How did my sandwich taste?
May 29, 2009 8:31 AM   Subscribe

I went to Steak 'n Shake last night, and as I wolfed down my steakburger, a question regarding foodstuffs popped into my head. Read on, adventurer!

There was a little placard on the table that said something along the lines of, "We're celebrating our 75th anniversary! Now and then, same great taste!"

So, I did a little (very little) mental math, and that means that Steak 'n Shake first opened its doors in 1934.

Let's say I was able to go back in time and waltz through the door of that original Steak 'n Shake back in 1934 in Illinois and order a steakburger, as I'm assuming (perhaps falsely) that at least this piece of their menu has stayed on as a staple since inception.

Would it likely taste the same as its 75 year-old ancestor? Or would changes to the way we process and manufacture foodstuffs lead to something that tastes radically different than it did back then? Or would it be a relatively minor change?

In short, how would my taste experience differ, if at all? Keeping in mind, of course, that this is large part conjecture based on overall changes to the way we deal with foodstuffs in this country.
posted by kbanas to Food & Drink (40 answers total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
Assuming that Steak 'n' Shake has kept their preparations essentially the same, the biggest variable for taste in a Steakburger (which has indeed been on their menu since that time) is, I think, the way the beef is farmed. And that has changed enormously since 1934.
posted by ocherdraco at 8:40 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


I would assume that increased quality control today would lead to a homogenization of flavor that would indicate more consistency in flavor today vs. then for one thing.. one other major change is that the beef used to make the burger would have grass-fed more than likely and not grain fed as it is today which I would imagine changes the flavor as well.
posted by zennoshinjou at 8:42 AM on May 29, 2009


I think there would be a big difference in taste.

I've been to Asian countries where industrial farms are non-existent, and the meat tastes quite different. It's not always better, but there is, for lack of a better word, a less complicated taste.
posted by reenum at 8:43 AM on May 29, 2009


Response by poster: And that has changed enormously since 1934.

Ok, I totally buy that. So how does the way the way that beef has farmed impact the way it tastes today? Do "improvements" in the process mean - what, beef is leaner? That taste is more consistent?
posted by kbanas at 8:45 AM on May 29, 2009


Well, as an example based on a comparison tasting we did at work, corn-fed beef generally tastes sweeter than grass-fed beef. So if the beef of old was grass-fed and it's now corn-fed, that would be one difference that you'd taste. Grass-fed beef is often described as 'gamier' and 'more meaty' tasting.

Grass-fed beef will also tend to be more variable in flavor overall, since the type of grass makes a difference, whereas animals that are feed-lot finished are served a pretty standard diet to try to feed those variances out. "You are what you eat" applies to cows, too. They end up tasting a bit like what they munch on.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2009 [2 favorites]


We have started buying beef from a friend of ours who raises cattle (2 or 3 at a time) organically - grass fed, no hormones, the full monty. Seconding reenum, it does taste different, though it's been hard to put my finger on what the difference is. It's certainly leaner than what we're used to. Other friends of his don't care for the taste at all - they think it's gamier, but I haven't noticed anything like that.
posted by jquinby at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


...or, since I should have previewed, most of what jacquilynne said.
posted by jquinby at 8:56 AM on May 29, 2009


Food safety laws, cow treatment, cow feeding, hormone treatment, selective breeding, shipping methods, shipping distance, freezer technology, and even bread recipes have changed significantly in the past 75 years. While some of this may prove irrelevant to Steak 'n Shake, plenty of it is completely unavoidable.

However, the most compelling argument is that of franchising. As they would have had no franchises due to the era and first opening, Steak 'n Shake would rely on local supply standards. Today's food suppliers are much more consistent, less prone to suffering from nature's whims. While the variables probably weren't a huge factor then, it would be recognizable to today's focus on consistency.

While you could ask somebody who was around at that time, memories change over time enough that it would be pretty unreliable. Still, everything I learned about the fast food industry from family members who own other franchises tells me that the burger would be a completely different experience. If corporate reformulation hasn't changed it significantly, you might be able to recognize it, but I would be quite certain that it would have a different taste and texture.

As for how it would taste? I would imagine it would taste a fair bit better, but the methods used to make it would be financially ridiculous today.
posted by Saydur at 8:58 AM on May 29, 2009


I like to imagine that there was a bit more care put into products way back when.

A bit more care... and a bit more workers' limbs. Start with Sinclair's The Jungle and then come back and tell me whether things were really better back then.
posted by incessant at 9:02 AM on May 29, 2009 [4 favorites]


I imagine that today's steakburger would taste sweeter for a variety of reasons, not just because the beef has changed. IMHO, we Americans tend to like everything sweetened in some, subtle way. The bun has probably had additional sugar added; as have the condiments (the ketchup and thousand island-style sauce at least). If the company has done any testing for the flavor preferences of its customers, then, most likely, minor tweaks have been made through the years. Each tweak building on the one before would ultimately result in a different flavor.
posted by LOLAttorney2009 at 9:05 AM on May 29, 2009


Would it likely taste the same as its 75 year-old ancestor?

