The New York Times isn’t that thrilled with the Honeycrisp apple, a fruit that has a thicker skin than some Minnesotans, apparently.
In an article in the paper’s food section this week — most perceived slights against Minnesota seem to originate in the food section — writer David Karp said the Honeycrisp, developed at the University of Minnesota, is popular, “but for all its popularity, the apple is soft, quickly dissolving in the mouth. Its flavor is inconsistent and fades in long storage, and it is maddeningly difficult to grow.”
Geez, David, why don’t you just write that Prince can’t carry a tune while you’re at it.
— Luke Taylor (@LukeTaylorMN) November 5, 2015
Karp did acknowledge that one of two species also developed at the University of Minnesota is better, but the Star Tribune claims a flyover country food dispute is heating up again.
It found two people who cared what the big-city thinks.
“Whoa! What Honeycrisp are you talking about?” demanded David Bedford, who’s been an apple breeder at the University of Minnesota for 37 years.
“To call it soft is a complete misnomer,” said Bedford of the beloved Honeycrisp, which he describes as “explosively crisp.”
Honeycrisp, he said, remains one of the top sellers in the country, and its popularity is still climbing.
“This is a great apple,” agreed John Jacobson, an owner of Pine Tree Apple Orchard in White Bear Lake. “It’s world-class.”
At least one Minnesotan rushed to the state’s defense in the Times comments.
Has David Karp even eaten a Honeycrisp apple? I doubt it. I have eaten hundreds of them over the years that none of them have been soft. If he had a “soft” Honeycrisp apple, it was obviously mislabeled or it was grown in a warm climate, not appropriate for growing Honeycrisp.
Food writers must dread having to write about tastes of Minnesota.
(h/t: Nancy Yang)