Sure quality of the raw ingredients is weakly correlated to taste, but processing and handling have much bigger effect on the taste of the final product. Take the highest quality beef you can find, run it through the McDonalds beef processing machine and make a Big Mac using the standard McDonalds process and you'll end up with a burger which probably doesn't taste much better than a normal Big Mac.
I'm not sure how you managed to misread my comment so badly.
Something can be very tasty and very poor quality. Add enough salt, fat, sugar, and spices and the worst quality 'pink slime' is tasty.
But a filet mignon is expensive, tender, usually high quality cut of meat that isn't particularly tasty. It doesn't have much fat and isn't weight bearing which affects the taste.
But a filet mignon is expensive, tender, usually high quality cut of meat that isn't particularly tasty. It doesn't have much fat and isn't weight bearing which affects the taste.
Then why buy it? What do you gain by spending extra on it?
Quality is not dependent on taste - nutrition is what food is for, not pleasant sensations. A banana is better quality food than Conglomocorp's banana-flavoured-yoghurt-covered chocolate sticks, even though the latter is far more delicious.
Comments
Quality for a meat product would cover things like breed of cow used; cut of meat used; and the way that meat is processed.
Using meat from Aberdeen Angus beef cows, and using nice cuts of steak, and mincing it, would result in a high quality product.
Using meat from old dairy cows, mechanically recovered from the carcass after everything else has been used, results in a lower quality product.
I think taste is not relevant to quality. They're not saying "tastier than the rival products".
That's an extraordinarily strange definition of quality. By your definition quality is completely useless and means nothing except "more expensive".
So you basically think people should spend more money for the sake of spending more money? (Why not just send it to me instead?)
But of course in the real world quality does have an effect on taste (or nutrition).
Sure quality of the raw ingredients is weakly correlated to taste, but processing and handling have much bigger effect on the taste of the final product. Take the highest quality beef you can find, run it through the McDonalds beef processing machine and make a Big Mac using the standard McDonalds process and you'll end up with a burger which probably doesn't taste much better than a normal Big Mac.
I'm not sure how you managed to misread my comment so badly.
Something can be very tasty and very poor quality. Add enough salt, fat, sugar, and spices and the worst quality 'pink slime' is tasty.
But a filet mignon is expensive, tender, usually high quality cut of meat that isn't particularly tasty. It doesn't have much fat and isn't weight bearing which affects the taste.
Then why buy it? What do you gain by spending extra on it?
@the sister comment made by user "ars":
Quality is not dependent on taste - nutrition is what food is for, not pleasant sensations. A banana is better quality food than Conglomocorp's banana-flavoured-yoghurt-covered chocolate sticks, even though the latter is far more delicious.