Perhaps it was my youthful obsession with "having it my way" which led me in my adolescence to choose Burger King as my favorite Fast Food joint. In those tender years, I suppose that my palate desired something saltier and more "rebellious" than the other FF options on the market. After all, Burger King insisted that I "hold the pickles, hold the lettuce-- special orders don't upset us..."; and doesn't any kid want to be told that it's completely cool to order your burger sans anything other than meat, cheese, and a triple serving of ketchup and mustard-- all piled high on a starchy bun? BK's M.O. was also very different from McDonald's and Wendy's of years past-- as even asking one of either's employees if you could sub mustard for mayonnaise was call for getting a thousand-yard stare from the whole cook-line. Of course, as I got older, I became more and more obsessed with my appearance and that, combined with the barrage of media attention that heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity got, made it simple for me to pull back on how much of any FF I ate.
For a number of years, BK has been courting the younger male demographic-- aiming to please the single guy who desired the sort of burgers and other fare that they knew wasn't great for them, but were too young to care. Unfortunately, that tactic was not enough to keep the Miami-based company from dropping to the #3 Fast Food chain (being surpassed by Wendy's, which overtook #2 this quarter, while McDonald's held on to the Heavy-Weight title); not surprisingly, the decline in customers from their chosen demographic-- as well as any other-- had Burger King executives and their trusty researchers putting together a whole new plan for marketing to new customers-- most notably women.
Several months ago Will, Kenny, and I had gone to BK to try out their Chef's Choice Burger--which was passable-- and their new desserts. Will and I discovered that we were in love with the Peach Granola sundae, and have occasionally returned there to get it as a treat after dinner-- yet we didn't feel any inclination to have an actual meal in the joint. It wasn't until I read about the new marketing campaign and menu items that I decided to give BK a shot once more. Fascinatingly, many of the new menu items may look familiar to you, as some of them are very similar to the ones that McDonald's rolled-out years ago. Chicken wraps, fresher artisan salads, smoothies and frappes-- all new additions; and more interesting is that BK has lowered their prices slightly, while McDonald's appears to be in a race with Exxon to see who can overcharge more for their product. Despite the fact that McDonald's added such options to their menu several years ago, BK still has a shot at bringing in new business with their own versions of the very same dishes.
The plan was for Kenny and I to order things from the new BK menu which were analogous to those items which we've had at McDonald's; finding the dopplegangers wasn't difficult. I ordered the BK toppers Mushroom and Swiss (to compare to the McDonald's Angus Mushroom and Swiss) and Kenny ordered the 3 pc. Chicken Strips meal. Instead of fries, I asked for onion rings with my dinner, as I was curious if changes had been made to their formulation as well.
Kenny's Chicken Strips were very similar to the Chicken Select Strips available at McDonald's, but the difference that he noted was that the chicken was not stringy or dry. We both enjoyed the new fries they serve now, too, which are thick like Wendy's. They tasted of potatoes and stayed warm for much longer, yet still had a very crispy exterior, much like their old fries.
My BK topper sandwich was a Whopper patty on a standard bun, but with a Swiss-American blend cheese and mushrooms; I opted to forego the "grill sauce". The sandwich was enjoyable overall-- tasty and filling, with mushrooms which-- unlike McDonald's-- tasted like mushrooms, not dirty socks. The only thing which I find strange about BK's burger patties is that there is a seasoning in them which gives the final product a hint of sausage-like flavor which, while not too obtrusive or off-putting, is certainly noticeable and somewhat odd. Another point to make is that the portion is much smaller than one of the McDonald's Angus Burgers, which are too plentiful for me to finish. I'm not a fan of wasting food, so this works for me-- and I've been bitching about the obscene portion sizes of our food for ages now, anyway. The last thing anyone needs is to eat a sandwich so large that they need to grow a goatee to cover the stretch marks around their mouth. A pleasant surprise was that the onion rings, while still not reminiscent of anything having to do with onions, were reformulated to have more onion "inspired" flavor and a crispier exterior. ::pinches BK's cheeks:: I know some little restaurant which cleaned its oil recently-- goochie goochie goo. To finish off our meals we both had vanilla hand-spun milkshakes, which tasted of a warm vanilla, weren't too sweet, and had a great thickness-- which McDonald's shakes claim to have, but never do.
