After watching videos about full English breakfasts I’m wondering about why Brits are eating Heinz, an American brand of beans while Americans eat Van Camp’s or Bush’s.
We Americans eat Heinz Ketchup and 57 Sauce, but not the beans.
What’s going on?
Bear in mind that Heinz baked beans (at least, the ones that are a breakfast staple in England) have a sauce that’s more like a tomato sauce, while American-style baked beans more typically have a different kind of sauce, often made with brown sugar, molasses, ham/bacon, or a barbecue sauce.
That said, it doesn’t directly answer why Heinz doesn’t have a popular baked beans product in the U.S.; Heinz certainly could make a baked beans product for American palates.
Well, I eat Bush’s because they are 17 times better than the other two. No accounting for why the Brits don’t.
ETA: I think kenobi may have answered my question.
This 2012 article indicates that Heinz used to be a bigger player in the U.S. baked beans market, but in the 1970s, they largely stopped selling baked beans here. The Heinz spokesperson quoted in the article wasn’t sure what that happened, but I would suspect that, at that point, Heinz baked beans weren’t selling well here (for whatever reason), and the company discontinued them.
The article also talks about Heinz re-entering the baked beans market at that point, using some recipes that were popular with their Canada subsidiary, but I’m not sure if those were at all successful.
I actually stopped eating Bush’s because they changed the sauce in their vegetarian beans from something “tomatoey” to something much sweeter. (It was bad enough when Subway, then Quizno’s, then Togo’s, all did the same thing with the sauce they use in their meatball sandwiches.) Well, that, and beans are a big no-no on a low carb diet.
I’m guessing their might be an aftermath of limited food supplies during world war 2 due to food supplies being cut off by U-boats. Perhaps baked beans matched a nutritional gap during those times, there are a lot of artefacts from that time, with food containing liver and kidney.
Maybe it was a highly successful advertising campaign later, they seemed popular when I was growing up in the 70s (beans means heinz is an advert I do recall). Is there such a thing as a food historian who would know this sort of thing?
Interestingly, crisps (chips as the US would know them) are quite unique in the UK, with a large quantity of varietys and brands and were very successful. Except until a large US multinational bought a minor player, and wiped out all the other brands by sheer strength: Walkers was the brand, which is Lays elsewhere (that might have existed in the US before that). Thus the impact of a large of a large US concern on a successful market in the UK. I’m not saying that’s what happened here though.
However, “frank and beans” seems to be a phrase from US movie children (There’s something about Mary for instance). I assumed that was from the popular UK can of baked beans with small hotdog style sausages in them. Was that not a thing in the US?
Beans and franks (particularly the “Beenie Weenie” products, made by Van Camp’s) absolutely are a thing in the U.S., and are a variation on “pork and beans.” But, as with other baked beans here, they usually have a sauce that’s based on brown sugar or molasses, rather than the strictly tomato-based sauce that U.K. beans have.
I’m thinking their preference for Heinz probably doesn’t have anything to do with this particular endorsement:
From what I’m reading on Wikipedia, it was Heinz who introduced baked beans to the British market in the late 19th century, and became very popular very quickly; Heinz has apparently been the leading brand pretty much since they introduced it. It looks like the original Heinz product in the U.K. was closer to the American style of sauce, but they changed it over the years (taking out the brown sugar or molasses) to better appeal to English consumers.
Wikipedia also notes this:
Do “Van Camps” and “Bushes” even serve the UK market? I haven’t heard of either.
Maybe they don’t, but I was mostly wondering why Americans don’t eat Heinz Beans while Brits do. Apparently, even Heinz is unsure why.
Maybe the beans were the 58th variety?
I’d say Van Camp’s Pork & Beans is probably the closest domestic equivalent to Heinz, as the sauce is tomato-based and on the sweet side.
A word for the uninitiated - pork & beans usually does not contain any solid/visible pieces of pork, so if you’re expecting chunks of meat in a can you’re going to be disappointed. Once in awhile you might find one small slice of salt pork in there, but I think mainly they just add a small amount of pork fat for flavoring.
Most mega-marts should carry imported Heinz Beanz in the “International” aisle. Look for the aqua label. I know I can find them at several local groceries.
Its only partly about difference in the sauce. A lot of food marketing, I am reliably informed by a food marketer, is about multi-generational brand recognition. Heinz was there first in the UK so its pretty much synonymous with baked beans. They made your granddad fart, and they’ll probably be propelling your grandkids.
Multi-national food conglomerate takeovers are pretty blood-thirsty, but they almost always keep brands they buy because its much easier to leverage a brand you’ve recognised since utero than persuading you to change. The US has a lot more regionally significant brands, even through they may all be made in the same factory, but they have kept them and tried to expand their markets.
I’ve never heard of the American brands you mention either.
We do have other baked beans in the UK. They’re mostly cheap beans branded by supermarkets, and they do seem to have fewer beans per can than Heinz does. Some of them also require tin openers, and, as a recipient of the shielding boxes, actually require a crane and a team of starving dogs to get them open.
Branston is the only major brand that I think has made inroads sufficient to make it not look like a beanopoly.
Baked beans in the way British people use them just aren’t as common in the US, are they? I mean people in the US actually talk about making baked beans. For us, that’s weird. Baked beans come in a tin.
We had (have?) a museum of baked beans. https://captainbeany.com/baked-bean-museum-of-excellence/
You in the US cook baked beans. For you, they are beans that are baked in a tomato sauce. For us, they are tinned beans.
Actually, not all American baked bean recipes include a tomato sauce. IME, only some and not the best ones.
A Bostonian would be horrified at tomato anything near his/her baked beans and they would be right.
Agreed. That’s one of the differences.
I’m sure there are British foodies who would say “baked beans? Those are any beans that are baked.” But in reality it’s context based. “Baked beans” is a compound noun.
The Bostonians would be like when I saw a request for your takes on shepherd’s pie and most of the suggestions had nothing even slightly related to shepherd’s pie.
I’ll eat your cooking if you’ll eat mine. I make much better baked beans than I do shepherds pie.
It’s obviously because Beans fired Don Draper for disloyalty in that episode of Mad Men and their marketing never recovered. Don should never have tried to go after Ketchup.