Pork & Beans: What's the point?

It has occurred to me, for no particular reason, that pork & beans is a bit of a misnomer. Upon opening up a can of said product, one tends to find one or two dime-sized nodules of what is presumably pork fat whose meat content could likely only be measured at the atomic level. Exactly what is the point of this? Does anyone ever crack open a can of pork and beans looking forward to savoring those miniature hunks of porcine cellulite? Is there anyone who doesn’t immediately throw those hunks out? Do they impart some sort of flavour hint upon the beans-and-sauce? Because I certainly don’t taste it. Did tins of pork and beans ever come with actual, verifiable chunks of pork meat in it?

I just don’t get it.

I now have “SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM, Lovely SPAM, wonderful SPAM!” running through my head.

Try a different brand, like Bush, or make your own. Plus, you don’t need to have that piece of fat to get the flavor of pork fat throughout, and that is what counts.

Most of the pork should have melted into the beans while they were cooking, before canning. Believe me, the flavor is distinctive and you would miss it if it were gone.

I agree. It’s like Lipton chicken noodle soup. They also make one with chicken chunks and that can be called chicken noodle. But the one without actual chicken is a misnomer at best and more likely consumer fraud.

The main point to pork and beans is beans. The pork is just the flavoring.

I read somewhere that it melts into the beans from cooking during the canning process, but that is a minor quibble.

I like chunks of meat in my pork and beans which is why I make my own. I just through it into the slow-cooker in the morning and by dinner time it’s heavenly.

I suddenly have the desire to go watch “Blazing Saddles”.

Wait, the pork melts but the fat remains? What kinda bizarro world are we living in here?

Um, but seriously, I did not know that there, in fact, was meat, but that any trace of it had long since assimilated itself into the tomato sauce.

That still sounds weird.

I’ve always appreciated the Canadian cans, because while the english side has the usual name, the french side is called “Feves aux Lard”. Lard & Beans has always seemed a more apt name to me.

What silenus said. There are no identifable pork body parts in there, but the flavour is there and beans just wouldn’t taste the same without it. Check the nutrition facts label on a can of pork and beans and a can of just beans.

Care to share your recipe? I’ve wanted a decent one for a slow cooker forever.

That’s the Queen Bean!

You mean other than my wife? No one, I guess.

Can we have some more beans, Mister Taggert?

As it so happens, I just rewatched that recently.

Like “How can Grape-Nuts cereal contain no grapes or nuts?” Per ConAgra Foods, “By 1909, Van Camp’s was the No. 1-selling pork-and-bean brand in the United States.” In contrast, the US Federal Trade Commission started in 1914. At least nowadays a can has 2+ beans.

Care to share your recipe? I’ve wanted a decent one for a slow cooker forever.[/QUOTE

Me Too!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

You need some Big John’s Beans and Fixin’s.
The first and only perfect, pork delivery system for Yankee Beans.
Binary canning and containers as pioneered by LaChoy…

Fat transfers flavour very well, thus the pork fat makes the beans taste better.