While we were enjoying the meal, I paid special attention to the new interior of our BK. Late last year it was remodeled to have a sleeker brushed chrome and dark wood motif. Now the bright and garish photos which donned the walls have been replaced with matte-black metal frames around large vignette arrays of lavish table spreads-- of course featuring beautifully prepared BK dishes, and one grouping on the back wall which depicts three women and two men, presumably friends, laughing and chowing down on their nummy BK food. These individuals were dressed in casual chic and were older than the people in the old BK art-- I would guess that the new photos feature people in their late twenties to early thirties. On top of it all, the employees were tidy and friendly in their new steel gray uniforms and aprons, and the tables, floors, and windows were very clean-- a landmark achievement for any of the FF places on our side of town-- and during the dinner hours, no less. It's safe to say that BK successfully composed itself after retreating to their corner and now have come out swinging.
Truthfully, I was pretty pleased with the experience-- and I am readily willing to return there occasionally-- but what the whole thing comes down to is not, in fact, a battle between Mickey D's and the BK. The King's new line-up of entrees and desserts shall certainly contend for the attention of McDonald's fans, but I sense that both places are laboring against a foregone conclusion. With her ever-improving quality of food and service-- as well as a diverse menu-- Wendy, the freckle-faced red-head is steadily creeping up on her competitors, primed to hobble their weary legs and punch them in the kidneys.
That being said, give the new BK lineup a shot-- you may like their versions of McDonald's dishes better.
A bit over eight years ago my mother was diagnosed with Celiac Sprue-- an auto-immune disease which affects the small intestine, in most cases causing chronic diarrhea, failure to thrive (in children), and fatigue. The trigger for this disease is gluten protein in wheat and also similar proteins in related grains (i.e. barley and rye). Consumption of these proteins causes an inflammatory reaction in the bowel, resulting in the aforementioned symptoms. As there is a genetic component, I was also tested due to the chronic sickness that I had dealt with for many years, but this ended up not being what was making me so ill.
After diagnosis, my mother was-- understandably-- very sad. To those unaffected by food allergies, sensitivities, and intolerances, complaining that you can no longer "eat bread" can seem melodramatic. While I do not have Celiac, there are plenty of things that I cannot eat because of food allergies and triggers for the condition I do have, so I can say from a place of understanding that it is not that simple. Firstly, gluten is in far more food products than those who don't pay attention might assume. Just like corn, soy, and dairy, gluten is pervasive in processed foods, and is also capable of contaminating nearby crops. As an example, oats do not contain gluten, but due to the way that they're processed, almost all oats that you can find on the commercial market are contaminated.
In the end, there are many foods which she and others like her had to give up almost overnight. Beer, pizza, bread, licorice, oatmeal, certain soft cheeses and yogurt-- all of these taboo following her diagnosis. There are many other examples, and as such it bothers me when people refuse to understand that food allergies, sensitivities, and intolerances are serious and quite real to the individuals whom they afflict. Are there worse things that could happen? Of course-- but that's a facile argument which I've often heard in order to undermine how sad that these food issues can make people.
To honor my mother and her struggle in finding affordable, tasty replacement foods (which she eats sparingly due to high cost and calories, opting instead to make most of her own food), we decided to cover a few of the items which she's tried-- in one case an item she hates-- to see what people who stick Gluten Free have for options. So for an entree item we tried:
De Boles Gluten-Free Corn Spaghetti:
This is the one that my mother hates-- the very reason that she chooses rice pasta every time that she makes a dish requiring pasta. In the box it looked innocent enough, but my mother swore up-and-down that great evil and vitriol lay within. Considering her reaction, of course we wanted to try this one first; what an adventure!
The ingredients were minimal-- just corn flour and water. The noodles were School Bus yellow. It was evident that this was not going to taste like traditional pasta (which we'd expected), but also that it wasn't really going to resemble pasta in any other way than its shape and moniker. It took a long time to soften in the water and by the time it seemed al dente, within seconds afterward it was overcooked and subsequently very gummy. In order not to obscure the flavor, Will tossed the noodles in olive oil and a bit of garlic, rather than using a tomato sauce.
