Micro-regional cuisine has been a fascination of mine ever since I first learned that every other country in the world aside from the United States thinks pumpkin pie is disgusting. Sure, I knew that other countries had their exclusive odd foods that were pleasing only to the palates of their own people: Australia's Vegemite, Japan's natto, France's butter and chocolate on bread (yup, that's a thing, and better than you may think); but it was quite an eye-opener to find to that one of my own beloved childhood foods was amongst them.
How could something as delicious as pumpkin pie be so reviled everywhere else? How do any of these foods manage to be so loved so strongly by so few? Do we learn to love these foods, or are we genetically wired to? Nature or nurture? Soon I was seeking out every example of such foods I could find to try to satisfy my insatiable curiosity.
Somehow in my quest to subject my own taste buds to every instance of "they love it in 'X'... but you wouldn't like it", I had neglected one from just a few scant miles to the south: Pennsylvania's scrapple. Scrapple, for those unfamiliar with it, is a Pennsylvania Dutch invention that utilizes the left-over bits of pig that many would just discard. The little scraps of meat too small to be used in anything else, as well as the pig's organs are combined with spices and corn meal, and then formed into a loaf. Typically you then slice this loaf and pan-fry it.
This sounded like the perfect subject for the blog, so after a couple weeks of soda and fast food, I suggested we try some scrapple. To try to assuage the other's fears a bit, I extolled on its historical significance. "It is perhaps the first pork product invented in America!", I exclaimed. "It was a very popular dish back in the day, but has fallen out of favor.", I continued, appealing to their sympathies. April relented, but Kenny remained firm. "It's perfectly traditional to have it with ketchup.", I offered finally. In the end he accepted the challenge.
Simply finding some scrapple turned out to be a little more difficult than I anticipated. I knew I had seen vacuum-packed varieties in grocery stores in the past, but I had hoped to find a local butcher or deli that had fresher options. This proved futile, though. After several attempts, I finally found a supermarket that still carried 'pork mush'. Out of other options I picked up a block of Hatfield brand lean scrapple, and prepared to fry it up.
Unwrapping the Scrapple, I was immediately reminded of chicken liver pâté' in both its smell and appearance. It smelled faintly of iron from the organ meat, and it was fairly firm to the touch. My trusty chef's knife made quick work of it, as I sliced it into quarter-inch thick slices . As the scrapple fried the iron smell was quickly overcome by the rich savory aroma of the pork, and smelled not at all unlike simple pork sausage. After 10 minutes on each side I plated them up with some hash browns and eggs; opting for a restaurant-style vertical presentation for laughs, and served my nervous comrades.
Now, perhaps this is due to the particular brand of scrapple I had found, but there is little to say about the flavor itself. It tastes much like it smelled, similar to pork sausage: savory and salty, but with the addition of a slight iron taste from the offal. The texture was soft, like pâté', but delightfully crispy on the outside. It was fantastic dipped in the runny yolk from my eggs as well. All in all I enjoyed it greatly, and would even order it instead of bacon or sausage as a breakfast meat occasionally. I would like to try some other brands to see how they differ, assuming I can find them.
I personally suggest giving this one a shot. Even if you are put off by offal, the taste is much milder than one would expect, and adds a nice depth to the overall flavor. It may not replace bacon in too many hearts, but it deserves a place on the breakfast table once-in-a-while.
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?
For this week’s review, we decided to do a taste test of two new soft drinks that have recently come out, Pepsi Next and Dr Pepper TEN. We started the test with the Pepsi Next.
First thing I noticed about the subsequent Pepsi was that it didn’t seem as fizzy as normal Pepsi, or even Diet Pepsi. This may be attributed to the small serving we had poured ourselves, as pouring a full glass causes soda to fizz up more.
After taking my first sip, I realized that there could be another reason for the soda not being as fizzy as I had hoped. The Pepsi Next is incredibly sticky. Usually when you drink something, the taste fills your mouth, and when you swallow the taste goes with it. Sometimes, it takes a bit of time or a sip of water to fully get rid of the taste. With the Pepsi Next, after taking a sip, the taste would not leave my mouth. It was the same for April and Will as well. In order to cleanse our palates for the next soda, we had to drink some Ginger Ale, followed by water to finally get rid of the taste.
Looking into what made Pepsi Next special, I found out that it contained four different sweeteners: high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, sucralose, and acesulfame potassium. For something that claims to include 60% less sugar, it sure contains a lot of it. I can only imagine that they needed all four sweeteners to get the taste that they wanted, but it seems like they could have done without one or two of them.
The Pepsi also seemed to have some sort of after taste to it. I enjoyed it (which was a good thing, since the taste had no intentions of leaving my mouth), but I could not tell what exactly it was. At first I was thinking it was vanilla, but now a day later I’m starting to think it was more lemony/citrusy.
