I’ve been criticized when panning restaurants, for not finding and extolling whatever positive aspects may be present there. Readers have often taken this to the extreme: “Why don’t you just write about the things you liked and keep the negatives to yourself?” In my defense, I always mention the things that pleased me, given that there were any. And no, I won’t be keeping the negatives to myself.

This, coupled with the frequent requests I’ve been getting to review KFC’s new “Double Down” sandwich, led me to pen this article about the very genre of food I so strongly execrate. Mining the wastelands of fast food, whose perpetrators serve the most unnatural, chemical-laden, hormone-crammed, genetically modified “foods” to find some – any – redeemable offerings, was a challenge I wasn’t sure I was game for. But while I find the writing enjoyable, the research aspect of this job is not always a pleasure (I’ve endured many bad meals), and besides, as irresponsibly farmed and processed as this terrible food is, it’s not only scientifically designed and test-marketed to taste good, but also to be addictive.

How bad could it be? If I can quit smoking, I’ll surely be able to quit fast food after this is all over.

I will resist the strong temptation to be preachy. I’ve read “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “Fast Food Nation;” I’ve seen the documentaries “Supersize Me,” “King Corn” and “Food Inc.” If you’ve read/watched any of these, you likely don’t eat a lot of fast food either. If you haven’t, I recommend you check out/rent or purchase them.

There’s a lot we don’t know about the food that we eat, but the information is out there, and most of it, while scary, is also pretty entertaining.

While there do exist healthier fast food alternatives like Burgerville, which serves local, natural, sustainable and even seasonal foods, we don’t have one here. Unfortunately, the people I questioned about fast food would rather have big national chains come to the area. Arby’s, Wendy’s, Jack in the Box and Carl’s Jr. were all franchises that people wanted to see here. One person I interviewed complained that she had to go all the way to Seaside (from Hammond) to get her Taco Bell “fix,” and wished there was a location in Warrenton or Astoria. Another person recalled that Seaside used to have an A&W, and proclaimed its offerings to be “better than your average fast food.” And while almost everyone I interviewed seemed to have a preference, a favorite among the fast food restaurant choices, they tended to patronize different ones interchangeably, as if fast food was fast food – something you ate solely for its cost and convenience. Several of them even cited this as a reason to not seek out the healthier alternatives like Burgerville or Chipotle Mexican Grill when in their vicinity. “Burgerville costs so much more, and it takes longer,” one mentioned. Another offered that Chipotle Mexican Grill “seems expensive,” though they’d never visited one.

Which brings me to the restaurants that warrant inclusion. When you think of fast food, you likely think of McDonald’s or Burger King, which given their near-constant barrage of advertising from every direction, is natural. Obviously we have those in our area. Also, I’m only including restaurants that are big chains, places with 30 or more locations, and among them, those with drive-through windows (thankfully sparing me from consuming anything from Pizza Hut).

Restaurants that qualify for inclusion in this dubious experiment are: McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King, Dairy Queen, Taco Bell, Taco Time, Starbucks, Subway and Quizno’s. My mission: to find good food in bad places. To try and find something worth embracing in a restaurant genre I’d turned my back on years ago. Who has the best French fries? Who has the best hamburgers? Who has the best healthy alternatives? Who’s trying something new? Are the new fast food gourmet coffee drinks comparable to Starbucks? Is the food at Starbucks comparable to the fast food restaurants? These questions will all be answered.

I will judge fast food against similar fast food, e.g. Taco Time vs. Taco Bell, McD vs. BK vs. DQ, etc. That all starts next week. For now, the Double Down.

– The Mouth

mouth@coastweekend.com

Truth be told, I’d never eaten the famous Kentucky Fried Chicken before. Sampling their flagship product as well as the sandwich of curiosity would likely be a good move to establish the quality of the restaurant as a whole. I only gave them one try, but based on that, I’m afraid I don’t care for KFC’s Original Recipe fried chicken.

A 12-piece bucket costing nearly $18 consisted of four wings, four thighs and four legs, all of which quickly shed their skin upon attempting to remove them from the tangled pile. The only pieces which remained even relatively intact were the wings. I’m told this standard bucket generally includes breasts as well, but they were absent from mine.

Greasy is to be expected from fried chicken; the fact that the chicken was overseasoned took me aback. I’m told the lore of the breading containing some 11 secret herbs and spices. “How many of them are salt?” I wondered. The pepper was definitely turned up too high as well. The saltiness couldn’t really be redeemed, but the fact that all of it fell apart also really disappointed me.

Several years ago, I saw a biography on “Colonel” Harland Sanders which had footage of him selling his chicken and pressure fryers to various diners and cafes across the U.S. The pride he felt in his product was surely just at the time. I’m certain that he would be quite disappointed with what the giant company passes off as his “original” today.

I won’t waste words on the side dishes that accompanied. On to the main event.

The Double Down sandwich is surely not here to stay. It is a novelty. The only reason someone would eat one is to say that they’ve done so.

Like so much gimmick candy (ring pops, candy necklaces, Pez), you don’t actually expect it to be good, just kinda fun. I must admit, out of all of the food I sampled from KFC, the Double Down ($5.49) was actually better than the rest. This doesn’t make it good, mind you, but simply the lesser evil.

The first thing that was wrong with it is that every ad I’ve seen in print, online or on TV promotes the sandwich with some sort of snug-fitted paper wrapper around one end. What you get is a box with a loose layer of parchment paper folded around the Double Down, not at all handy for holding the thing. This made me wonder why it’s even intended as a hand food. It’s really only a couple of steps away from a Chicken Cordon Bleu, in a strange and trashy way. Shouldn’t you use silverware for something like this?

While the seasoning was indeed as intense as the regular fried chicken, at least it held together. The bland, processed Monterey jack and pepperjack cheeses act as a glue to hold the bacon and the two breasts together, while the vaguely spicy, mayonnaise-based “Colonel’s Sauce” acts to dissolve said glue.

I don’t know what the point of the sandwich is – nobody does! Because of its substantial breading, it’s not Atkins-friendly, which is moot since no one seems to be on Atkins anymore. I think perhaps it’s part of an inside joke cooked up by KFC board members, the butt of which is America for buying it.

Last September, when the Double Down was being test-marketed in Providence, R.I., and Omaha, Neb., the circulating rumors of its very existence seemed suspect. After all, I’d already enjoyed The Onion’s “McDonald’s Unveils New All-Beef Bun” fake news article, as well as Patton Oswalt’s stand-up routine about “The Mega-Leg,” a genetically modified chicken leg the size of a turkey leg that KFC was test-marketing in the Midwest. I had every reason to believe reports of this Double Down sandwich were along those same comedic lines.

I wish I was right, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. It’s now been more than a month since its national debut, but I figure its “15 minutes” are almost up. After a couple of bites of the salty, greasy “sandwich,” I put the thing down. I figured the rest of the monstrosity could be made into two real sandwiches for two other meals, that or I could cut it up into a week’s worth of dog treats.

This isn’t the first time I’ve eaten the products of three different animals in one sandwich or dish, but it’s certainly the worst incarnation of the chicken/bacon/”cheese” trine.

There’s a reason we like our sandwiches to contain bread, besides the fact that it’s in the definition. Bread provides a balance. Sandwiches, like any dish, should ideally contain a starch, a meat, some vegetable and a sauce. The Double Down just feels wrong, like drinking bourbon in the morning. And now that I mention it, should the rest of your day be ruined by morning bourbon, you might as well have a designated driver take you down to KFC to get one of these sandwiches. The liquid courage might be just what it takes to actually finish one.