Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses News Science

KFC is Testing Beyond Meat 'Chicken' in an Atlanta Restaurant (engadget.com) 160

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
Plant-based meat substitutes may soon be an option for fast food chicken. CNBC reports that KFC will start testing Beyond Fried Chicken at an Atlanta restaurant on August 27. From a report: Yes, you could grab a bucket of chicken without feeling quite so guilty -- or greasy, if Beyond Meat's earlier work is any indication. Whether or not availability grows will depend on feedback, but other restaurant chains (such as Del Taco) have seen upticks in demand since adding meat substitutes. KFC had acknowledged talking to suppliers months ago to investigate meatless chicken, but didn't have any definitive plans until now. This could mark a triumphant return for Beyond Meat's chicken efforts. It pulled its meatless chicken from grocery stores earlier in 2019 after deciding it didn't meet the company's standards.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KFC is Testing Beyond Meat 'Chicken' in an Atlanta Restaurant More

KFC is Testing Beyond Meat 'Chicken' in an Atlanta Restaurant

Comments Filter:

  • Standards (Score:5, Funny)

    by Synonymous Cowered ( 6159202 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @09:07AM (#59125364)

    This could mark a triumphant return for Beyond Meat's chicken efforts. It pulled its meatless chicken from grocery stores earlier in 2019 after deciding it didn't meet the company's standards.

    I assumed they were going to try to come up with something that met their higher standards. Turns out they just needed to find someone with lower standards...like KFC.

    • Does this mean people will start referring to KFC as Kentucky Fake Chicken ? :-)

    • "Met their higher standards" my aching arse. I've noticed that this happens a lot in the last few years - a perfectly good product gets introduced in grocery stores, lasts a bit, then disappears only to reappear at one restaurant or another. I guess there's more profit in that channel?

  • Add enough salt to overpower the flavor, and you can make anything taste like KFC chicken...

    • I'm pretty sure that it's 10W-30 and MSG.

      • Re: Add enough salt (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @10:45AM (#59125906)

        Pro tip: Msg isn't bad for you, nor is there any such thing as an msg allergy, and the China Syndrome is entirely made up by a reporter who started feeling sick at a Chinese restaurant, which means the source of his illness came hours or even weeks before he got there. And to make matters worse, the article he wrote used some pretty racist language, and the use of msg as a food additive began in Japan, not China.

        Problems caused by msg are every bit as real as electromagnetic allergies. The placebo effect is very powerful, and if it have yourself convinced that something is making you sick if you are exposed to it, then you probably will feel sick, up to and including rashes, headaches, body aches, joint pain, nausea, insomnia, difficulty breathing, and hypertension. It's not a coincidence that all of these are known symptoms of stress, meaning they can be, and in many cases are, purely psychosomatic.

        In other words, if you don't know or suspect that your food has msg in it, then you'll never notice. This has been empirically proven many times. In addition, msg actually has nutritional value especially for your nervous system, as do all glutemates. And for you naturalists out there, many foods probably you eat naturally contain msg.

        • Re: Add enough salt (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @11:36AM (#59126188)

          People seem to have gone Crazy over food. The treat it like it is the magical cause and solution to all our problems. Feeling bad, then it must be the food that you ate, feeling good, then your diet must be the right balance. Screw the other people who feel good with a different diet, and feel free to shame people for eating food that you think are making them ill.

          Yes people have allergies to some foods. However for those who don't offers them a healthy verity to their diet.

          The human animal, does take a lot of short cuts with food, if you eat something and you are ill later, your brain correlates it as bad, even with just one sample, even if you were to be ill no matter what you ate. However it is a survival mechanism, where if you ate something poisonous and you were ill but survived it, you wouldn't eat it again, and possible teach your offspring to avoid it as well. Such as many religious dietary restrictions, such as on Pork, Shell Fish, Beef, Bugs... Such foods may not keep well, and our ancestors may had been ill from eating such. Thus passed it along as bad, which finally became a religious standard.

          Now today, with a lot of people treating "Science" as a Religion, they will jump on the latest hypothesis pointing the dangers of the latest trends, such as GMO, Preservatives, Sugar, Fats, .... making them feel justified that they have the best diet that we all should eat.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 )

          I've seen the studies showing "MSG is safe" but I'm not sure that they're not missing something important in them. Most important, they tested adding just MSG, not the cocktail of MSG, salt, and fat together like in your typical Happy Joy China.

          I won't eat Chinese any more (besides homemade) because I always feel like crap after having Chinese food from a restaurant. I stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A for the same reason years ago, then recently I found out that CFA has mega high doses of MSG and had an "aha

          • I've seen the studies showing "MSG is safe" but I'm not sure that they're not missing something important in them. Most important, they tested adding just MSG, not the cocktail of MSG, salt, and fat together like in your typical Happy Joy China.