Right out of the gate, the corn flavor was obvious. One thinks, "Of course it tastes like corn!", but the issue was that it was very obtrusive and absolutely overpowered the garlic. It almost tasted like popcorn, and like popcorn it dried out your mouth. The texture wasn't bothersome, but it was unexpectedly analogous to a Soba noodle. What's interesting is that the taste was just kind of there-- in your mouth, clinging to your cheeks and tongue persistently, incessantly; a flavor which, over several minutes, morphed into what I can only refer to as the general taste of a dirty water hotdog, which is something I'm looking for when I go to Manhattan, not when I'm having a bowl of pasta. In the end, I would pass on this one if I were offered it again.
We also tried:
Ancient Harvest Corn/Quinoa Blend Pasta:
Will may have mentioned this in his review, but we love quinoa. It's nutty and fun-looking, and also completely great for you. We've eaten quinoa as a side for our dinners almost an entire week in-a-row before, and have been completely satisfied in doing so. The quinoa that we eat is the seed of the plant and is most closely related to beets, spinach, and tumbleweeds. Sounds gross, tastes awesomely.
This pasta was also Spaghetti-style, and was made up of corn flour, quinoa flour, water, and sea salt. It was easier to cook and had a similar color and texture to traditional pasta. We all found it to be more attractive right away. Will was able to cook it to a nice al dente, and it paired well with the garlic and olive oil. While the corn flavor was still there, you could also detect a slight grassiness from the quinoa, and they tempered one another nicely. I would gladly eat this in replacement of traditional pasta anytime.
For dessert we tried:
Udi's Gluten-Free Double Chocolate Muffins:
Not only Gluten-Free, the package boasted that these muffins were also soy-free, dairy-free, and nut-free. They were nice-looking muffins, with a dark chocolaty color and rich, warm scent. The texture was like a super-moist gooey brownie that had stiffened up a little bit, which wasn't a bad thing. The only issue that I had with these muffins was that they also had lemon zest in them and the lemony element overwhelmed the bitter-sweetness of the chocolate. I wasn't fond of that aspect, but otherwise I thought that they were good, and I would recommend them to someone else if they like a citrusy flavor with their chocolate.
Will and Kenny also tried:
Amy's Kitchen Organic Chocolate Cake:
My mother loves this cake, and in fact recommended that we try it for the review. Sadly, the cake smells strongly of alcohol from the vanilla extract they use, and while this wouldn't bother me in terms of flavor, I cannot have alcohol due to my condition, so I opted not to try it. I recommend reading Kenny's and Will's reviews for the low-down on this one.
At the end of the day, we all want to feel like we can eat the good things that others eat, but in the cases of individuals with food allergies, sensitivities, and intolerances, the only option for many years was to make-due with what there was available. Now there are new and tasty products which are created taking these limitations into consideration, and that is super cool.
Though I have a number of other food allergies, I consider myself to have won the jackpot in NOT being allergic to nuts. There are a number of people who are either sensitive or anaphylactic to tree nuts and/or peanuts, and that really does suck because nuts are an excellent source of vital nutrients, fat, and protein. For this review I decided to try two nut butters and an alternative nut-free spread, none of which I had tasted prior to now. I will not be covering the old-fashioned soft drinks with Will and Kenny because I cannot have anything which contains any alcohol, even if that amount is very small. And moving onward we have--
Betty Lou's Just Great Stuff Organic Powdered Peanut Butter:
If there is one thing that any reader should know about me, it's that I'm a complete whore for anything containing peanut butter. I love it in my milkshakes, on my waffles, even in my homemade chili-- and now, thanks to Betty Lou's, I have it in convenient, snort-able form for when bolting a tablespoon or two just isn't quick enough.
Boasting a significantly reduced fat content (85% in fact), BL's Powdered PB is also Gluten-Free, non-GMO, and contains no preservatives-- in fact, the only ingredients are Organic Peanuts, Organic Coconut Sugar, and Sea Salt. It is prepared by mixing 2 tbsp of the powder with 1 tbsp of water (less water if a thicker consistency is desired).
The back of the label really plays up the fact that the product is made with Coconut Sugar, stating: Coconut Sugar is produced from the sap of the coconut palm flower, and does not taste like coconut. This 100% organic, sustainably harvested natural sweetener has a lower glycemic index than cane sugar and contains essential vitamins and minerals. Checking into this claim, I found that coconut sugar, as opposed to brown or refined white sugar, contains higher concentrations of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Chlorine, Sulfur, Boron, Zinc, Manganese, Iron, and Copper. It is also considered to be safe for diabetics and can be used as a traditional sugar replacement at a 1:1 ratio.