Oh, god, no. People are right that it would certainly have been grass-fed. Grass-fed beef tastes so different from corn-fed that you can hardly believe it. You can do this simple experiment yourself - just purchase some grass-fed beef from a local farmer (or, I suppose, the meat counter at the store if you can assure yourself it's really grass-fed, hormone- and antibiotic-free) and cook it up in a burger, side-by-side with industrially raised beef.

Corn-fed beef tastes, in a word "corny." It's moister, more tender, sweeter, and more bland tasting. Corn-fed beef cattle are killed at a much younger age than grass-fed cattle (to create a cheaper, quicker-to-produce product, but also because if they were allowed to live as long as grass-fed cattle need to in order to develop commercial mass, they would sicken and die from digestive problems related to their unnatural diet) - so the youth of the animal is partly responsible for its tenderness. Many people are so accustomed to the taste of corn-fed cattle, which is pretty much all most people eat now unless they consciously choose something different, that when switching to grass-fed they find it tough, 'gamy,' 'too strong' and things like that. The thing is you have to cook it more carefully. But it tastes pretty awesome - just really beefy.

"Improvements in the process" in modern meat raising mean one thing: cheaper. THe whole goal of contemporary beef production is to produce ample amounts of product at the lowest possible cost. The goal is not better taste, more nutritive value, healthier cows or people, or a healthier environment. Changes since 1934 have included: the change from (more expensive, requiring much more land) open-land grass-feeding operations to CAFOs dependent on cheap corn as the basis of diet; the use of antibiotics to control the spread of disease among closely confined animals and to counter the internal ulcers and infections that are one of the effects of an inadequate diet; the use of growth hormones to cause cattle to grow to slaughter weight faster; and the consequences of CAFO meat production such as relative lack of weight-bearing muscle development due to confinment.

The other differences would be in the bun - the bread would be much different in 1934, when it was probably baked in the store instead of shipped frozen and infused with preservatives.

Beef is not the only thing that tastes different. Almost all our food tastes different from what it did 70 years ago - chicken, sweetened products like baked goods and ice creams, certainly produce.
posted by Miko at 9:08 AM on May 29, 2009 [2 favorites]


The bun has probably had additional sugar added; as have the condiments (the ketchup and thousand island-style sauce at least)

Absolutely true as well.

Start with Sinclair's The Jungle and then come back and tell me whether things were really better back then.

They're not fantastic at today's industrial slaughterhouses. There have been definite improvements but we have traded one set of problems for others - industrialization has come at a cost. Fast Food Nation is as much of an eye-opener with regard to this today as The Jungle was a century ago. Worker safety and plant and animal sanitation are still serious problems.
posted by Miko at 9:12 AM on May 29, 2009


I've eaten wild bison, which is assuredly grass fed, and it is very very different from corn-fed beef. Much leaner, much gamier and needs to be cooked very rare or it is too chewy.
posted by unSane at 9:26 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Were it a porkburger I'd say the difference in flavor would be significant. But, then, this is about beef.
posted by bz at 9:35 AM on May 29, 2009


You might want to read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma , which talks a LOT about how industry has changed the what we eat and the way it's made.
posted by Caravantea at 9:51 AM on May 29, 2009


Also, ketchup has always had sugar in it. It's not exactly a new thing.

This suggests that there were feedlot operations in the 30s, but this says they didn't gain in popularity until after WWII, at least in Kansas.

So, the answer is maybe not all that different.
posted by electroboy at 9:56 AM on May 29, 2009


Taste is so subjective that it's pretty much impossible to tell. The taste may have changed gradually, but significantly: someone who ate steakburgers once a week for 75 years would not notice any change, and may say the flavor is the same. But someone who went back in time 75 years after eating one today would probably notice a huge difference. You might even gag when you took a bite.

It's kind of like accents in spoken language. We can track the evolution of the written English language by studying works from different time periods, but there is really no way to know what it sounded like 400 years ago. If someone from 400 years ago were to describe, in writing, how words were pronounced, they may even use terms familiar to us, so we think we know what it sounded like. But since sound is subjective (ask a Northerner, a Midwesterner, and a Southerner to pronounce the written word ah), all we have is our best guess, which may be way off. Accents cannot survive the people who speak with them, at least before recording technology was invented.

