I use Harold's as my guide. 1/2 dark=2 legs, 2 thighs, 1/2 white=1 breast, 2 wings. But what exactly is a chicken "tender"?

seebee wrote:As Binko stated, BINKO is the one who classifies the thigh as dark meat. I'm not sure why. .

True. But I am following popular convention. Have a look on the internet. I can't find anyone that calls thigh white meat, or any part of the thigh white meat. Literally every single reference I could find says breast/wing = "white," and thigh/leg = "dark." Although, I do agree with you that there are white-ish parts on the thigh.

Now, that's why the lack of USDA labeling guidelines was puzzling to me. What is somebody advertising when they say "100% white meat"? Apparently, all the USDA has to say about it is that it has to be all white meat, with the exclusion of dark meat, but there's nothing I could find defining either of those. Is dark meat that is treated to be white (a real process) qualify as "white meat" in the claim? It seem obvious to me that the advertisers are hoping the "all white meat" claim is interpreted as "all breast meat" by the average person (as, for some strange reason, that is popularly used in the US as a sign of quality and healthiness). However, if it were all breast meat, one would assume the claim would be "100% breast meat," right? So is "all white meat" for these things breasts & wings? Or can it be any part of the chicken as long as it looks white when cooked?

d4v3 wrote:I use Harold's as my guide. 1/2 dark=2 legs, 2 thighs, 1/2 white=1 breast, 2 wings. But what exactly is a chicken "tender"?

When I've bought raw chicken tenders, they've always been a specific part of the chicken breast. You know how when you buy a chicken breast there is that little strip of meat that runs along the breast bone? That's the "tender."

That said, according to what I could find, the term is not legally enforceable, so there does not seem to be a standard of what can be called a "chicken tender," although generally it refers to the above.

Katie wrote:Can't we safely assume that "all-white meat" means breast meat - is there any other white meat on a chicken?

The meat in White Castle chicken rings is "chicken breast with rib meat." I'm not sure exactly how that's defined or how rib meat is removed from the bones.

White slime

Rene G wrote:On the way back a large ad reminded me I never had a chicken ring. I didn't want to be accused of blindly jumping on the anti-chicken ring bandwagon.

After reading your post, I'd say you tried them with enough of an open-minded that your opinions on the matter could never be regarded as anything other than thoughtful and genuine.

Rene G wrote:And the inside looks even more suspiciously like they're made of homogenized chicken.



Meat should not have air bubbles. If chicken rings were actually made from solid breast muscle I would expect White Castle to boast about it, but on their website they describe it only as "tender all white meat."

Dammit, you're absolutely right...I think the denseness of the meat, the fact that it seemed to have fibers aligned in a grain-like pattern, and the slight unevenness of the ring shape tricked me into thinking the rings were punched out of breast meat. But looking at your picture, it just looks like the meat was shredded rather than ground.

Rene G wrote:So how do they taste? Surprisingly decent actually; nicely seasoned, not too salty, not overly greasy, tastes like chicken. I don't see many more chicken rings in my future nonetheless.

On this we can agree: they're fine, they're not an abomination or a perversion of nature or anything hyperbolic like that...but they're not something I plan on eating morning, noon, and night (or even more than once or twice a year).

Binko wrote:

seebee wrote:As Binko stated, BINKO is the one who classifies the thigh as dark meat. I'm not sure why. .

True. But I am following popular convention. Have a look on the internet. I can't find anyone that calls thigh white meat, or any part of the thigh white meat. Literally every single reference I could find says breast/wing = "white," and thigh/leg = "dark." Although, I do agree with you that there are white-ish parts on the thigh.

Now, that's why the lack of USDA labeling guidelines was puzzling to me. What is somebody advertising when they say "100% white meat"? Apparently, all the USDA has to say about it is that it has to be all white meat, with the exclusion of dark meat, but there's nothing I could find defining either of those. Is dark meat that is treated to be white (a real process) qualify as "white meat" in the claim? It seem obvious to me that the advertisers are hoping the "all white meat" claim is interpreted as "all breast meat" by the average person (as, for some strange reason, that is popularly used in the US as a sign of quality and healthiness). However, if it were all breast meat, one would assume the claim would be "100% breast meat," right? So is "all white meat" for these things breasts & wings? Or can it be any part of the chicken as long as it looks white when cooked?

This is what I'm getting at. I'll bet that law departments are involved in what places can advertise for some scary reasons. I'll bet a recurring theme in the advertising / law meetings is, "Let the consumer ASSUME..."

I think White Castle will be featured on the first episode of Fast Food Mania this Sunday.

Cult Favorites, Premieres 10 pm Sunday, June 3

Some fast food is so savory and so mouthwatering that it not only controls the appetites of its fans, but their minds as well. Well meet two Whataburger fanatics that travel hundreds of miles attempting to dine at every restaurant location. Visit a Chick-Fil-A grand opening in which their devoted followers are willing to camp out over night in the parking lot, in order to receive a coupon, worth a year of free food. White Castle
even honors their most dedicated fans, by inducting them into The Cravers Hall of Fame. But you can’t become a Craver until you’ve proven your undying love and adoration for their famous square shaped sliders. These are the eats that drive people to obsession; these are the cult followings of fast food!