            So basically you are looking for any reason to reaffirm your confirmation bias against MSG. Got it.

            I won't eat Chinese any more (besides homemade) because I always feel like crap after having Chinese food from a restaurant. I stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A for the same reason years ago, then recently I found out that CFA has mega high doses of MSG and had an "aha" moment; that's why Chick-Fil-A always makes me feel like crap.

            A) The reason you feel like crap after eating at those places is because their food is crap whether or not is has MSG.
            B) MSG is not in all Chinese food. Lots of sugar and fat is in all (american) Chinese food.
            C) The placebo effect is real. Lot's of people are convinced they have gluten and MSG allergies/sensitivities despite clear evidence most of them do not.
            D) Confirmation bias is real. If you think you

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by guruevi ( 827432 )

              OP could also be allergic or sensitive to a host of other things. "Chinese" food uses a lot of peanut, sesame and other nut-based products, especially oils. Chick-fil-a uses peanut oil as well. So if you're sensitive or mildly allergic to peanuts, a concentrated version (peanut oil) would definitely give you problems.

              It's indeed unlikely you're allergic to MSG, you might as well be allergic to water because your body also contains sodium and glutamates.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Chaset ( 552418 )

                My layman's take on the MSG thing is that it has just as much sodium as table salt without tasting "salty". Hence, you can end up taking in godawful amounts of it that you'd never take in as chloride.

                An experiment would be to take in the same amount of sodium as chloride to see if you get the same sickening effect. If so, it's just all the extra sodium you're taking in regardless of the glutamate.

              • OP could also be allergic or sensitive to a host of other things. "Chinese" food uses a lot of peanut, sesame and other nut-based products, especially oils. Chick-fil-a uses peanut oil as well. So if you're sensitive or mildly allergic to peanuts, a concentrated version (peanut oil) would definitely give you problems.

                It's indeed unlikely you're allergic to MSG, you might as well be allergic to water because your body also contains sodium and glutamates.

                It could be an "intolerance", but it isn't an allergy. "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" is more similar to a food intolerance or sensitivity than an allergy. As I said, I don't think MSG is purely to blame, I think it's a combination of things that are to blame.

                I do actually have a negative reaction when I have too many peanuts in a short period of time; I suspect peanuts are a gout trigger for me (although could be a coincidence, all three times I've had gout was after eating a lot of peanuts). Also, peanu

            • It's funny how defensive people get when you criticize MSG.

              I actually had stopped going to Chinese restaurants because they made me feel awful before I had ever hear of "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" or before I knew MSG was a suspected cause. Same as with Chick Fil A. I wasn't in the US when that became a "thing" and hadn't heard of MSG or any Chinese restaurant issues being widespread. I learnt about that afterwards. So it couldn't have been a placebo effect.

              I'm just pointing out that the tests they'v

              • It's funny how defensive people get when you criticize MSG.

                I don't give a shit about MSG. What annoys me is people making idiotic claims that have zero evidence to support them. Pretty much every claim about MSG falls into this category. Show me the data and I'll be the first on the anti-MSG train. Personal anecdotes and eye witness testimony are pretty much the lowest form of evidence in science. I need more than your own experiences.

                I actually had stopped going to Chinese restaurants because they made me feel awful before I had ever hear of "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" or before I knew MSG was a suspected cause. Same as with Chick Fil A. I wasn't in the US when that became a "thing" and hadn't heard of MSG or any Chinese restaurant issues being widespread. I learnt about that afterwards. So it couldn't have been a placebo effect.

                Or maybe you stopped going because the food is junk food and it makes you feel awful because it's junk food. Yes Chick-Fil-A s

        • Msg isn't bad for you

          A) yeah, it occurs naturally... and B) has given me headaches since I was a kid (I grew up in Asia).

          YMMV.

        • I don't give a crap about organic food (A/B tested it and aside from a slight difference in taste, more parts I had to cut off during prep, and shorter shelf life, found no difference). But I can usually tell when there's MSG in food. On three occasions I've eaten food that I thought didn't have MSG, but I began to suspect had it because of the symptoms they caused - dry mouth, a feeling of restlessness/anxiousness and not entirely being there, and headaches in higher doses. Two times it was in ingredien

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pz ( 113803 )

          The "China Syndrome" describes the hyperbolic trip to China as a nuclear reactor core loses its moderation and melts through the floor of the containment vessel with nothing to stop it from making its way to the other side of the world.

          The "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" is perhaps what you meant, which is normally meant to be a reaction to MSG.