Well, after we washed the Pepsi Next from our taste buds, we moved onto the Dr Pepper TEN.
I hate to be negative right off the bat, but Dr Pepper TEN did not taste good at all.
First thing I noticed was the strong, cherry-like smell. It reminded me of the smell of Dr Pepper, but was almost offensive in its strength. I was equally displeased with the taste of the soda as I was with its smell. The taste of cherry was still there for me, but reminded me more of cherry-flavored children’s cough syrup than of anything I would normally ingest.
The Dr Pepper TEN wasn’t advertised as being cherry flavored (which is good, since I love Dr Pepper Cherry), so I can only assume that what I was tasting was some weird mix of spices that Dr Pepper is known for. Speaking of the spices, I noticed that the Dr Pepper TEN seemed to have a much stronger “bite” to it than normal Dr Pepper.
In the end, I think it’s clear that given the choice between these sodas, I prefer the Ginger Ale I used as a palate cleanser!
Thinking back though, I would be willing to give Pepsi Next another try, now knowing what to expect from it. Can’t see myself ever buying another Dr Pepper TEN any time soon, though.
 A tower of Pepsi Next-- co-starring Will's thumb. I have something of a love/hate relationship with soda. I require enough caffeine to get me through the day to give an elephant the jitters, and the sheer volume would make even the likes of Hunter S. Thompson or Charlie Sheen nod their heads in respect. Sometimes my beloved coffee or various caffeinated treats are just not available or feasible options . In those dark times sodas help keep the monkey off my back.
I do try to avoid soda, however, for health reasons. Over the last year and a half I have lost over one hundred pounds. I feel better, look better, and want to stay this way; so I avoid any unnecessary calories in my drinks. The obvious solution would seem to be to switch to diet sodas; but on top of disliking the flavor, artificial sweeteners pose a host of heath issues of their own. Still, caffeine is a hell of a drug, and daddy needs his fix.
I have tried a number of diet sodas, and found few that manage to be palatable. When we decided to review two new options that appeared on the over-saturated soft drink market, I did not have high hopes. The first was Pepsi's newest offering: Pepsi Next.
I have always been more of a Coke guy than a Pepsi guy. The darker caramel flavor of Coke, with its highly carbonated bite always appealed to me more than Pepsi's mild flavor and carbonation. I admit, though, that I am fond of Pepsi MAX, if only because the excessive number of ingredients help mask the flavor of its artificial sweeteners.
When I first laid eyes upon Pepsi Next and saw its boast of containing less sugar and only 60 calories my interest was piqued. I thought for a moment that Pepsi had released a dry cola, something missing from the main-stream market. Alas, no. Pepsi Next uses a combination of high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, and sucralose for its sweeteners.
Before even tasting the drink, the artificial sweeteners are immediately apparent in the nose; as well as in the telltale fizziness of the drink. Upon first tasting the drink one gets a rather strong hit of vanilla, and it does seem slightly less sweet than other diets. I was somewhat pleased at first, but as the drink lingered its viscosity betrayed it. The sweetness soon gives way to the bitterness so associated with the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners, and the thickness of the drink assures that one will be tasting it long after the sweetness of the corn syrup is a memory.
We had discussed a palate cleanser before the tasting session started, but had agreed it was likely not necessary. We were wrong. A quick swish of ginger ale (ginger being a well known palate cleanser), followed by some water and a short wait cleared the way for the Dr Pepper Ten.
I rather like regular Dr Pepper, it's a nice departure from the standard cola flavors that are so ubiquitous. I am no fan of their normal diet offering though, and I hoped that Dr Pepper Ten would give me a better low calorie option.
The bouquet was immediately reminiscent of cough syrup: sickly sweet, and with a weird chemical scent. Similarly to Pepsi Next, Dr Pepper Ten had a less sweet initial flavor than it's normal diet does. Other than the initial obfuscation of the sweetener, though, it initially tasted exactly like the diet. This grace period was short, though. While the unpleasant aftertaste of the Pepsi Next creeps up on you, Dr Pepper Ten's simply attacks with a full frontal assault. The medicinal taste hinted at earlier in the smell makes itself known with a vengeance, and can best be described as tannic, like a bad red wine or very bitter tea. I felt as though I had been chewing on a bit of varnished wood. I discarded the remains of my cup after just two sips.
The Pepsi Next might be worth a taste, though I fail to see the appeal of a soda with 60 calories per serving. If you want to save calories go with a full diet, or better yet, water or tea. As for Dr Pepper Ten, I cannot recommend it. I personally look forward to seeing these two go the way of New Coke and Crystal Pepsi.
 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.