When mixed with water, the resultant spread does have the look, smell, and taste of natural peanut butter, but slightly sweeter and with a hint of fruitiness. The suggested proportions for mixing the powder and water produce a very thin spread, so if you want it to be analogous in thickness to traditional peanut butter, I would suggest using less liquid. The flavor is light and disappears from the palate rather quickly, which in some cases (i.e. using the powder to make a sauce for a dessert) would cut the richness from a popular peanut butter treat, but in others (i.e. making a peanut butter sandwich) would create an underwhelming experience.
To sate my curiosity, I put some of the powder into a glass of organic milk and was pleased to find that it made for a yummy treat, though the powder did not dissolve completely. However, that didn't bother me at all.
From here, I wanted to taste a type of nut butter that I'd never bothered to try, so I picked up--
Artisana 100% Organic Raw Walnut Better with Cashews:
I sort of hated walnuts when I was a kid-- the shells were hard work for me to open, the flesh looked like brain matter, and the flavor was bitter. In essence, walnuts formed the trifecta of "no-frigging-way-I'm-eating-that-not-ever-nawthanks-'k-bye". At some point in my twenties I started to like them-- perhaps it was my palate maturing; perhaps I was replaced with a Pod Person. No matter-- the important part is that I eat them now and I'm lucky to do so. Walnuts are rich in Omega and other essential fatty acids, as well as fiber, certain vitamins, and protein. Despite how much I now like them, I had yet to try a walnut butter, so I grabbed this one at random from the Wegman's Nature's Market when I chose the other two products for this review.
The spread comes packaged in a little pouch, meant as one serving, and only contains walnuts and cashews. To use it, one simply need smush the contents of the package around until it softens, rip open a corner, and squeeze the walnut butter onto the desired walnut-butter-vehicle. In my case, I didn't put the product on anything-- wishing to avoid affecting the actual flavor.
What I'm going to say about it probably seems counter-intuitive, but I mean it in the best way possible; this walnut butter is remarkable in how very unremarkable it is. It does what it should: satisfies and tastes like walnuts. The cashew flavor was mild and barely noticeable, letting the happy walnutty flavor shine right through. There were no added sweeteners, nor anything done to alter the flavor; the spread was just plain delicious and honest.
And now, in consideration of those with nut allergies, we have--
NoNuts Golden Peabutter:
I was pretty eager to try this one out, since I had no clue what the flavor would actually be. In the case of many "replacer" foods, the separate ingredients can add up to something that tastes a completely unexpected way. Pertaining to this particular item, there is only one thing listed in the ingredients that I can definitely pick out from the profile for exactly what it is: Icing Sugar. If that sounds weird, it is-- and also it isn't.
The peabutter consists of brown peas, canola oil, icing sugar (contains cornstarch), palm oil, mono- & diglycerides, and citric acid; it's safe to say that the icing sugar is there to provide both sweetness and a peanut-butter-like consistency. What you get is more akin to the lovechild of Jif and Duncan Hines frosting. That doesn't make it bad-- just slightly different than I was expecting.
The spread has a mild, sweet smell (but you can certainly sense the icing sugar) and an attractive golden color. This combination of ingredients has coalesced into a complex flavor profile, with a warm nuttiness and an interesting first wave of sweetness and brazil nuts-- but the aftertaste, sadly, is where the icing sugar dominates, and I've forgotten the safe-word apparently because the assault of bitter-sweetness on my tongue will not relent. It has seriously been over an hour and I can still taste it. Combine this with some pretty unimpressive nutrition stats, and I would say that I'm not super-fond of NoNuts Golden Peabutter, though I certainly wanted to be. That being said however, if I were unable to have peanuts and treenuts, and I wanted a product which could offer a similar taste to a nut butter and that is manufactured in a facility which is completely nut-free, I would certainly use NoNuts Golden Peabutter for the occasional fix.