In the same way, it's probably all but impossible to recreate a Steakburger from 1934. All we have is our best guess on what it may have tasted like. Even if you recreated everything according to what you know (grass-fed beef, less-sweet condiments, etc.), maybe the change in environment has affected the grass itself so that grass-fed beef tastes different than grass-fed beef in 1934.

It's a very interesting idea to consider!
posted by relucent at 10:01 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Start with Sinclair's The Jungle and then come back and tell me whether things were really better back then.

The jungle would have been nearly 30 years old by the time the first Steak n Shake opened. That's like saying 75 years from now that Silent Spring is proof that we dump a lot of DDT on our crops today or Unsafe at Any Speed is an example of today's lax auto safety standards (not saying they aren't lax, just not Corvair lax).
posted by Pollomacho at 10:02 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Definitely, the beef would taste very different.
Although, given the manner in which a Steakburger is prepared (smashed flat as paper on a searing hot griddle), there might be a question as to just how much beef flavor one will get in a bite of Steakburger. There's definitely no juicy thickness to a Steakburger.

As for the bun...probably different, too. Though, even back then, the buns were probably not baked in-house. Even back in 1934, there were commercial bakeries in most cities. Most likely, a bakery was contracted to provide buns to SnS's specs. Today, that's how all restaurants like SnS work. The buns do not arrive frozen. They arrive fresh-bagged on palettes daily from a local or regional bakery. Still, the bread in 1934 most definitely did not contain the emulsifiers, milk solids or, especially, the HFCS that most commercial white breads contain today. The buns in 1934 most likely tasted like actual bread.

I loves me some Steakburger.

My son works nights at SnS (until he can find gainful employment in his actual field...automotive interiors) So, if you want any insider info, let me know.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:06 AM on May 29, 2009


Also, ketchup has always had sugar in it. It's not exactly a new thing.

Corn syrup in ketchup is a new thing.

This suggests that there were feedlot operations in the 30s, but this says they didn't gain in popularity until after WWII, at least in Kansas.

They weren't SOP anywhere until the 1960s. They were developed out of cooperative extension research that built on a long history of piloting and review.
posted by Miko at 10:13 AM on May 29, 2009


Corn syrup in ketchup is a new thing.

Yeah, a lot of people claim to be able to tell the difference between sugar (cane or beet?) and corn syrup, but as far as I know that's yet to be proven. I'm sure there's plenty of anecdata.

They weren't SOP anywhere until the 1960s.

See the 2nd link, which says 25% of cattle in Kansas in 1960 were on feedlots. 1 in 4 isn't bad odds.
posted by electroboy at 10:26 AM on May 29, 2009


(As a now-homesick-for-Steak n Shake person)

I'd wager the cheese is pretty different these days as well, were you to get a Steakburger with Cheese. American cheese existed back then but I have to imagine it was processed so differently that it would taste different.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:55 AM on May 29, 2009


Yeah, looks like processed cheese didn't come about until the 50s, even though it was invented in the 19-teens.
posted by electroboy at 11:13 AM on May 29, 2009


Electroboy, a couple of articles about Kansas with unspecified data don't support your point. First of all, what was called "feedlot" in the 1930s was not a large scale, 1000-head plus confined animal feeding operation. It was generally a 'finishing' lot where cattle raised elsewhere were fattened for market. Even taking that into account, that means that 75% of the beef in Kansas alone came from non-feedlot operations, showing that it wasn't the default. That default was definitely not the case until the 1960s. It was much more common for Americans to eat grass-fed beef through the 1950s.
Across the country a majority of American cattle were fed by small, farmer-owned operations. These farmers used cattle to market their grain. If grain was drawing a satisfactory price, farmers would sell it outright. But if farmers were unsatisfied with the price of corn, barley, or oats, they might market their grain indirectly by feeding it to cattle or hogs. Midwestern feed farmers typically acquired their cattle by attending livestock auctions themselves or by having commission buyers purchase steers or heifers that had been raised and bred by ranchers. The cattle would then be placed in pen lots on the feeders' farms. Small mills on the farms processed the grain used to feed the cattle. For decades this was how the majority of U.S. cattle were "finished." (The "finishing" period was once referred to as "fattening." But as Americans began to limit their fat intake, feeders decided to refer to this stage of the cattle's growth as finishing.)
You can read more about feedlot operations. What you'll find is that techniques and methods have changed greatly since the 1950s, chiefly as a result of agricultural policy and the drive for cheap abundant food.

There's also a big difference between finishing cattle on grain, as was a practice since the 1800s, and raising cattle on grain. That difference accounts for a very distinct taste difference between the types of beef.

Here you have more information about the changes:
The cattle industry of 1898 was not only regional, focused almost entirely in the West, but also differed substantially from today’s industry especially in how cattle were readied for and delivered to market.