To match the seasonal reviews of my compatriots, I’ve decided to do a review of my favorite Easter treats- The Cadbury Eggs lineup. For this review I will be trying the three different types. First will be the original Cadbury Crème Egg, followed by the Chocolate Crème Egg (which before this review I have never tried), and then finally, the Cadbury Caramel Egg. Also, this review will be completely “live”. I’ll be writing my thoughts down after trying each egg.
First up, the original Cadbury Crème Egg.
One thing that has always been an issue for me with these eggs is that if I didn’t eat them quickly enough, the chocolate shell would start to melt. You might tell me to use the foil wrapper as a protective holder, but I have never really had much luck with that in execution. Because of this, whenever I eat a Cadbury Egg, it’s always in one or two bites. This actually helps me to enjoy the treat more, though, since I feel if I ate one of these over a longer period of time, the richness of the cream would be too much for me.
As a side note, I knew one kid back in high school who could eat one of these and make it last for nearly three hours. I don’t know how he did it; if I had tried something like that, at the end of three hours I’d have a glob of melted chocolate and cream melted in my hand because 20 minutes in I’d be sick of the sugary richness of it all.
Next up, for my very first time, the Chocolate Crème Egg.
Huh. Not at all what I was expecting, really. When I think of chocolate cream, for some reason my mind jumped to something with the consistency of chocolate frosting. Not really sure why, but I am pleasantly surprised by the thickness of the chocolate insides. Actually, it reminds me a great deal of Nutella. I don’t know if it’s just my mind tricking me, but now I can taste hazelnut. Just checked the ingredients, and nope, no hazelnut.
Since we’re talking about the chocolate egg, let’s talk about the chocolate shell found on all of the eggs. I think the shell is the best part of the entire package. They provide a satisfying “snap” when you bite into one, as long as it hasn’t melted at all.
This was definitely much richer than the plain crème egg. Rich enough to make me take a short break before moving on to the caramel egg.
Okydoke, I’m back! Time to try the Caramel Egg!
And here’s something that always happens with the caramel eggs, and yet I always forget about it by the next time I have one. There’s always a little bit of caramel that leaks out of the shell and sticks to the foil wrapper. Whenever I’d open one, there’d be a little bit of foil left on the egg that I couldn’t pick off. This used to freak me out when I was much younger, but now I realize that even if I swallow a little bit of foil, it’s not gonna kill me.
Another surprise tonight. When I bit into the egg, there was a very audible pop (as in the expulsion of air). I understand why it happened, but have never experienced it before. The thing I love most about the caramel egg is that, to me at least, it isn’t rich at all. I still down them in two bites, but that’s just out of habit. I’m limiting myself to only one caramel egg tonight, but usually I’d eat these in pairs.
After trying all three eggs I can still say that the caramel egg was my favorite of the bunch, and I hope that I find a few of these in my Easter basket this year. Would I like them so much if they were a year round treat? I don’t think so, but their rarity is another aspect that makes them all the more special.
I have always steered away from fast-food fish sandwiches. This is not at all due to an aversion to fish, but rather my intense love of seafood. Why, I thought, suffer through those nasty little frozen fish squares that plague cafeterias and TV dinners everywhere, when tastier options abound for the eater willing to take even the first step off the most beaten of paths? Fried haddock and chips, broiled whole fish (head intact please, those are the best parts), crab-stuffed flounder fillets, sushi and sashimi; all regularly available at numerous locally owned restaurants and diners.
Last week, though, something caught my attention. Wendy's was proudly advertising a panko-breaded cod fillet sandwich. I was surprised, to say the least. For those who may not know, most frozen fish sandwiches are made from pollock, haddock's far less tasty cousin; it's a trash fish. Cod, however, is more highly prized, and pricier. Further I always applaud this kind of transparency in food, especially in a fast-food joint. I decided it was worth a shot.
The Wendy's Premium Cod Fillet
I must say, for a fast-food fish sandwich, the Wendy's cod fillet wasn't half bad. Cod has never been my favorite white fish, tasting just a little too metallic to me. However, its slight sweetness, mild fishiness, and meatier texture make it a huge step up from most fast-food fishy fare. The sandwich was (thankfully) light on the tartar, so as not to walk all over the subtleties of the fish itself. The panko breading was nicely browned and crispy and the bun was lightly toasted and tasty. All in all I was pleasantly surprised.
Having had a fairly good experience at Wendy's I wondered if, perhaps, the other major fast-food places might deserve a chance. This called for a comparison of the "Big Three". Next up was McDonalds.
McDonald's Filet-O-Fish
Now this is the cafeteria-style fish sandwich I had been dreading: pale brown breading encased cheap pollock and formed into an unnaturally square shape. Globs of tartar oozed out. I steeled myself and bit in. I was confused at first; it wasn't good, to be sure, but wasn't as repulsive as I remembered these things to be. Could my taste buds be failing me? I feared I would have nothing to write about until I opened the second sandwich (I had opted for the two fish meal) and noticed the off- center orange cheese sticking out the side of the bun, like a tongue razzing me. The first sandwich had lacked the cheese.
