
The Real Colonel Sanders (2015) - danso
https://www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/the-real-colonel-sanders
======
e40
_When Sanders decided to open a sit-down restaurant called Colonel Sanders '
Dinner House, KFC argued it had bought the rights to his name, according to
Adams. When he renamed it the Colonel's Lady's Dinner House, the company
argued that it owned the rights to "colonel."_

I don't know what it was called when I went there as a kid, but it was an
amazing experience, one of the few I remember from that time in my life. Too
many courses to count, it was a family style restaurant. It was a good drive
from the Louisville suburbs I lived in at the time.

The restaurant was in the first floor of a house in the middle of a horse
farm. Picturesque doesn't do it justice.

~~~
WorldMaker
Claudia Sanders Dinner House:
[http://claudiasanders.com/](http://claudiasanders.com/)

Turns out the company couldn't argue that it owned his wife's name. There are
interesting arguments that it's a sort of feminist justice in the end given
most of the recipes were likely Claudia's to begin with.

------
spking
If you enjoyed this, then you might also enjoy 'Grinding It Out' by Ray Kroc,
and also 'Walt Disney: Triumph of the American Imagination' by Neal Gabler.

~~~
WorldMaker
Ray Kroc's story is fascinatingly told in recent film "The Founder" with
Michael Keaton as the fascinating food franchise businessman and "founder".
The film isn't entirely accurate, though closer than many films get, and a fun
watch.

~~~
TylerE
The Founder was an interesting flick, in a couple of ways.

Managed to basically make me hate every single character by the end.

~~~
WorldMaker
I'm fairly certain that was a goal. :) It's not a pretty story with a happy
ending; it's a story of ego versus greed versus ego.

------
sg0
I can imagine a Netflix movie about the Colonel with Jack Black playing the
role.

------
Bizarro
I'm sure the Colonel is rolling in his grave because they changed the gravy
recipe. It doesn't have that nice, peppery kick it used to 30 years ago.

I'm assuming the whole change to "KFC" is partially based on some kind of
anti-fried, health-kick campaign.

They're lucky the colonel isn't still kicking. You don't want to piss off that
ornery rascal.

[https://gizmodo.com/no-colonel-sanders-never-killed-a-man-
in...](https://gizmodo.com/no-colonel-sanders-never-killed-a-man-in-a-
shootout-1651797965)

~~~
jbob2000
I have a theory that corporate food companies slowly remove anything of value
in their food. In the next 100 years, McDonalds and KFC will be serving us
nothing but fructose-infused sawdust with varying levels of oils and wax to
hold it all together.

It's like that old story about the airline MBAs who remove an olive from their
onboard drinks every year to save $40,000 - eventually there are no olives
left in the drinks!

Pepper is expensive, they probably saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by
eliminating that ingredient.

~~~
sizzzzlerz
Which is why eating in fast food joints is playing russian roulette with your
diet. You literally have no idea of what goes into the food. What they call
"gravy", a mixture of multi-syllable chemicals, is far removed from what you
can make in your own kitchen using simple, understood, ingredients. Pepper is
a good example. As you said, it's expensive so the found some pepper-ish
substitute at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the taste.

~~~
golergka
> Which is why eating in fast food joints is playing russian roulette with
> your diet. You literally have no idea of what goes into the food.

Aren't they mandated to print truthful nutrition information?

~~~
jbob2000
TicTacs are advertised as having 0g of sugar. Do you want to know what TicTacs
are made out of? Sugar. It's pure sugar formed into a small tablet shape.

Yes, they are mandated to print nutrition information. So they print exactly
what they are asked to print. No more. No less. If the mandate says "foods
with less than 999mg of sugar may print as 0g sugar" then they will follow
that to the letter.

~~~
golergka
Fast Google search gives done additional details:

> Tic Tac® mints do contain sugar as listed in the ingredient statement.
> However, since the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5
> grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that
> there are 0 grams of sugar per serving.

So? It seems that they're honestly reporting exactly what's required from them
and exactly what you need to balance your diet.

~~~
jbob2000
I got the details wrong, but my point was that nutritional information isn't
always "truthful".

Yes, they're true to the labeling requirement, but they are not true to
reality - there IS sugar in there. Get a person with diabetes to eat a
bucketful and then try to tell me there is 0g of sugar in them.

~~~
golergka
Why would you eat a bucketful of Tic Tacs? A person with diabetes would have
no problem eating a single Tic Tac, which is exactly what these markings are
for.