I had never heard of Scrapple, but from the way which Will spoke of it I was pretty sure that it would be one of those foods that would require me to be "open-minded". From his description, I had a general idea of what it was and contained-- also that it was a micro-regional favorite for certain areas of the American North East and that, though once a beloved breakfast treat, it has slowly fallen out of favor and then nearly completely out of knowledge (as many people I've spoken with have never heard of it). Not knowing too much about it in advance seemed the best way to avoid any sort of prejudice on my part when it came time for the tasting.
The first part of our Scrapple adventure was trying to find it. Will had heard from a co-worker that it was available at Price Chopper, so we knew we could get the pre-packaged variety at the very least. The thought was that we could call around to local butchers (is that still a thing, even?) to see if some fresh Scrapple could be obtained; unfortunately, every butcher that we tried said that they didn't carry it at all anymore or that they only stock the pre-packaged kind.
The brand of pre-packaged which we ended up trying was Hatfield. The ingredients are listed as:
Pork Stock, Pork, Pork Livers, Pork Skins, Yellow Corn Meal, Pork Hearts, Whole Wheat Flour, Pork Tongue, Salt, Buckwheat Flour, sodium citrate, sodium diacetate, wheat flour, spices, dextrose, flavoring
This list didn't immediately endear Scrapple to me (I even felt a little sick thinking about it), however I was not beyond the possibility that I could like it. For me, eating something that I haven't tried before (especially one containing more organ meat than I'd ever knowingly consumed in my life) is about making the choice not to remember the ingredients list. What I kept telling myself was that I'd checked on the ingredients to be sure that I could eat it and that it was going to taste like pork.
For anyone interested in the nutritional values involved:
Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 2 oz.(56g)
Serv. Per Container 8
Amount Per Serving
Calories 90
Calories from Fat 50
Total Fat
5g
Saturated Fat
2g
Cholesterol
35mg
Sodium
310mg
Total Carbohydrate
5g
Dietary Fiber
0g
Sugars
0g
Protein
5g
Vitamin A
30%
Vitamin C
4%
Calcium
0%
Iron
8%
Uncooked Scrapple resembles a tightly-packed, rectangular block of corned-beef hash. It even smells like it a bit-- or perhaps cheap wet dog food. That isn't to say that it was completely unappetizing, but I wouldn't rely on aesthetics and aroma as the major selling-points; but that's not how food should be anyway. We all like when things look "pretty"-- but more than that I like things to taste good.
The Scrapple was cut into slices, pan-fried, served on a bed of Will's homemade hash browns, and topped off with two over-easy eggs. Will went out of his way to make sure that Kenny and I could forget the pork hearts, skins, and other offal(organ meat) contained within our meals. The Scrapple itself was analogous in texture to a Boca Burger, but I discovered upon taking my first bite that-- unlike a Boca Burger-- Scrapple is good.
I'm not sure what I was expecting. Will had mentioned that organ meat is a bit metallic in flavor (because of the increased iron content-- the one aspect that ended up being an issue for me, as I need to watch how much iron I consume), but I didn't find it to be unpleasant. In fact, the denigration and disparaging rhetoric, which flies about in mixed company at the mere mention of Scrapple is a bit confusing to me. At the end of the day, Scrapple tastes like a mild, saltier bacon in patty form. It's rather good, even without any other food or condiment.
So this brings me to a question: Why is it that Scrapple fell out of favor? There are plenty of possible reasons, and likely not one that can answer the question in full, but to me it's more the fact that many people today are disgusted by Scrapple that is the greater mystery.
I know a number of people who are completely willing to live on a steady diet of food that is mainly processed hydrogenated oils, soy, various chemicals, and despair, as long as they think that it will help them lose weight. The number of food dyes that we're willing to eat, just so that our food can "look nicer", is staggering. It wasn't until I was diagnosed with a metabolic disorder, on top of my food allergies, that I really began to question why I was okay with eating things that affect me so poorly-- and it's not just my situation which relegates these aforementioned additives to the "crap-for-your-body column". Others I've spoken with in my life have stated that they're perfectly happy eating chemicals, dyes, etc as long as they like how it tastes.
Why not apply the same reasoning to something like Scrapple? Scrapple is tasty, and if one has a mental block about eating organ meat (as I had), it's easy enough to put that out of mind. It's not that everyone is going to like it, of course, but I believe that there are a number of people laboring under the impression that they wouldn't, even though they've never tried it.