The industry was organized to produce steers four or five years old which were shipped by train from local loading stations along the ever-growing network of rail lines to central markets as grass fat steers from July to November.Stockyards provided the accumulation points for cattle coming in on the rail cars. Cattle were not fed as in today’s definitions, but rather sorted and distributed out to packers. There were no feeder or stocker cattle, and heifers were never slaughtered. What feeding there was in the Corn Belt was because midwestern farmers kept cattle to use up excess corn. But this was usually a sideline to their corn and hog economy.
The story of the development of concentrated feedlot operations is one of many steps resulting in today's tens of thousands of head of cattle born on cow-calf operations and delivered to feedlots at a few months of age, raised exclusively on grain, and then slaughtered at about eighteen months. Big, big change, and most of that change has been seen since the 1950s and accelerated rapidly under the agricultural policies of the 1960s.

You will also find this link interesting to read, but here is an important excerpt:

In 1935, the USDA reported that only 5.1 percent of the nation's 42.8 million beef cattle were being fattened in feedlots. By 1963, 66 percent of the steers and heifers slaughtered in the U.S. were being fed grain, and about 40 percent of those were from the highly automated beef factories in the West.

Big difference. Also note the difference between "fattened" and "raised." All of this adds up to the fact that the most commonly available beef of today tastes quite different from the most commonly available beef of 1934. Again, if you don't believe it, a side-by-side taste test of two different raising methods will demonstrate it easily.

a lot of people claim to be able to tell the difference between sugar (cane or beet?) and corn syrup

And a lot of them are food scientists who note that corn syrup used in food manufacture acts differently from cane sugar, producing a different viscosity, moisture content, and prevents blooming and crystallization in ways granulated cane sugar does not. You might not call that 'taste' but it would certainly make a difference in things like ketchup or a bread roll.
posted by Miko at 11:55 AM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


You get a lot more antibiotics now. And portion size is probably much bigger now.
posted by theora55 at 1:08 PM on May 29, 2009


electroboy: Yeah, a lot of people claim to be able to tell the difference between sugar (cane or beet?) and corn syrup, but as far as I know that's yet to be proven. I'm sure there's plenty of anecdata.

You don't need science, you only need your own mouth. Buy a few cans of Pepsi, and a few cans of Pepsi Throwback and compare. Or a few jars of Snapple and Snapple Natural (in the same flavors, natch) and compare. Same company, same product, different sweetener. If you can't taste the difference, then you can't taste it. But to most people it is very distinct, and not at all psychosomatic or suggestion.
posted by paisley henosis at 1:09 PM on May 29, 2009


As someone made the point above, the state of the industry 30 years before the time period we're talking about has little to do with anything. Your links about the state of the cattle industry in 1898 and 1970 don't really support your points either.

Further, parsing the difference between "fattened" and "raised" to prove that these were finishing lots vs. feedlots stretches credibility. It'd be like me stating that since the Kern County Land Co, inventor of the feedlot and described in your third link, was incorporated in 1890 that proves that there were feedlots in existence during the time in question so it's reasonable to assume it could've come from a feedlot. But that's not reasonable. It can't be proven from the source material.

You might not call that 'taste' but it would certainly make a difference in things like ketchup or a bread roll.

I'm not sure how you can say it would "certainly" make a difference. Moisture content and viscosity are the only really applicable difference that you cited (for bread and ketchup, respectively), and that's pretty easily adjusted for. Blooming and crystallization only applies to frozen goods.

If you can't taste the difference, then you can't taste it. But to most people it is very distinct, and not at all psychosomatic or suggestion.

"Most people think this" isn't really proven. I'm certainly willing to admit I'm wrong, but not because a bunch of people say "Oh yeah, I can totally tell. Mexican coke tastes better."
posted by electroboy at 1:37 PM on May 29, 2009


Your links about the state of the cattle industry in 1898 and 1970 don't really support your points either.

Actually, they do. I can tell you didn't read them. 1898 is the starting point taken in the first link, used because it is the founding year of the Cattlemens' association and so a good point for them to begin writing their own history, a long piece excerpted here which gives the background of the industry and describes it pre- WWII. All my links do a fine job supporting my point that the changes in the beef industry that resulted in the trend toward (a) grain raising (b) feedlot operations as the default and (c) younger slaughtering had their start in the 1950s and have expanded in breadth and extremity since that time.

Further, parsing the difference between "fattened" and "raised"

This is a real, and meaningful, difference. It's not some semantic trick. There is a big difference between taking a calf off its mother's milk, and starting it on grain, and raising a calf to the age of three or four years on grass and then fattening it for market on grain during the last three months. Big, big difference. I'm not 'parsing' anything; this is a distinction made by people who raise beef.


