Does the notion of a "snack wrap" enrage you? Apparently it enrages a certain L'Etoile pastry chef, who is a casual acquaintance/wife of blogger ZMurder. According to Mr. Murder, numerous holes in the walls of his palatial Gorham Street home bear evidence of her anger when she sees the McDonald's Snack Wrap advertised. And despite his claims of slipping on a banana peel and falling down the stairs, Z's own broken ribs and facial bruises testify to this, too.
Whence her outrage? Supposedly she insists that it is foolish to qualify the name of this product with the word "snack." A wrap is a wrap, her logic goes, and there is no need to label it as anything else.
I contend that Mrs. Murder's anger is misguided, and refute her with the following.
First, this is a matter of size. A wrap is not simply a wrap if it is a small portion. If this wrap does not measure up to standard wraps, we should deem it snack-sized, and to make this distinction perfectly clear to consumers, we should label it as such. This is a public courtesy to customers so that they do not receive something unexpected.
Critics, of course, will contend that "snack" is in the mouth of the beholder, and we cannot define a "one size fits all" snack. Certainly anything can be a snack--or a meal--to somebody, but again it is important to consider variation in size. We need to distinguish this wrap from other, larger wraps. We must also take into account McDonald's intentions for this wrap. They intend it to be a snack; you are free to do with it as you please, but you are aware of their intentions. Now, it is understandable that Z's wife might not realize that these products are snack-sized. After all, weighing in at a petite 43 pounds, she might consider one of these wraps a full meal. But think of 290-pound (all muscle) ZMurder or my own 600-pound father, likely the more frequent McDonald's customers. This is hardly a meal to them. The libertarians among us, I hope, will be pleased that we are letting the market define a "snack."
But wait, the issue is still complicated. As I reflected on my recent delicious meal of a honey mustard (crispy) chicken snack wrap and french fries (compliments of my driving student), I thought I had conclusively solved the matter. The wrap is approximately the same size as the medium fries, I thought, and we'd hardly consider the fries a main course, so clearly the wrap is of snack size! The first counterpoint to that, which Z supposed his wife would propose, is that we wouldn't call them "snack fries" despite their clearly being snack material, and that likewise there is no need to call the wrap a "snack wrap." The second counterargument I envision is a response to the previous paragraph: yes, wraps now come in various sizes, but so do orders of french fries, and again, no one is calling any of them "snack fries." My answer to these points is that fries are a known food item, deeply embedded in our culture and our arteries. The people can accept different sizes of just "fries." They are not ready for different sizes of wraps. And please don't believe that I consider myself above them; I make no claim to be ready for multiple wrap sizes either.
Perhaps the future will allow us to drop "snack" from the name, but now is too soon.
Please share your thoughts on this matter and Food Theory in general. There are many issues to discuss and debate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
ZMurder's logic is airtight here. I agree that what constitutes a snack is a matter of scale. It doesn't change what a wrap is, by definition.
Let's talk pizza. Is a pizza without tomato sauce still a pizza? Like one with pesto sauce? I argue that without tomato sauce, it ceases to be a pizza and becomes more of a huge, open-faced sandwich for hippies.
Here's my mug: don't tell me what's a snack and what's not a snack. I can decide for myself.
You can all go fuck yourselves.
This food item is probably targeted towards women. Women, in general, tend to watch what they eat more than men (remember my brat picturs, Huge?). Thus, there is a societal pressure on women to eat like a bird. This pressure exerts guilt. McDonalds has skirted this by calling the snack wrap a "snack". By calling it a snack, there is less guilt associated with it, and therefore more people will buy it.
Calorically speaking, the snack wrap probably isn't a snack. I would be willing to bet that the snack wrap has as many calories as the medium fries. As you mention in the blog, you purchased fries with your snack wrap. Together, these would certainly be considered a meal. Separately, it could be a meal or a snack. It depends upon the eater. As you point out, it may not be a snack for certain people...easpecially kids.
Ultimately, one has to consider the purpose of the snack wrap. Would you just swing in to McDonalds because you have the munchies? I know I wouldn't for two reasons: 1) I don't want to become morbidly obese; and 2) if I want a snack, I'll eat some crackers at home...naked. People go to McDonalds to get a meal; not a snack.
I've actually eaten the Snack Wrap. In fact, I once consumed two of them at one sitting, thus, I guess, transforming them into a meal. Which brings up another question, how many snacks does it take to constitute a meal?
My larger problem is that the wraps tasted like shit and were expensive. If one is to label something a snack, indeed, said item should be priced accordingly.
My guess is they label it a wrap so as to avoid confusing the item with Mexican food, which has been tried at McDonald's before with mixed results. Where the snack comes from is probably a mixture of Reyerson logic and a desire for McDonald's HQ to create a need to patronize McDonald's outlets between traditional meal times. One doesn't pop into McD for a Double Quarter Pounder "snack," but there's nothing piggy about a chicken finger rolled into a flavorless flour parchment, consumed before dinner.
OK, so if a snack may be defined by it's say, fat or caloric intake, there are a few things to look at. According to McDonald's, a hamburger has less calories and fat than any snack wrap. But, a hamburger is small there and might constitute a snack to an average adult consumer of Mickey D's. A medium fry beats all the wraps in terms of calories and fat, but not by much, so perhaps they can be in the same category. Oh, and I don't eat like a bird, so I want to know when my wrap is a snackable size or when it's full blown meal wrap.
I could swear there is a catfish torpedo basket at Long John Silver's, but I can't find it on their menu. What makes it a torpedo?
I think it would be better as the Catfish Torpedo BOX. Or Catfish Torpedo Hot Box.
Post a Comment