In the end, the Scrapple itself didn't lead me to an "ah-ha" moment, but trying it did. I liked the Scrapple and would have it again, but I will either take it or leave it depending on my mood. It is yummy and I think the people should try it. But I learned something about myself when I did; I had been completely convinced that I wasn't going to like it. Despite knowing much more than I used to about all of the crappy, hyper-processed foods that I've been eating for years, I still thought that this would be the grossest thing that I'd tried to date. It's not. If you're worried about the sodium or cholesterol for health reasons, or just flat-out hate organ meat, then it's probably not for you-- but this just goes to show that there are plenty of great options for a special breakfast treat that don't contain a minimum of forty ingredients.
In the past few reviews we've tried foods which were comprised of some seriously nasty, heavily-processed ingredients. I knew this and thought that I cared, yet my only concern was whether or not any of the ingredients were a specific trigger for my condition. There were food dyes in the Doritos Locos Taco Shells, but I can have food dye in small amounts so I just didn't have any in the two days surrounding the tasting. The sodas had caffeine, which I can also only have in small amounts-- ergo, I only drank enough of each to get my impressions. I had convinced myself that I'm truly bothered by the things which are found in processed foods but if that is so, why is it that when I look at the other ingredients (MSG, partially-hydrogenated oils, chemical preservatives, etc), I don't feel the same level of enervation that came through when reading about what was in the Scrapple?
Why had organ meat been more offensive to my sensibilities than Hot Pockets ever were?
 Note the rivets on the packaging; this product really IS super manly! Nice work, Dr Pepper. When I was young soda was something around which my life revolved. I drank so much of it that my doctors used to attempt to scare me off of it through anecdotes about stunting my growth, or the health effects of too much sugar, or some other things which I can't remember now-- to be honest, I wasn't really listening; I couldn't hear them over the fizzing of my delicious soda. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that it was ascertained that I have a genetic metabolic disorder that makes me constantly crave sugar because I need it for my body to function normally. Ha! Suck it, my former pediatricians!
Like most children, the soda that I preferred was Pepsi. It's sweeter and less acidic and thus gentle on young, sensitive palates. As I grew older, I switched to Coke and Dr Pepper. For this week's three-way review, we decided to each give our impressions of Pepsi's and Dr Pepper's latest emanations: Pepsi Next and Dr Pepper TEN.
Pepsi Next probably derived from the same logic as that which led Coca-Cola Co. to come up with C2 back in June of 2004. It is made partially from sugar, and partially from artificial sweeteners-- touting a 65% reduction in overall calories compared to original Pepsi.
There is a paradoxical conundrum for the average soda consumer-- we're told that too much sugar is bad for us, but we are also told that artificial sweeteners are tantamount to having cancer cells injected directly into our vital organs; logically, some people have moved on to simply drinking water, but sometimes water just isn't what one desires. Of course, this whole debate is a HUGE "white whine", considering the number of people in the world who don't have anything to drink-- but that's for another article.
The absolute first thing I noted upon tasting the Pepsi Next was that it was still just as throat-burningly sweet-- yet a sweetness which, in fact, somehow managed to blossom awkwardly from youthful sugar bliss (should one be so inclined) to angst-ridden adolescent bitterness. Seriously, I think I heard it listening to The Cure from the refrigerator. This bitter flavor somehow managed to cling, quite relentlessly, to the inside of my mouth-- so much so that before tasting the Dr Pepper TEN, in order to cleanse my palate I drank a chaser of ginger ale and water.
What was amazing was that despite tasting just as sweet, the soda itself was vastly more carbonated than traditional Pepsi. That's the opposite of what I loved about Pepsi when I was a kid: the fact that, though it is a carbonated beverage, the acidity always seemed to be phoning it in. I suppose that the additional sweetness from the artificial sugars is what helped the flavor remain generally the same, even with the increased sourness. Another thing to mark was an odd note of vanilla in the overall flavor profile, despite the absence of any such flavor explicitly listed in the ingredients. What it brought to mind were those final dregs of a cola float, where the ice cream and carbonation have made sort of a foamy slurry at the bottom of your mug. This aspect was actually not all that unpleasant, at least not until the bitter flavor obtruded once more upon my nostalgic denial.
