When is a Pork Rib not a Rib?

The answer: when it is a McRib.

I had a McRib for lunch yesterday.  The last time I had it was a very long time ago, but honestly I don’t remember exactly how it was like except for the memory of its heavy BBQ sauce flavor.  The refresh did not bring any surprises.  For $2.99 plus tax, I got a roll in which there lies an approximately 2 inch by 5 inch thin slab of pork ground drenched in BBQ sauce and sprinkled with few pieces of onion and slices of pickles.  Just like the last time, the only taste left in my mouth afterwards was the flavor of BBQ sauce.  In few years, I would probably not be able to recall if I had a McRib or McNuggets with BBQ dipping sauce!

I have to admit the main reason I went for McRib was the “limited time availability” of McRib nationwide promotion and the “Save the McRib” marketing stomp McDonald’s had pulled.  I simply haven’t had it for a very long time and just didn’t want to pass up this opportunity as the next time it appears in my neighborhood could be another 15 years or more.  If you look up the Wikipedia, you can read a brief history of McRib.  Interestingly, the article mentioned that Germany is the only country where McRib is on McDonald’s permanent menu, not even in China where pork is the main staple.

You may wonder then, like me, why McRib has had trouble to become a part of McDonald’s permanent menu in U.S. (which is obviously a business decision).  Why is the demand so low?  Is it the supply?  Is it cultural?  Is it price?  USDA statistics tells us that pork consumption is a little over 50 lbs in average per capita per year in U.S. which is not that far behind beef (about 60+ lbs).   But if you take a closer look of the 2005 research report of USDA Factors affecting Pork Consumptions on pork consumption pattern , it turns out that processed (as opposed to fresh) pork, such as smoked ham, hotdog, bacon, and lunch meat, accounts for more than 60% of the pork consumption.   The comparable figure for beef is a mere 13% as noted in a companion USDA paper Factors affecting Beef Consumptions.  The same report also showed that about half of the fresh beef are consumed in form of ground beef!  Thus cultural or diet habit has to be a big factor of the phenomenon.

On the other hand, one would find in the same reports data that suggest the social-economic status is a main factor as well.  Lower income households consume more pork and ground beef with non-Hispanic blacks being the dominant on among various race/ethnic groups.  Of course most of us probably have noticed that pork is not a very popular item on most restaurant menus and that higher income people eat out more often in general.

In all, both USDA reports support the intuitive observation that affordability and local environment have been the primary factors in determining what people and how people eat and pass down to their children.   For thousands of years, pig has been domesticated and is the staple of the agricultural societies in most cultures throughout the world.   One reason is that pig is omnivorous and is not difficult to raise in families and small farms with limited resources.  As societies become more and more industrialized and populations are centralized, pigs have not been faring better than cattle or chicken (see Mike Pollan’s The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals) despite the fact that pigs are social and are much more intelligent.  It should not surprise any of us that the production process is not all that different from that of producing chicken nuggets or hamburger patties.

Indeed McRib is not made from pork ribs.  According to a recent article How the McRib is Made Makes Us Question Its Popularity by Margaret Badore, it is mostly ground of pork shoulder molded into rib-back-like patty, cooked and delivered from large processing plants of few contractors, all in 45 minutes from fresh pork to a ready-to-reheat frozen McRib patty.  There is no doubt that industrialization and reorganization of the food supply chain have made more variety of food with consistent quality control available to more people in wider areas.  My only options seem to be: go with the flow, spend more money for free-ranged, humanely handled meat, or become a vegetarian.  Um, let me think about that while I have my KFC’s extra crispy drumstick. 

Talk to you soon!

A Picture is worth a Thousand Words

In my last blog Stealing the Soul, I mentioned that one criterion for being a great photo is how successful does it communicate with the viewers visually (without text or sound).  During my recent visit to the famed Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, there happened to be special exhibits of the works of two great photographers: Nicholas Nixon: Family Album and Avedon Fashion 1944-2000

Richard Avedon (1923-2004) revolutionized the fashion photography over a half of century ago by successfully making models an emotional part of the photo with actions.  All in black and white, many of the photos in the exhibit are dramatic, exaggerated, and absolutely astounding and creative in terms of setting, perspective, expression, and lighting.  Here are two such an eye-catching photos.

