General IN-N-OUT

[Bruce Bergman]

Originally Posted by Mad Madame Momba

One would suppose that with all the hub-bub about the dangers of trans fats that IN-N-OUT would've gotten rid of the trans fat content in their food by now like many other fast-food restaurants, but they haven't. I just finished studying one of their nutritional info pamplets and there's a full 1 gram of trans fat in their Vanilla & Chocolate Shakes and the Double-Double. Medical experts say the only safe amount of trans fats is NO trans fats. Now why is IN-N-OUT being so unconcerned about this?

Because low levels are really a non-issue to most people. And those who whine about it are perceived as an annoyance.

It costs a lot of money to reformulate recipes and ingredients to remove all possible traces of (real or potential) bad stuff like trans-fats, or to put up calorie counts of every item on the menu, or other things that the "nanny state" wants. But you'll notice that the government agencies that pass these laws never offer to pay those costs, even partially...

Life is a risk. You change things to reduce the risks where you can, and where it makes economic sense to do so - yet some people want all possible risks eliminated no matter the cost.

There are times when reducing a risk to an acceptable minimum is no big deal, but it becomes very expensive to go that last step from substantially reduced to totally eliminated. And living life wrapped in three feet of bubble wrap would be incredibly boring.

Take "Smog" - When we reduced it to an acceptable minimum, they moved the target and made it 'bad' again - what we call 'Bad" now would have been a beautiful day under the old criteria. But we have gone about as far as you can go in cleaning up the internal combustion engine, and further improvements would be incrementally tiny yet massively expensive.

--<< Bruce >>--

[Mad Madame Momba]

Originally Posted by Bruce Bergman

Because low levels are really a non-issue to most people. And those who whine about it are perceived as an annoyance.

Why does it have to be an annoyance? When it comes to personal health, I think we all have the right to be, at the very least, annoyed with the dangers that non-regulated food product companies try to pass off for public consumption.

Originally Posted by Bruce Bergman

It costs a lot of money to reformulate recipes and ingredients to remove all possible traces of (real or potential) bad stuff like trans-fats, or to put up calorie counts of every item on the menu, or other things that the "nanny state" wants. But you'll notice that the government agencies that pass these laws never offer to pay those costs, even partially....

KFC has done it! Can you really admit to not wanting to eat a product that has less chance of giving you some sort of disease, even if the food product does cost you more?

Why should the government give THEM money, when it is the financial and legal responsibility of the business to give the consumer a safe product.

Originally Posted by Bruce Bergman

Take "Smog" - When we reduced it to an acceptable minimum, they moved the target and made it 'bad' again - what we call 'Bad" now would have been a beautiful day under the old criteria. But we have gone about as far as you can go in cleaning up the internal combustion engine, and further improvements would be incrementally tiny yet massively expensive.

Well, this is off the topic but since you brought it up I have to comment:
That's why it's so important that alternative energy be developed. And any clean-up from the old kind of energy should be paid for by whatever business did the damage.

--<< Bruce >>--[/quote]

[One_Rev]

Hey, I have an Idea. If you don't like whats on the channel, change it. If you don't like what's on the radio turn it. If you don't like In and Out, don't go there. I don't go to Jack in the Box anymore because they changed the fries, I don't go to McDonalds anymore because they are so uppity about what time they serve hamburgers "We are serving breakfast now". I go to In and Out because I like the meat and fries. Oh yeah, I like fried fish and fried chicken and I suppose I'll die one of these days too.
Cheesh

Mike
Over weight in Lakeside

[Mad Madame Momba]

Originally Posted by One_Rev

Hey, I have an Idea. If you don't like whats on the channel, change it. If you don't like what's on the radio turn it. If you don't like In and Out, don't go there. I don't go to Jack in the Box anymore because they changed the fries, I don't go to McDonalds anymore because they are so uppity about what time they serve hamburgers "We are serving breakfast now". I go to In and Out because I like the meat and fries. Oh yeah, I like fried fish and fried chicken and I suppose I'll die one of these days too.
Cheesh

Mike
Over weight in Lakeside

Perhaps you're missing the point here. The discussion was not whether or not I like IN-N-OUT, but rather why IN-N-OUT isn't adhering to better quality standards. With their contemporaries already going that route it just makes me wonder why they aren't.

[scotprincess]

Actually you are wrong. McDonalds still has transfats McDonald's USA - McDonald's Nutrition Facts thats their nutritional menu in fact they have more than in n out.

[Bruce Bergman]

Originally Posted by Mad Madame Momba

Perhaps you're missing the point here. The discussion was not whether or not I like IN-N-OUT, but rather why IN-N-OUT isn't adhering to better quality standards. With their contemporaries already going that route it just makes me wonder why they aren't.

"Their contemporaries" at McDonalds, Jack In the Box et. al. each have thousands of stores and can afford to reformulate items and can dictate changes they want made to their suppliers.

Up until quite recently In-N-Out was a small chain without the food science resources and industry clout to do those things. They have been upholding high standards on their raw ingredients for many years - they specify the kind of potatoes, fresh beef of certain cuts, etc. They don't buy frozen potatoes, or frozen anything. The only freezers I know of are in the break-room fridges.

But for the factory premade items like the dairy-based milkshake mixes and the like, unless a small restaurant chain wants to pay a LOT more for custom packaged products, or spend a lot of labor making it themselves from the raw ingrediedts (and then getting the Health Department in each locality to sign off on their "homemade" products, which would be a serious challenge!) they have to buy what the supplier makes.