As I previously mentioned, Dr Pepper was a beverage which I didn't drink until I was older (in my teens), and it is one of my favorites. We recently made a Dr Pepper cake, and man was that thing sublime. I loves me some Dr Pepper. Given the fact that "Diet Dr Pepper really does taste like regular Dr. Pepper", I expected Dr. Pepper TEN ("10 Bold Calories, Same 23 Flavors") to taste roughly analogous to the aforementioned, but slightly stronger-- perhaps in the vein of Coke Zero. My expectations, sadly, were dashed, tea-bagged, and punched in the kidney.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to take Tonic Water, mix in a boxful of Luden's Wild Cherry Old-Fashioned Cough Drops and a dash of Triaminic? Well, you need wonder no more-- just pick up a bottle of Dr Pepper TEN and take a swig of it. Though the flavor was less obdurate in leaving my mouth, the taste was spectacularly more unpleasant than the Pepsi Next.
Apparently Dr Pepper TEN is meant for men; at least, that is to whom it is being marketed primarily. As testament to this, the label on the bottle is minimalist, with dark gray and burgundy. Looking at it now, after discovering this specific marketing tactic from the makers of DP TEN, I can't help but feel that the bottle belongs in an armchair, holding a beer and watching some variety of sporting event.
What seems odd to me is that, in executing a plan to draw in more male drinkers of Dr Pepper, they seem to have made the soda much sweeter and far less biting and acidic. That isn't to say that I feel it casts aspersions on a given individual's masculinity to appreciate a sweeter soda, but I marvel at the fact that the people at Dr Pepper thought that they could succeed by making a product that seems less in line with what most of the men I know like to drink, and that the end-game manifested with the product tasting so badly. I'd like to think that there was some focus testing involved in the process. There had to be some sort of focus testing involved in the process, right Dr Pepper? Right?
In the end, I was rather disappointed in both of these new sodas. After going in with a clean palate and an open mind, I still found them to be lacking and regrettable. The Pepsi Next was underwhelming and bitter, and the Dr Pepper TEN was medicinal, too sweet, and tasted so badly that it caused me to involuntarily crinkle my nose. I tried to relax it, but my nose remained staunchly so until I drank lots of water. All I can say is this: give them both a shot if you're a soda fan, or perhaps just curious; it's entirely possible that to you they will become new favorites, and that they just didn't jive with me.
I'm not really that big on candy. In fact, the only one which I truly love is the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and any subsequent variation thereupon. Over the past handful of years Reese's has begun selling seasonal "Cups", such as the Reese's Hearts for Valentine's Day, the Reese's Trees for the holiday season, Reese's Pumpkins to pass out to those Halloween Trick-or-Treaters, and the Reese's Eggs and Reester Bunnies which always come out at this time of year.
When we were in Target a few weeks ago I noticed that there were two rabbit-themed Reese's treats for Easter this season. I'd had the Reester Bunnies before, with glee and in such quantities as to put me into a sugar coma, but I had never tried the Reese's Easter Bunny. Both packages state that they contain a "Milk Chocolate Covered Peanut Butter Bunny"; both have the same number of calories and servings, with only marginally different nutrition statistics. However, the chocolate on the Reester Bunny is a thicker version of what you would normally get on a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, and the chocolate on the Reese's Cup Reese's Easter Bunny is much harder. This is due to the addition of partially-hydrogenated oil and extra cocoa butter to the latter.
The Reester Bunny comes in a festive purple box emblazoned with a Reese's logo; the treat itself is wrapped in white foil that has a cartoonish bunny on the front. Upon inspecting this confection you will see that the actual product only slightly resembles the cartoon bunny on the foil-- other than having the same outline-- but to me that never really matters; when I get a Reester Bunny each year, I bolt that varmint faster than you can say stomach ache. I just love them so very much.
In contrast, the overall aesthetic of the Reese's Easter Bunny is quite understated and lovely. The box is trademark Reese's orange with grass, flowers, and colorful eggs printed along the very bottom. The Bunny is enveloped in golden foil that has a simple sketch of a rabbit on the front. When you remove the foil, the Reese's Bunny is even more ornately hewn than you would have thought-- shaped and designed to a highly exacting standard. And this is where it went wrong.
