the ingredients. A crusty roll wouldn't work, a strong yeast flavor is offensive to some (ill-educated) people. And nutrition? I'm betting that there's more fat in the McD's bun, but not by a lot -- it's key to getting that softness. Odds are vitamin and mineral content is going to be nearly identical due to enriched wheat.

I think the corporate-owned, mass-produced La Brea Bakery breads that Jewel has been carrying are outstanding... but not cheap (unless you hit the store at 10PM when they put the half-price stickers on 'em, but then you may have other quality issues).

G Wiv wrote:

jonjonjon wrote: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.

eatchicago wrote:I am trying to dismiss the blanket notion that if it's fast food, it's all the same garbage.

Michael,

Agreed 100%.

Let's take Al's for example.

They roast their own beef.

Slice in-house
Make their own giardiniera
and sweet peppers
Cut and soak the fries
before twice frying.
Sausage is grilled w/100% hardwood briquettes

The end result, a most un McFastFood experience.


Enjoy,
Gary

Pish tosh. Al's is hardly indicative of the "typical" chicago greasy spoon joint. It's a chicago institution that's been around for decades. I'm talking about the those of the "#1 Fast Food (near wilson & sheridan) variety. THOSE are the restraunts that are far more typical of chicago as a whole, and those that I'm comparing McDonald's quality control to.