One may wonder if the characters in those portraits had made the photographer’s job easier since they are mostly famous stars, celebrities or professional models.   In fact, in Avedon’s own words on his portraits of Audrey Hepburn: “I am, and forever will be, devastated by the gift of Audrey Hepburn before my camera. I cannot lift her to greater heights. She is already there. I can only record. I cannot interpret her. There is no going further than who she is. She has achieved in herself her ultimate portrait.”  Of course this is not true despite however impressed he was by Audrey Hepburn.  Take a look of the following famous portrait of Audrey Hepburn for her performance in the 1957 movie Funny Face.  It is technically way overexposed such that one can’t see anything else of the face but her eyebrows, eyes, nose and mouth.  It is an excellent demonstration of the photographer’s creative skill and aesthetics in his expression that captured the essence with least but critical details of the character.

Another incredible work of Richard Avedon’s (not shown in the exhibit either) is one of his portraits of Rudolf Khametovich Nureyev on the right (sourced from juneblen.com).  Rudolf Nureyev needs no introduction – he is one of the greatest ballet dancers ever, period.   What is a better way to pay tribute to him than by showing his powerful foot in action?  Look at that impossible straight line from leg to toe; look at that callus of his heel; look at those wrinkles of the sole from the tension of the twist!  Seeing a photo likes this make one understand the importance of the composition by the photographer.  Showing an inch more of his leg would destroy the balance and the artistic beauty as other parts of his body are not essential – they are merely distractions at worst, and supports for his feet, at best.  What further distinguishes this photo from others is the relationship of the foot with the blurred image of a spectator (a photographer?) perfect in size and placement: not too large or too small and slightly below the heel.  The shadowy image, clearly separated from the foot, fills aptly the void between the lone foot with the rest of the world.   Who says a portrait needs a face?

Walking into another gallery of the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, one gets a totally a different feel from the work of Nicholas Nixon (1947-).   As the title suggests, the exhibit shows photos of the most intimate individuals and relations of his family including those from his long running project Brown Sisters (of his wife) since 1975. 

Nicholas Nixon’s insistence of using large (8x10 or 11x14) view cameras affords him of portraits with extraordinary level of clarity and details, among others.  On exhibits are his portraits that celebrate birth and progression of life and relationships.  Unlike Avedon’s, there are no stars and no fashion statements in his photos but they do touch the deepest and innate part of human emotions.  One of my favorites is his 1986 work of his wife Bebe with his son Clementine who was a baby then.    The bond between the baby and his mother cannot be mistaken with the strong protecting hands holding and surrounding the chest of the baby’s soft skin and fat.  The choice of the exclusion of baby’s face above the content lip is ingenious.  The soft light and shadow is just enough to accentuate the lip, the chin, and of course don’t forget the drooling!  

Nicholas Nixon confronted the less pleasant parts of life and emotions with camera as well.  In addition to many of the photos he took when his father was frail and aged, nursing home residents and Aids patients were among his important subject projects.  Here is a photo of an old woman in what appears to be a room of a nursing home with the hint of the cold and harsh table and a chair in the background.  With most of the woman remains invisible, the focus is obviously her left hand on the table.  The hand appears to be unusually long and bony.  The skin is so wrinkled and loose as if someone had just sucked out the fat and muscle underneath.  I have seen depressing photos of people suffering from illness, starvation, or war.  I have heard of and seen senior people in nursing homes. But nothing prepared me for such a dark and unsettling image.  I suppose it is fair Nicholas Nixon grounds us with the reality and progression of life, be it the joys and warmth of growth and relationships or its lonesome inescapable outcome.

Talk to you soon!