Moisture content and viscosity are the only really applicable difference


You can't taste the difference between dry and moist bread? Thin and thick ketchup?

I understand that you're trying to play the skeptic here. But you don't know much about what you're talking about. You really, honestly don't. Do read up on the history of the beef industry. You won't be able to come back and say the beef we have today is produced the same way, or tastes the same way, as the beef raised with the common practices of 1934. It's fine to be a contrarian, but you are at the disadvantage of not knowing your subject, and so your challenges are empty. Read up.
posted by Miko at 3:45 PM on May 29, 2009


You don't need science, you only need your own mouth. Buy a few cans of Pepsi, and a few cans of Pepsi Throwback and compare. Or a few jars of Snapple and Snapple Natural (in the same flavors, natch) and compare. Same company, same product, different sweetener. If you can't taste the difference, then you can't taste it. But to most people it is very distinct, and not at all psychosomatic or suggestion.

The product is not the same. It cannot be. The reason HFCS is used is that it's roughly twice as sweet at the same concentration. This means that the physical concentrations and blends possible between the sweetener and the other ingredients of the soda is different between sugar and HFCS. You reach the saturation point of the water more quickly with sugar than with HFCS. You almost assuredly must adjust the other concentrations to adjust for the difference.

I'll gladly accept that you can tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback or between American and European Coke. But the formulas are different as a whole, not only in sweetener. In the case of Pepsi, they want it to taste different. If they produced a product that tasted exactly the same, they couldn't claim any marked differentiation between their products without coming out and saying, explicitly, that they were caving to the anti-HFCS lobby--which they aren't going to do, because they don't want to lose it as a tool.

The point that I contend is that, with normalized solutions (*not* identical concentrations, identical sweetnesses) of sweetener and distilled water, in a blind taste test, most people probably can't tell the difference.

Also, your steakburger would be totally different. There's no way they haven't intentionally changed their recipe to improve either quality or consistency or to maintain pace with the times. A restaurant that never updates its recipes and procedures eventually dies. But, I do reckon that a steakburger today is an instantiation of the same platonic ideal as the original steakburger.
posted by Netzapper at 4:04 PM on May 29, 2009


The earliest mention of corn feeding and cattle "fattening" in historical proceedings appeared in the late 1800s (Ball, C.E., 1998). That is concurrent with the arrival of British breeds, which were probably more suited to grain fattening than the earlier Spanish derivatives. However, nearly all of the beef consumed in the U.S. for several more decades was from cattle harvested directly off grass or as 200 to 240 kg calves directly off the cow (Wilford, 1951). Researchers (Kemp et al., 1954; Wilford, 1951) reported that consumer acceptability of meat from calves was very good and that many of the calves graded high Good or Choice. Published research showing the impact of feeding corn to weaned calves or yearlings did not appear until the 1950s. Most studies (Craig and Blumer, 1956; Butler et al., 1956; Kidwell et al., 1958; King et al., 1958; and Zinn et al., 1970) indicated the concentrate portion of the diet at 40 to 60 percent of total dry matter intake. By the mid-1950s, the published research began to show the effect of feeding a higher proportion of the diet as corn, or even using all-concentrate diets. Perry et al. (1956) claimed to be the first to report the use of an all-corn grain diet for fattening steers.
The development of a beef industry, heavily dependent on corn utilization, began to occur in the 1940s. Begun as a means to add value to the grain while improving consumer acceptance of beef, corn has become an integral part of beef production.
Before World War II, most Americans had never eaten corn-fed beef. Raised on pasture, cattle reared before the 1950s usually took two or three years to be ready for the slaughterhouse. Steers were fed grain only occasionally and in small quantities, and farmers tended to use corn as a supplement—not a staple—of their livestock’s diets.
A close-up of two cows confined with several other cows, each with a red numbered tag hanging from one ear...

Before World War II, most Americans had never eaten corn-fed beef. Raised on pasture, cattle reared before the 1950s usually took two or three years to be ready for the slaughterhouse. Steers were fed grain only occasionally and in small quantities, and farmers tended to use corn as a supplement—not a staple—of their livestock’s diets. But as American corn production skyrocketed in the post-War era, and as the economic boom of the 1950s prompted higher consumer demand for meat, farmers and ranchers turned to a new practice: fattening their cattle on corn. Cheaper and more efficient than grass, corn enabled cattle to be brought to market in as few as 15 months. Moreover, it allowed farmers to feed cattle in confined pens or lots, reducing ranchers’ land costs and limiting their risk of losing livestock to predators and bad weather. With cheaper feed in the equation, beef prices fell, and Americans began to purchase more and more beef, most of it corn-fed. By 1960, Americans ate a yearly average of more than 66 pounds of beef each. By 1975, that number had grown to 88.5 pounds of beef per person, per year.
Not talking out my ass here; this is an area I deal with for work. There is plenty to read up on, if you're interested in proving to yourself that corn-feeding as the default consumer beef production model is a development that falls within the last 75 years.
posted by Miko at 4:12 PM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Fact Sheet: Feedlot Finishing Cattle Cattle feeding became more prevalent after World War I and through the Great Depression, but wasn’t fully developed on a commercial scale until after World War II, when grain was plentiful, the economy was robust and consumers demanded tender, good tasting beef that was available year-round. Beef producers found that by finishing cattle uniformly, with plentiful feed grains, it was possible to reduce costs and provide a high quality product consumers valued.