You see, the more attractive Reese's Easter Bunny has to have the addition of extra cocoa butter and partially hydrogenated oil-- this is to make the product melt more slowly and to keep it self-stable and looking beautiful for longer; sadly, this also affects the flavor. All other Reese's Cup items taste essentially the same, but the Reese's Easter Bunny has an overly sweet, burnt flavor which you only get from adding something like a partially-hydrogenated oil. The peanut butter inside of it is classic Reese's, but the overall effect is bastardized by the differently-tasting and slightly harder chocolate. The Reester Bunny may not be as visually pleasing, but it certainly tastes like a Reese's Cup; in the end, isn't that what you're looking for when you get a Reese's treat?
My verdict is that if you really like the taste of those solid chocolate Easter bunnies that they've been selling for years, but always wished that they would add peanut butter to it for you (instead of having to dip the thing in the peanut butter jar yourself), then the Reese's Cup Easter Bunny is probably something that you'll like. If you would rather have something that tastes like a Reese's Cup and you're not worried about how pretty it is, go for the Reester Bunny.
I first heard about the Doritos Locos Taco Shells from a Facebook status update of one of my friends; to paraphrase, he ecstatically touted the virtues of the Shells, and thanked Taco Bell for releasing them. Given that I spent most of my youth consuming copious fistfuls of Doritos chips and making questionable outfit choices, the prospect of adding my original guiltly-pleasure-food (Doritos) to one of my adult GPF's (Taco Bell) was too tantalizing too pass up-- ergo , the first time the opportunity to try them appeared, I pounced all over it like a pair of clearance Manolo Blahnik's.
I decided to order the Cheesy Gordita Crunch combo, substituting the Doritos Locos Shell for the standard crunchy shell which would normally be wrapped inside the Gordita. The combo also came with two more tacos of my choice, so I requested they be made with the DL Shells as well. With each DL Shell tacking on an (some would argue) exorbitant $0.50 (the specialty shells added $1.50 to the tally), it crossed my mind that these things had better be pretty freaking delicious if Taco Bell had any hope of getting repeated orders for them.
The very first thing that I noticed upon unwrapping the Gordita Crunch and tacos was that the shells are orange. Not normal Doritos' orangey-powder-on-yellow-corn-chips orange; no, we are talking day-glow, phosphorescent, didn't-exfoliate-before-getting-your-spray-tan orange. Though mildly surprising, this aspect was not in any way repugnant to me. I'm not really sure what I was expecting. If I had, upon entering the establishment, simply taken a good long gander at the window clings announcing the DL Shells, I would have seen the color. Tick that in the box of "My bad".
Truthfully, I'm not really certain why I was expecting anything different; Will and Kenny seemed neither taken-aback nor abashed when tucking into their respective meals. For some reason, what I had been anticipating was a shell more similar in thickness and consistency to a Doritos chip. Thinking upon it after seeing the actual product, it became clear that such a consistency would cause the shells to crumble as rapidly as my hopes for loving them.
Brass tacks: While the DL Shells have the general flavor of Doritos Chips due to a Doritos-flavored powder dusted over the surface (the shells even come in little holsters so that you don't get it on your fingers-- presumably because you would then get it all-the-frig-over yourself), they still do not quite taste like Doritos to me. Perhaps that is because of the texture of the shell itself, which is actually very much like the traditional Taco Bell crunchy shell, yet somehow more fragile, mealy, and replete with a slight greasiness. Moreover, I found it sort of annoying that the flavor profile was so easily overpowered in the case of the Cheesy Gordita Crunch. While I expected the tangy sauce to affect the overall experience, I certainly didn't think that it was capable of completely masking the savory Doritos powder.
Another issue is the flavor of the powder itself. It was tasty enough, but it reminded me more of the off-brand Faux-ritos that my Mother used to get on sale-- leaving one with the taste of something which seems as though it would be classified as "similar, but legally distinct". Eating the DL Shells did not evoke in me the sense that I was munching on something truly made as part of a Doritos line of products. In fact, to me it almost smacked of them attempting to convince me that I was eating something that really tasted quintessentially Doritos; as if the homogenously orange shell was meant to distract me from the fact that they were just a bit off.
Now, don't get me wrong, I actually did like them-- but not enough to pay an additional $0.50 to get them again; they just weren't similar enough to original Doritos for my tastes. However, I highly encourage anyone who wants to try them to do so and see how they feel. It's absolutely worth a shot, and I know several people who love them.
|
RSS Feed