I don't think the white/dark distinction requires a ruling from the USDA. I think it's just common sense that that the nonworking parts of a bird are considered white meat and the working parts are considered dark meat. When I posted earlier, I was thinking that only the breast muscles would be considered nonworking on a chicken, but since they can't really fly (much), it makes sense to me that the wings would be considered white meat, while the thighs and legs would not.

Anyway, the point was, if you want your chicken rings punched out of solid slabs of chicken breast meat, it seems that the WC chicken rings will not meet your standard, but solid chicken breast meat can be tough.

Katie wrote:I don't think the white/dark distinction requires a ruling from the USDA. I think it's just common sense that that the nonworking parts of a bird are considered white meat and the working parts are considered dark meat.

The Fast Food Industry wants you as the head of the USDA, I guarantee it.

I, personally, don't even think WC should be allowed to call those rings "chicken." And don't even get me started on Subway's "Turkey," "Roast Beef," or "Oven Roasted Chicken." As one poster said, "Chicken should not have air bubbles." I tend to agree with that. Listen, I'm not holier than anybody. Trust me on that one. I eat plenty o' garbage. PLENTY. The fake meats tho...just something very eerie to me about those.

I honestly don't see a problem with pressed processed chicken. What is "fake" about it? The entirety of White Castle's Chicken rings (not including the breading) is "Chicken breast with rib meat, water, dried whole egg, salt, sodium phosphate." I'm fine with calling that chicken.

Bravo. I'm only on page four, but to all involved with this thread, bravo! I can't wait for the page when Plotnicki weighs in.

Rene G wrote:


So how does it taste? Just as I remember, takes me back to my first-ever bite of a slider.

Exactly my reaction when, out of curiosity, I ate my second-ever White Castle slider. I was instantly transported back to a wintry day in 1963 and the wave of disgust I felt at eating my first White Castle. To me, it was a gooey mouthful of body odor.

Until this thread revived that awful moment, my most recent flashback occurred when last summer Emanuel Clever (D-MO) tweeted about the debt deal, "this deal is a suger-coated satan (sic) sandwich. if you lift the bun, you will not like what you see." I instantly envisioned a White Castle slider encased in Krispy Kreme donut glaze.

And yes, I planned to bring this Satan Sandwich (it needs caps!) to the LTH picnic. Alas, I was sick that day!

Addressing the issue that some people "have to" eat quick-service trash foods because they cannot afford the fresh and healthful food that, so the mythology goes, is dined upon only by the "elite."



Thank you, Comrade Bitterman.

Of course fast food is more expensive. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim fast food was more cost-effective. Its value is in terms of time cost - those working long hours have less time to prepare fresh food - and its accessibility in food deserts.

Yes, I think that Michelle's work on food deserts pretty well demonstrates how extremely difficult it would be to assemble that collection of food--even the pinto bean repast--in most places where fast food dominates the locals' diet.

Geo

Food deserts definitely a problem, but also an area where we're seeing some significant progress with the growth of neighborhood farmers' markets.

no horse in the whole "food desert" theory/discussion.

remembered a NY times article from a few weeks ago so I googled: "food desert myth" & found it,

interesting imo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/healt ... udies.html

Tnx jim it *is* an interesting article. But, like many of these sorts of core articles, lots of other (and useful) angles get revealed in the "comments" which follow the main article. In the end, the research reported is a good first move; but lots and lots of further work needs to be done.

What might be an interesting experiment would be for some foundation to open two or three healthy 'fast food' outlets, competing price-wise with McDo and the others. Keep it up for a five-year period, with suitable marketing. Wonder if any changes in the neighborhood would be noticed? I'd bet on not much changing...


Geo

Geo wrote:Tnx jim it *is* an interesting article. But, like many of these sorts of core articles, lots of other (and useful) angles get revealed in the "comments" which follow the main article. In the end, the research reported is a good first move; but lots and lots of further work needs to be done.

right on,

when I read it when it first came out I was kind of surprised that the NY Times would present a different view of the issue of "food deserts" than I had read here on LTH.

If i had a dog in this fight Id probably read up on both sides of the discussion further.

jimswside wrote:If i had a dog in this fight Id probably read up on both sides of the discussion further.

Damn straight! and well-put, indeed.

Geo

David Hammond wrote:Addressing the issue that some people "have to" eat quick-service trash foods because they cannot afford the fresh and healthful food that, so the mythology goes, is dined upon only by the "elite."

Thank you, Comrade Bitterman.

You know, there's a dollar menu that would make all that a hell of a lot cheaper.