Old food wisdom states that one shouldn't mix cheese and fish; and with the exceptions of the tuna melt and lox with a smear, I agree. Cheese, by definition, is spoiled milk, and lends this spoiled flavor to fish. Without cheese the sandwich was merely bad, with cheese it was disgusting. My hopes dashed, I solemnly headed out to my final stop of the "Big Three".
Burger King's BK Big Fish
Morale low, I unwrapped my Big Fish. It looked much like the McDonald's Filet-O-Fish, but, as the name would suggest, was considerably larger. Hoping this would lend itself to a better texture, I tucked in. Immediately all hopes for a finer texture were discarded; the fish was flaky, and even tough. If it were possible for fish to be gristly that would be the word I would use to describe it. Copious amounts of tartar helped mask the fish's flavor with its own, and made holding the filet between the buns a chore. I choked it down and was glad to be done.
The winner here is obvious, and should be no surprise. If you find yourself at a Wendy's with a craving for fish, give the cod filet a chance. Avoid the others, or at least ask them to omit the cheese, and to cut back on the tartar. Hopefully the other biggies will follow Wendy's lead on this one and offer some better fish options.
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 had wanted to try the Doritos Locos taco ever since I had first heard about it online. Apparently it has been around for a few months now in select locations. (Toledo, OH, and Fresno and Bakersfield, CA). I felt that I would never have a chance to try these tacos, believing that they would not sell well enough in their test markets.
Thankfully I was wrong and this month Taco Bell released the Doritos Locos nationwide. As I sat down for my first taste, I wondered, would they be worth the wait?
First opening the wrapper, I was surprised by the thin cardboard holder surrounding the taco. The shells did not seem any weaker than normal taco shells, so I wondered what the need for this holder would be. After bringing the shell out a little to take a bite, I instantly realized that this taco holder had an important role to play.
The taco shells definitely reminded me of Doritos, orange powder and all. The cardboard holder was there, at least partially, to keep my hands clean. They also served another purpose, however. I’ve heard that eating slowly makes it so that you don’t eat as much, since your body takes time to realize that it is full. These holders made it so that I could only take small bites.
What did I think of the taste? I really liked it! The Dorito flavor mixed incredibly well with the crunch of the lettuce and the coolness of the sour cream. This was a combination of flavors that I had never had before, and enjoyed greatly.
So were they worth being excited over? In all honesty, I’m not sure. While I loved the taste, I have never really been too fond of the original Nacho flavor of Doritos. I have heard rumors that they will be adding a Cool Ranch version to their menu, so I want to try those out if they do.
Another detractor for me was the price. I did not get the Big Box meal, choosing instead to get the Three Supreme Taco meal. I changed two of those tacos to the Dorito version, adding $1.00 to the total cost of the meal. While I enjoyed the experience of trying the Doritos Locos, at $0.50 a pop, however, I don’t think that I will be ordering these again, except to try the Cool Ranch flavor.
I must confess, both Doritos and Taco Bell are kind of guilty pleasures of mine. I get the odd craving for both every few months or so, then promptly remember why I don't need to eat them more often.
My initial reaction to the tacos was one of mild amusement. I hadn't seen any of the commercials for the product, so unwrapping them was my first visual exposure. Before me were three tacos that looked like someone had dumped the remnants of a spent Doritos bag on them, the powder clinging to the grease. They were even served in cute little holders that bore the Doritos logo, like a little bag. I chose to forgo any condiments and dug in.
The flavor was unremarkable, but tasty enough. It should be no shock that the flavor of nacho cheese pairs just fine with those of a Taco Supreme; sour cream, taco meat, tomato, more orange cheese. And eating one does evoke the Doritos experience, right down to the orange residue on your fingertips.
For me the Doritos Locos Taco was exactly what I was expecting: a standard taco shell that has been covered in Doritos dust. But does this make it a Doritos shell? To me it does not; the texture is a large part of what makes a Dorito what it is, and the texture is certainly not the same. This is almost certainly a necessity, as a chip would likely just shatter on the first bite, but this differing texture does effect the taste slightly. The flavor profile is indeed similar, but to me, it is not the promised 'taco wrapped in a Dorito'.
None the less the Doritos Locos Taco was enjoyable in its own way. It tasted fine, if a bit salty, and it satisfied my guilty pleasures for faux-Mexican food and neon orange cheese. As far as fast food novelties go it's inoffensive (it's no KFC Double Down, a novelty that offended not only the taste buds, but also one's sensibilities), but forgettable. Try it if the you are curious, the extra fifty cents is worth spending, if only once.
|
RSS Feed