The Real Colonel Sanders (2015)
buzzfeed.com
buzzfeed.com
I don't know what it was called when I went there as a kid, but it was an amazing experience, one of the few I remember from that time in my life. Too many courses to count, it was a family style restaurant. It was a good drive from the Louisville suburbs I lived in at the time.
The restaurant was in the first floor of a house in the middle of a horse farm. Picturesque doesn't do it justice.
Turns out the company couldn't argue that it owned his wife's name. There are interesting arguments that it's a sort of feminist justice in the end given most of the recipes were likely Claudia's to begin with.
Managed to basically make me hate every single character by the end.
I'm assuming the whole change to "KFC" is partially based on some kind of anti-fried, health-kick campaign.
They're lucky the colonel isn't still kicking. You don't want to piss off that ornery rascal.
https://gizmodo.com/no-colonel-sanders-never-killed-a-man-in...
It's like that old story about the airline MBAs who remove an olive from their onboard drinks every year to save $40,000 - eventually there are no olives left in the drinks!
Pepper is expensive, they probably saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by eliminating that ingredient.
Aren't they mandated to print truthful nutrition information?
Yes, they are mandated to print nutrition information. So they print exactly what they are asked to print. No more. No less. If the mandate says "foods with less than 999mg of sugar may print as 0g sugar" then they will follow that to the letter.
> Tic Tac® mints do contain sugar as listed in the ingredient statement. However, since the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving.
So? It seems that they're honestly reporting exactly what's required from them and exactly what you need to balance your diet.
Yes, they're true to the labeling requirement, but they are not true to reality - there IS sugar in there. Get a person with diabetes to eat a bucketful and then try to tell me there is 0g of sugar in them.
Here's a tool, right on the McDonald's website, that has a full breakdown of the ingredients in everything they sell: https://www.mcdonalds.com/gb/en-gb/good-to-know/nutrition-ca...
Here's an ingredient list for KFC: https://www.kfc.ca/en/assets/pdf/IngredientListingApril2017....
Argue about the quality of the food if you want, but there's no point in making shit up.
Isn't science (postulating and then proving/disproving theories) fun?!
(Oh, and as an aside: one dude's story about how he personally thinks that a sense memory from 30 years ago is not the same as a more recent sense memory is definitely something to investigate. Real hot lead right there.)
It sounds like you're getting wrapped up in the marketing of corporate food and confusing it for valid science (I'm not saying my comment or the parent comment is valid science, just that what we're doing distinctly isn't science, so don't throw your stones in a glass house).
McDonalds salads come with the dressing on the side in a separate container so you can determine how healthy or unhealthy the salad is...
McDonalds has also embraced converting their supply chain to higher-quality sources of chicken and beef, though due to the scale involved the conversion is measured in years and not weeks or months.
McDonalds is never going to be healthy. But they are making an effort to be healthier.
I'll agree with you that McDonald's is providing healthy choices. But just because the choices are there, doesn't mean the food is healthier - iceberg lettuce and hamburger buns are still empty calories.
High quality chicken/beef does not mean it's more healthier. Quality does not correlate to health. That'd be like saying a high quality cigarette is better for your health than a low quality one.