I, who do not eat a lot of fast food (I eat out maybe once a week, and I eat fast food maybe twice a month, unless I'm on vacation and exploring the local fast food options for the hell of it), have to admit that, in most cases, eating out would be cheaper than cooking for myself every day. I mean, for a buck I can get a McDouble, 390 calories worth of food, at a price of a quarter of a cent per calorie. That's $5 a day for a 2000 calorie diet. It's really hard to beat that, and, were I a person of meager means, that would absolutely be an option for me. To compare, the red beans and rice would be $32 a day for the same caloric load. Yes, there's more to the health and diet equation than calories, but I'm just talking sustenance here.

Binko wrote:To compare, the red beans and rice would be $32 a day for the same caloric load. Yes, there's more to the health and diet equation than calories, but I'm just talking sustenance here.

A $32 plate of rice and beans would be large enough to serve a small village.

stevez wrote:

Binko wrote:To compare, the red beans and rice would be $32 a day for the same caloric load. Yes, there's more to the health and diet equation than calories, but I'm just talking sustenance here.

A $32 plate of rice and beans would be large enough to serve a small village.

Shit. Divide by four. $8 per 2000 calories. Still more than McD's McDoubles.

Can of pintos = 350 cals, 3.5 servings; less than a buck. *Awfully* good nutrition numbers (except for sodium).

Geo

Geo wrote:Can of pintos = 350 cals, 3.5 servings; less than a buck. *Awfully* good nutrition numbers (except for sodium).

Geo

Sure. I'd argue you'd want more fats and a bit less carbs in your diet than constantly chowing down on pinto beans. Plus more calcium and Vitamin C with the McDonald's. That said, I wouldn't be able to sustain three to four meals a day of nothing but pinto beans. While not ideal, I could at least see sustaining myself with the McDoubles if I had to.

Now, red beans & rice, I could probably deal with, and it'd most likely be much better for me than McD's. That said, it's not really a question of what the cheapest possible food option is. We could all probably get by at under a couple bucks a day if we really, really had to. It's also a question of convenience and what's tasty.

Hi- Yes beans are cheap, but unless you know what to do with them, they get old quick for many people. In general though, it does cost more to eat healthy. You can get a box of mac and cheese for 50 cents if you get a store brand, and you can get a 2 liter of pop for under $1, which is way cheaper than orange juice. the person that runs the coupon blog that I visit, posted right after Easter that she got 8 rolls of Pillsbury Easter cookie dough for free, because it was marked down to $1, and she had 8 $1 coupons.

Fresh produce in general is more expensive than processed food. I spent a ton of money at the Evanston farmer's market today, but I would rather spend my money there than at McDonald's. Besides the expense of free produce, a lot of people do not know what to do with it. I bought a bunch of Japanese turnips today for $2.50, with their greens attached, but many people would not know what to do with them, and would also say that they don't have the time to cook from scratch.

Until this year, none of the city of Chicago farmer's markets took the LINK card. I just checked, and probably 90% of them do now. I think this is the third year that the Evanston market has accepted the LINK card. This couple that I know that sell at the Evanston market, used to sell at Federal Plaza. They were selling there on 9/11/ One of the conditions of selling at any of the city sponsored market in Chicago used to be that you also had to sell at a market every couple of weeks in one of the food deserts. This couple told me that the days they sold in this food desert, they did not even have $100 in sales for the day. I am sure that part of the problem was the fact that this farmer's market did not accept food stamps though. I've heard that the city of Chicago no longer has the requirement that you have to sell in a food desert market if you want to sell at any other market. I heard that a lot of the farmer's complained about this requirement.

You can go to Aldi's and buy a large bag of cookies for $1.99, but $1.99 does not go very far at the farmer's market. The only thing I saw there today for less than $1 was a bunch of green onions for 50 cents. I am not knocking the prices at the farmer's market, and the farmer's really need the money right now, but processed food in general is going to cost you less. I never buy it there, but you can buy a frozen pizza large enough to feed at least 2 people for $1.99. I know several people that do it all the time. Thanks, Nancy

NFriday wrote:In general though, it does cost more to eat healthy.

I agree with this, but if you know what you're doing, and you know where to shop, you can make it happen. Right now, chicken is about the cheapest meat you can find. You can find chicken pinwheels/leg quarters at around 79-89 cents a pound. You can feed an army with that. I've been somewhat teased here for being the guy who buys the cheap chicken but, to be honest, I've not known anyone to give a damn. You prepare it well, nobody cares, and it costs next to nothing. But that assumes you live in a neighborhood that has a grocery store that has cheap foods. I'm lucky as I don't live in a food desert, and only need to walk a block and a half to find cheap eats, and I know how to cook. Not everyone has those advantages. In many neighborhoods, I could see fast food being the easier, cheaper option.

It's tougher in Canadia, Binko, where food is always more expensive. Chicken quarters go down to 99¢/lb two or three times a year. Typically, add a dollar to that. I simply don't understand how poor Canadians manage to stay alive...

Geo

Seems we've drifted rather far off topic.