While watching sports on television recently--I can't recall whether it was an NFL game, or the MLB playoffs--I actually found myself paying close attention to a commercial. Which is weird for me--usually I read a book or magazine during the ad break, or use the bathroom, or at the very least pay the television screen no mind. (I know many (most?) U.S. viewers have TiVo, or the like, and may fast forward through all commercials, but in my Luddite household we don't have that technology.) Anyway, it was for the Impossible Whopper, from the Burger King fast food chain, which is their meatless burger. After test marketing it in several locations, this product was made available worldwide in early August of 2019. I was intrigued. Only a few days later I brought home both an Impossible Whopper, and its, "Possible," regular, original meat-ed kin. To do a proper comparison.
As it turns out, meatless burgers have become a bit of a trend in the restaurant world recently, even with fast food establishments. To mention just some of them, Carl's Jr., The Cheesecake Factory, Red Robin, A & W, Hardee's, Dave & Busters, and TGI Fridays all have one. Even the (in)famous White Castle does! You may be asking, "What about McDonald's, the undisputed king of burgers?" Well, they're trailing behind a little. They have a meatless burger being sold in Germany currently, called the Big Vegan TS, and reportedly a meatless chicken nugget variety somewhere else in Europe, but nothing in the U.S. thus far. Probably this will change if the Burger King Impossible Whopper, or the other chains' meatless burgers are huge successes, I suppose. There seems to be two main kinds of meatless burger sold by these places--a pea protein-based one (called a Beyond Burger), and a wheat/potato/soy protein-based kind, usually referred to as an Impossible Burger.
The makeup of the Impossible Whopper is complicated. DNA from leghemoglobin from soybean roots is first extracted, and then fermented with genetically engineered yeast, somewhat similar to the brewing process of certain Belgian beers. This is called the "heme." This heme is then combined with potato protein, coconut oil, sunflower oil, methylcellulose, and food starch to make the actual burger patty. Originally, in 2016, the recipe also included wheat. However, by 2019 the wheat was phased out. Therefore the Impossible Whopper is now billed as gluten-free. Which, of course, is only the case if the patty is eaten without the bun. There's been some controversy in the vegetarian/vegan community about the burger, though. Because unless the customer asks specifically, the Impossible Whopper is cooked in the same broiler with its meat-ed cousins. Meaning some contamination would occur. So bear that in mind if you're strict about such things. Also, Burger King usually puts mayo on the burger, so if you're vegan you'll have to ask that it be left off, along with no cheese, too. Speaking of dietary restrictions, the Impossible Whopper is certified Halal and Kosher.
Anyway, here's what I did.I tried to make it as scientifically valid as I could, without getting too nuts. Meaning the experiment was single blind--I had someone cut up each burger into quarters, and then I ate each piece separately, and predicted which one it was. After I was finished with both, I compared my list with what was actually served. Alas, Burger King hadn't put ketchup on the burgers, so I did need to take the top bun off every sample and apply this condiment. I did though, try to do this quickly, and without looking as much as possible. Since each Whopper had lettuce, onions, tomatoes, mayo, and cheese on it, I didn't get a good look at the patty. I also avoided much or any contact or conversation with my server, to avoid a "Clever Hans" type break of scientific accuracy. Before I started I thought this test would be relatively easy. I've had several meatless burgers over the years (see September 14, 2014 post), and always found them to be distinctively different than meat-ed ones. Even the meatless burgers I thought tasted okay still were markedly different. However, to my shock, I had enormous difficulty telling the Impossible Whopper apart from the regular Whopper. So much so that I just gave it my best guesses. The results were telling. The first four samples I got wrong, and the last four I guessed right. Or, basically, it was a coin flip.
So, a reader might be saying, "The Impossible Whopper is a success! He couldn't tell the difference between it and the kind made with beef." And yes, in that way the Impossible Whopper was a success, at least to my taste buds. Kudos to the Burger King chefs and food scientists--the heme and starch and such really mimicked the meat. But, important caveat--both these burgers weren't great. They were both mediocre at best. As far as burgers go, I much prefer those from White Castle, or Red Robin, or Fuddruckers, or Five Guys, or Wendy's, or......you get the idea. Even McDonald's burgers are better. All in all, if you'r a fan of the Burger King Whopper, you might well enjoy the Impossible Whopper as a change of pace. Or if you've recently become vegetarian or vegan (assuming you get them to prepare it separately, etc). And it wasn't terrible. So even if you're not a huge fan of Burger King, you might want to give it a try, for an experiment, or a goof. But my recommendations for the Impossible Whopper (and the regular kind) must be only lukewarm.
Finally, if you're thinking about having the Impossible Whopper because it's healthier, well, that's only slightly true, sort of. It actually has more carbs and sodium than the beef kind. Also, the burger's calories, fat, and saturated fat totals are lower, but only by a little bit--630 vs. 660, 34 vs. 40, and 10 vs. 12, respectively. Moving on, I guess extracting DNA from roots is expensive, as the Impossible Whopper was pretty pricey--both kinds of Whopper were over $5.00. (For the single burgers--I didn't get a value meal.)
No comments:
Post a Comment