I feel betrayed.
The folks that make Shake ‘n Bake recently stopped including plastic bags in their packaging, requiring lazy cooks like me to go searching for something in which to perform the “shake” function of this tasty time-saver.
Perhaps I wouldn’t feel so betrayed if I hadn’t had such a long relationship with Shake ‘n Bake, as it was first introduced the year I turned one. It was a staple at our house growing up, owing mostly to the fact that we didn’t own a BBQ. Of course, it was dirt cheap back then. Today, you can pay as much as $6 for the convenience it offers.
And perhaps this move away from the plastic bags wouldn’t irk me so if the very act of shaking weren’t so central to their branding. “Shake” is literally half the letters in the name of the darn product.
For six decades it was an unwritten contract between General Foods and fans of Shake ‘n Bake: we’ll provide the “shake” if you facilitate the “bake.” We clearly understood the parameters of the relationship and couldn’t conceive of a day when they’d take the “shake” away.
The clear plastic bags actually disappeared four years ago, so it’s clear that my dependence on Shake ‘n Bake isn’t what it used to be, as I only noticed this year. I guess that’s progress, and maybe something to feel good about. We’re not exactly talking about a healthy choice here. But it in no way diminishes the betrayal I’m feeling.
The reason that Kraft Heinz, the current makers of Shake ‘n Bake, gave for eliminating the bags was to reduce plastic waste. Now, I’m not indifferent to the plight our earth is currently facing. But if Kraft Heinz had even offered a small reduction in the price of their product, the whole charade might have seemed far less disingenuous.
Clearly, there would have to have been a major saving in cost to the company by eliminating the bags, so why not pass some of that savings on to consumers as an act of goodwill? Call me a cynic if you want, but too often these decisions are made under the guise of saving the planet, when it ‘s actually more about saving money.
Companies making these seemingly altruistic pronouncements will always hit you with a big number that provides no real context. In the case of Shake ‘n Bake, the move was going to remove 900,000 pounds of plastic waste each year. That seems like a lot, but is it really? If they told you, it was 450 tons, would you still be in awe of their environmental largesse? Probably not.
Nostalgia plays a big part in my sense of betrayal in this matter. There were few things during my childhood that seemed as revolutionary and game-changing as Colonel Sanders’ 11 herbs and spices. The recipe might not have been the same but Shake ‘n Bake offered us a portal into that mysteriously salty world of culinary delight.
But convenience is also a large factor. I still feel guilty about walking through a grocery store with a box of Shake ‘n Bake in my hand, and it doesn’t help that it’s often a last-minute purchase on the way home from work so it’s the only item I’m there for.
It’s not the kind of guilt felt by an 18-year-old guy buying his first box of condoms, but it is real. I understand that other grocery store patrons are not likely concerned about me and my box of Shake ‘n Bake, so why do I feel so judged? Is it because my now adult daughter saw it’s very existence on our kitchen counter as an indication that Dad was making supper?
I rarely ever use Shake ‘n Bake on chicken anymore. It’s pretty much reserved for those evenings when pork is on the menu. I hate barbecuing pork. With chicken, I’m not putting it directly on the grill and with steak there’s a lot more leeway in terms of allowable redness. But with pork, there’s a fine line between overcooked and raw, and I’ve been sent back to the grill too often by the regular chef in our house.
So, I’ll continue to fumble through our pantry in search of a suitable bag in which to “shake” my Shake ‘n Bake, because the alternative – completely abandoning a sixty-year relationship – is unthinkable. But I’m not happy about it.