By far, most U.S. cattle feeding operations today are small, with fewer than 1,000 head. However, the 5 percent of operations with more than 1,000 head finish more than 80 percent of fed cattle...The abundance of feed corn in this country contributes to the economic viability of producing grain-fed cattle. In fact, it will often cost more to raise cattle on pasture because it takes longer for the animal to reach market weight. That is why grass-finished beef can be more expensive than grain-fed product..
posted by Miko at 4:19 PM on May 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


The point that I contend is that, with normalized solutions (*not* identical concentrations, identical sweetnesses) of sweetener and distilled water, in a blind taste test, most people probably can't tell the difference.

This might be true, but is actually an argument for the point that the ketchup and bread are likely to taste different. Because there is different sweetness concentration and physical state of the ingredients, other adaptations in the recipe - different amounts of liquid and dry ingredients, and salt - are probably required. When cooking historic recipes I often have to make adjustments for ingredients that have changed, such as modern-day milk and buttermilk, butter, and flour. Replacing sugar with corn syrup would mean a different recipe formulation for the products it's used in.
posted by Miko at 4:30 PM on May 29, 2009


Netzapper: I'll gladly accept that you can tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback or between American and European Coke. But the formulas are different as a whole, not only in sweetener. In the case of Pepsi, they want it to taste different. If they produced a product that tasted exactly the same, they couldn't claim any marked differentiation between their products without coming out and saying, explicitly, that they were caving to the anti-HFCS lobby--which they aren't going to do, because they don't want to lose it as a tool.

The point that I contend is that, with normalized solutions (*not* identical concentrations, identical sweetnesses) of sweetener and distilled water, in a blind taste test, most people probably can't tell the difference.


That might be true, you might be right. But both Pepsi and Snapple are driving their marketing directly to the anti-HFCS crowd, advertising "natural sugar" and so on. Personally, I found them each to be far, far too sweet, and drank only a half a container of each, but then I don't really drink softdrinks normally, either.

Miko, thanks for all of your posts about feedlots and grain finishing. electroboy seems to be deliberately missing the point, but I find it all very interesting.
posted by paisley henosis at 5:33 PM on May 29, 2009


A lot of things at Trader Joe's (and Whole Foods, maybe?) are sweetened with cane juice. I can taste that nasty brew, even when I fail to read the ingredient label. Soups with cane juice in are the only things I've ever returned to Trader Joe's.
posted by sugarfish at 7:08 PM on May 29, 2009


Great discussion. And we didn't even get started on serving size. (It affects flavor, I swear it does!)
posted by thebrokedown at 12:18 AM on May 30, 2009


But you don't know much about what you're talking about. You really, honestly don't.

You're certainly welcome to say that I don't, but the fact remains that the post I responded to had links that just didn't support your claims. If you go back and read posts, I've made two separate claims:

1. Feedlots started in the 30s, but didn't gain popularity until after WW2, with a followup that said 25% of cattle in Kansas in 1960 were products of feedlots. Implying that in 1960 your chances of getting a feedlot cow in Kansas were about 25%.

2. Sweeteners in ketchup are not a new thing and that people generally can't tell the difference between HFCS and sugar.

As for point 1, I'm not claiming that it absolutely tasted the same, just that the possibility existed that S&S received feedlot beef. Your link even states that 5% of cattle in 1935 were fattened on feedlots. And I stand by my claim that you're parsing words inappropriately. You linked to document that's a broad historical overview. It's not known whether they're using technical terminology appropriately or not. Your followup links are informative, but they're arguing against a point I didn't make.

You can't taste the difference between dry and moist bread? Thin and thick ketchup?

As for point 2, you've stated yourself that you adjust recipes according to available ingredients. You don't think industrial producers would do the same? They just plop in the HFCS and say "Oh no, now our ketchup is runny!" That's ridiculous. Wouldn't any sane manufacturer adjust recipes to ensure continuity of taste and texture? You have to know the recipe to know whether you're making a substantive change to the end product. For example in this recipe if you were to use HFCS instead of sugar, you could simply simmer the ketchup for slightly longer to drive off additional moisture. No essential change in the end product.