It's only recently that trans-fats have been identified as a potential health concern, and one gram is not a high level. They'll probably get them out eventually, when they decide that the problem is worth solving. Yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!" isn't going to speed that up dramatically.

If you don't like a particular ingredient in the food, then you are free to not go there.

And please never again commit the cardinal sin of chopping off the second half of a sentence that has critical parts of the thought in it. You did that to me three posts above, and it is not honest. That is only one step shy of deliberately misquoting. If you must edit a sentence, be careful that you do not alter the meaning or intent in the process.

Now then, it's dinner time, and I don't feel like cooking - Hey, we've never been to the new (Woodland Hills North) West Hills In-N-Out...

--<< Bruce >>--

[Mad Madame Momba]

Originally Posted by Bruce Bergman

"Their contemporaries" at McDonalds, Jack In the Box et. al. each have thousands of stores and can afford to reformulate items and can dictate changes they want made to their suppliers.

Up until quite recently In-N-Out was a small chain without the food science resources and industry clout to do those things. They have been upholding high standards on their raw ingredients for many years - they specify the kind of potatoes, fresh beef of certain cuts, etc. They don't buy frozen potatoes, or frozen anything. The only freezers I know of are in the break-room fridges.

But for the factory premade items like the dairy-based milkshake mixes and the like, unless a small restaurant chain wants to pay a LOT more for custom packaged products, or spend a lot of labor making it themselves from the raw ingrediedts (and then getting the Health Department in each locality to sign off on their "homemade" products, which would be a serious challenge!) they have to buy what the supplier makes.

It's only recently that trans-fats have been identified as a potential health concern, and one gram is not a high level. They'll probably get them out eventually, when they decide that the problem is worth solving. Yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!" isn't going to speed that up dramatically.

If you don't like a particular ingredient in the food, then you are free to not go there.

And please never again commit the cardinal sin of chopping off the second half of a sentence that has critical parts of the thought in it. You did that to me three posts above, and it is not honest. That is only one step shy of deliberately misquoting. If you must edit a sentence, be careful that you do not alter the meaning or intent in the process.

Now then, it's dinner time, and I don't feel like cooking - Hey, we've never been to the new (Woodland Hills North) West Hills In-N-Out...

--<< Bruce >>--

There, Mr. Bergman, I fixed my post to include everything you said in your post so as not to confuse readers that aren't capable of thinking to scroll up and read your original post (I wonder, are there readers that wouldn't think of doing that? Nah!).

Now as for the cardinal sin rule....who made that one up? I've never heard of it even in terms of common courtesy. By not following someone else's rules doesn't mean I'm being dishonest (I must attribute that idea to something I just read by a very wise person)!

Even so, I wouldn't want to be accused of misleading the readers into thinking you said one thing but meant another, because it's just not right to provide information that is profitable only to one side. Now if I could just get the food industry to think the same way!

[Mad Madame Momba]

Originally Posted by scotprincess

Actually you are wrong. McDonalds still has transfats McDonald's USA - McDonald's Nutrition Facts thats their nutritional menu in fact they have more than in n out.

I stand corrected.

[Bruce Bergman]

"Cardinal Sin" was a bit of hyperbole, but you need to take more care when editing other people's words. Chopping out important parts of a sentence can completely change the meaning, and then you twist the words into something not intended.

Example: You don't choose to quote the first half of a sentence that goes "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny" and discard the second half that goes "...except on days that end in Y." That would turn the example statement from an obvious joke into rampant cynicism.

Oh, and when you edit to add bold or italics to someone elses' quoted statements, you have modified the statements. It's not that bad, but you should add a note as a courtesy (Italics and Emphasis mine) or something to that effect at the end of the paragraph.

Now, back to the subject. Yes, trans-fats are bad, but there is debate as to how bad, and in what quantities they are bad - where is the dividing line between "trace amounts" and enough to do damage. And it's only recently that they have hit the public radar at all. They shouldn't be there in large quantities, true - but what constitutes large? The jury is still out.

At KFC 3/4 of the menu is fried, and/or has oils used in preparation - for them it made sense to reformulate the recipes and change the cooking oils. McDonalds made a big hoopla about getting all the trans-fats out - and then someone spot checked and found out they hadn't actually completed it yet... Which hurried them on their way a whole lot faster.

Perfection is an honorable goal to aspire to - but you also have to deal with reality. The food industry has to balance the cost of getting all possible traces of things like trans-fats out of foods versus the costs and the actual or potential harm.

Things that are a known major hazard like using Ethylene Glycol as a sweetener and thickener in toothpaste, yers, you get it all out now, there are many safe alternatives. Or putting poisonous substances like Melamine in powdered dry milk to boost the protein level on the buyer's acceptance tests of the product - and also destroy the livers of any consumers of the product, yes, you have to stop that instantly.

Trans-fats are still at the suspected bad stage. Avoid them, yes, but Don't Panic quite yet about getting every little trace out of everything anyone eats - The first 95% is easy to remove, but that last 5% can be seriously expensive.

--<< Bruce >>--

[Mad Madame Momba]

Tell ya what, Bruce. Just to be safe, how 'bout next time I decide to post something to you, I'll send it to you first for editing.

[clarabellecow]

Originally Posted by awaflyboy

Just curious, is it possible to get a 2x3? two meat patties and 3 slices of cheese?

Yes, you can get any combination. They will not go past a 4X4 in the bun but you can then add flying dutchmans to make bigger. In-N-Out website on facebook talks about USC students coming in and ordering 100X100's.

[Captain Green]

i LOVE in-n-out! i live about 5 min from one in Northern California