You're missing that there are multiple variables in any recipe that affect the qualities of the end product. For example, if you're in the South, the flour available to you is likely low protein, making your buns lighter and cakier. If you're closer to Canada you get higher protein wheat, and even then the protein content depends on the season. Did S&S or their contract bakers control for this? Maybe.

To hang the differences on HFCS or whether or not the beef was grass fed sort of misses the point that how a burger tasted in 1939 is practically unknowable, without knowing anything about the historical supply line of S&S, their recipes and those million other variables you'd have to control for to come anywhere close to duplicating the original product. The best you can hope for is a qualified "maybe", absent the input of someone who was actually alive at the time and has a vague recollection of what an S&S burger actually tasted like. And that doesn't even account for changes in recipe in response to changing consumer tastes, refrigeration, meat quality standards and on and on.
posted by electroboy at 7:15 PM on May 31, 2009


To hang the differences on HFCS or whether or not the beef was grass fed sort of misses the point that how a burger tasted in 1939 is practically unknowable,

The question was: Did it taste different?

The answer, to an overwhelming degree of likelihood, is yes.

The rest is handwaving. There is more than enough information both here in the links, and in the reams of agricultural history available to the curious researcher, to establish that changes in farming practice and in industrial food production have occurred which make it quite unlikely that the beef in a 1934 hamburger eaten anywhere around the country was corn-fed. You can certainly argue that the burgers could have tasted the same, but probability is not in your favor, and that's on only the one issue. Even if we accept your one brief link about the one state of Kansas having 'feedlots,' the feedlots of 1960 were different from the feedlots of today, and we don't know what the feeding practices were on those feedlots. Even if they were feeding corn, the strains of corn used today are most often recently developed proprietary hybrid strains that did not exist in 1934. So it doesn't lend much support to your argument to lean on this brief and vague mention.

No essential change in the end product.


Just false. There's a reason additives and process changes have occurred in modern food production: there's a perceived advantage. Often in consistency, and often in flavor profile as well. Ketchup prior to the introduction of many modern practices did have issues that people considered negatives and sought to ameliorate. THey didn't simply adjust and say "hey! Perfect ketchup!" They hadn't discovered the formulations yet that achieved the effects they wanted:
Modern ketchup emerged in the early years of the 20th century, out of a debate over the use of sodium benzoate as a preservative in condiments. Harvey W. Wiley, the "father" of the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S., challenged the safety of benzoate. In response, entrepreneurs, particularly Henry J. Heinz, pursued an alternative recipe that eliminated the need for that preservative.

Prior to Heinz (and his fellow innovators), commercial tomato ketchups of that time were watery and thin, in part due to the use of unripe tomatoes, which were low in pectin. They were also less vinegary than modern ketchups; by pickling ripe tomatoes, the need for benzoate was eliminated without spoilage or degradation in flavor. But the changes driven by the desire to eliminate benzoate also produced changes that some experts (such as Andrew F. Smith[3]) believe were key to the establishment of tomato ketchup as the dominant American condiment.

Until Heinz, most commercial ketchups appealed to two of the basic tastes: bitterness and saltiness. But the switch to ripe tomatoes and more tomato solids added a stronger umami taste, and the major increase in the concentration of vinegar added sourness and pungency to the range of sensations experienced during its consumption.
It's not as though there has been a normative process at work at which all foods were formulated in whatever way necessary to achieve an abstract ideal. Foods change. They meet the desires of their times and use the resources available in their times. Recipes change. Popular tastes change. REgional preferences change. Technology changes.

Since I work with heritage/heirloom plants and animals, and recreate historic recipes using technology contemporary to the time the recipe was recorded, I can vouch for this in a very empirical way - using methods and ingredient stock and recipes from the past, we create food that tastes really different than analogous food prepared using today's formulations. HFCS and other modern additives and processes have a different effect on formulation - just as moving from the moisture-containing, reflective heat of a tin kitchen creates a different flavor in a roasted chicken than does the dry, enveloping even heat of a wood cookstove. Same chicken, same temp, different taste. Now vary the method of raising the chicken. Use eggs from chickens raised on yard scratch and chickens raised on feed. Different. They taste different, because the inputs are all different.

It's simply not likely, given the many and vast changes in popular taste, agricultural methods, plant varieties, and processing methods over the last 70 years, that a burger made 70 years ago would be indistinguishable from one today. It's extreme to claim that an exact taste match would even be possible. Barring an experimental environment dead set on recreating exact conditions from the past, it really wouldn't be.

Did the burger from this week taste different from a burger from that business in 1934? You can make a safe bet it did.
posted by Miko at 8:05 PM on May 31, 2009


Even if we accept your one brief link about the one state of Kansas having 'feedlots,' the feedlots of 1960 were different from the feedlots of today

That was offered as proof that they existed in the 60s, which you said they essentially didn't. Since we're talking about the 30s it's sort of neither here nor there.

Even if they were feeding corn, the strains of corn used today are most often recently developed proprietary hybrid strains that did not exist in 1934.

Now that's handwaving. You're honestly claiming that there's a detectable difference in beef raised on hybridized corn versus the available varieties in the 30s? Please.

There's a reason additives and process changes have occurred in modern food production: there's a perceived advantage.

Well sure, no one is changing just to change. HFCS is popular because it's cheap and can improve texture, but it still doesn't mean that people can taste the difference. And since taste is what we're talking about, it's an important point. But in the specific example I gave, you're being disingenuous if you claim there'd be a distinguishable difference.

It's simply not likely...a burger made 70 years ago would be indistinguishable from one today.

Again, which I'm not arguing. But you seem to suggest that it would be almost unrecognizable due to the difference in beef and ketchup. Given that the cooking method hasn't changed, it's still done on a flat top and given that we're talking about middling grade beef at the height of the Depression, we're not talking about something with a particularly complex flavor profile. If you go back to what I originally said, it was "maybe not all that different", not "exactly the same".

I don't object to the claim that it tasted different. I object to the idea that food was radically different and the constant editorializing over how the food was "better", back then.
posted by electroboy at 7:51 AM on June 2, 2009


you seem to suggest that it would be almost unrecognizable

Never said that.

It would taste noticeably different. Not "not all that different," noticeably different.

Since I eat food prepared using both historic recreations of ingredients and methods and modern ingredients and methods, I have strong experiential basis for saying this, and would be happy to feed anyone who cares to visit me so that I can demonstrate the flavor differences. "Better" is a matter of taste - obviously the general commercial palate is accepting of what can be bought in the store - but the perception of difference is available to anyone whose senses are not unusually dull. The flavor differences between corn-fed, industrially raised beef and grass-fed, pastured beef are marked. Not subtle. It would be no trick to tell one from another in a blind test, again, assuming the taster's taste receptors are normal.

I understand that you have a personal reaction to people who "editorialize" about how food used to be. Where I'm coming from is not a romantic editorialization based on imperfect memory. I'm coming from a decade in public history including raising, processing, and cooking food using methods and ingredients that are accurate to time periods from the 1600s to the 1950s. I don't have to rely on memory - we have the ability to do side-by-side tasting and comparison. We adapt historic recipes to modern ingredients, and modern recipes to historic ingredients. Also, since I'm active in the local food movement, which is strong here, it's easy to taste a range of products created using different methodologies and compare the results of these methods. The only subjectivity really lies in the difficulty of describing and quantifying 'taste,' but I am absolutely sure that even without a bun and ketchup, I could serve you a grass-fed, pastured burger from a four-year-old cow and a burger from a commercially raised cow slaughtered at two and a half years, and you would be able to tell the difference every single time, by taste, texture, and even measurable qualities such as fattiness.

Betty Fussell, by the way, wrote a book about beef recently which had slipped my mind, or I would certainly have mentioned it earlier as a good source on ranching practice. She was interviewed about it in Saveur:
Saveur: You've written about corn twice, and you say that you "didn't realize American beef had become as much an industrial by-product of corn as ethanol is". Can you speak about your thoughts on the state of American agriculture and farming today?

Betty Fussell: When I was investigating corn, it was the 1980s. That was 25 years ago. In this country, we go very fast. We hadn't even instituted the rigors of corn-fed processing until just 25 years before that. It took that long for people to understand what was happening because of the speed and volume with which it occurred—which is always true with us. You know, people say, "Let's go up to the moon." And then within five years, they say, "Oh! We have!" So then we have people saying, "Oh, let's feed cows corn." Whoops! Now we have an entirely corn-fed industry. When I was looking at corn, it was very much in the past: where it got started and how we were a corn-based nation economically. I didn't realize its intimate ties to beef, because that was just happening, and it has only increased in the past 25 years with corn. Structurally, it has marginalized every other method of raising cattle.
posted by Miko at 9:06 AM on June 2, 2009


Nice coincidence - someone emailed me a TED talk in which Malcolm Gladwell relates stories of food science, perfecting the formulations of Pepsi and spaghetti sauce. He doesn't keep the focus on the food industry, but it gives some idea of the types of significant changes in flavor even a simple food (a branded soda, spaghetti sauce) can undergo over a history of adaptation and innovation.
posted by Miko at 3:11 PM on June 2, 2009


« Older I need a good orthodontist in Toronto.   |   Fecal Coliform question Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.