          Despite the hoo-hah, as a biologist who has done controlled experiments on myself, I can most definitely state that I have a phyiological reaction similar to caffeine

  • The company I work is diverse. We have vegans, vegetarians, people who don't eat red meat, and omnivores. Back when we had company barbecues, we had designated grills for each cuisine. This way we wouldn't accidentally put a little meat juice on food to be eaten by a vegetarian, for example. McDonald's already got in trouble for using cow fat in their deep fryers (French fries were no longer vegetarian!). I'm sure Burger King and Del Taco also have a system in place where Beyond Meat isn't "contaminated" by

    • they can make the extra space or they can lose there franchise

      • Why do you say that? Most "Vegans" are not Vegans but vegetarians, who really do not care that their food had touched meat. I have even seen some vegans who worry because the food they eat contain vegetables (like root vegetables) that means you have to kill the entire plant to eat it. Being there is such a degree of crazies out there, it is impossible to make a food chain that meets every requirement. If your food options are very strict then you should avoid eating out all together, and general shut u

    • We have a much simpler solution. We have one grill, we put whatever you want on it, if you have a problem with it, you're free to not put your stuff on the grill.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rioki ( 1328185 )

        Same here, most of the vegan/vegetarian stuff is either wrapped or layred on aluminum, not because of contamination, just so it worn't burn...

      • That works great in normal places. Not so much in companies that turn "diversity" into a Pokemon hunt.

      • We have a much simpler solution. We have one grill, we put whatever you want on it, if you have a problem with it, you're free to not put your stuff on the grill.

        I remember going to a juggling convention in the early 1990's at a University in the North of England. It had been advertised as having veggie and vegan options. Sadly no one had told the poorly paid staff that mixing veggie/vegan food and meat on the same hot plates would not be popular. The staff looked so surprised at all the howls of protest when that happened and seemingly could not understand why people complained.

        • I understand "Veggie/Vegan" don't like that, but I have a hard time seeing the big fuss from a "ethics" standpoint. It's not like any extra animals were harmed because someone cooked a veggie burger on the same grill as a regular burger. If someone accidentally drops a bit of beef in your veggie burger it's not like that makes you an animal-murderer.

          I understand if your objections are religious in nature, and an animal is "unclean", but if you're avoiding meat just because you think it's unethical to hur

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )
            The theory goes, as I understand it (I do not share these values, but this is how it was explained to me), is that even though they may not actually eat meat directly, they see consuming food that may have come in contact with meat as condoning the continued practice of "murdering animals", thereby turning the matter into an issue of ethical obligation.

          • I understand "Veggie/Vegan" don't like that, but I have a hard time seeing the big fuss from a "ethics" standpoint. It's not like any extra animals were harmed because someone cooked a veggie burger on the same grill as a regular burger. If someone accidentally drops a bit of beef in your veggie burger it's not like that makes you an animal-murderer.

            I understand if your objections are religious in nature, and an animal is "unclean", but if you're avoiding meat just because you think it's unethical to hurt animals, a slight splash of bacon grease accidentally put on your food is not going to put any of the blood on your hands.

            At my company, most of the vegans and vegetarians do it for a religious reason (different sects of Hindus and a few Muslims). I personally believe in the eating of tasty animals (try to treat the animals humanely, though). Twice a week I'll have red meat for dinner. Once a week I'll eat a vegetarian dinner.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          I also don't understand. The food is not mixed in the same dish, it's separate things. You don't eat meat, then don't eat the meat. The farmer most likely has touched the vegetable as have a number of packers, delivery persons and chefs.

    • I'd be surprised if they bothered trying to keep them seprate at KFC, Burger King, or other fast food places; the fryers are McD's were segregated by temperature, not what went in them, when I worked at one. (Also, if i recall correctly, it was tallow in the fries themselves, not the oil, that made the fries non-vegan.) Even if there was a corporate directive not to, the first dinner slam that hits the restaurant will have the staff frying the meatless food in whatever fryers are available.

      • ... , it was tallow in the fries themselves ...

        Which makes it even worse. Fries should be just sliced up potatoes. Nothing more.

        • So what do you fry them in?

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Magic. The same sort of magic, that lets vegans get a fully nutritious lifetime full of meals from plants alone.

            • I do not know what sort of sorcery MacKenzie River Pizza uses on their french fries but it is nothing short of black magic. They are fat people crack. I assure everyone who has never had the experience that it is not just sliced potatoes dumped in a vat of hot grease.
          • The parent post stated that the oil itself was vegan. I assume that is where they fry the Soylent yellow in.
        • It is a whole process at a fast food place so they can hit timeliness and pricepoint: those fries come frozen in paper bags, which get dumped into a big hopper that weighs out fry baskets with the proper amount so that the workers can just pick them up and toss them in the fryer as needed. If you had to slice potatoes manually, you either couldn't keep up or would drive up cost. If they were only pre-sliced potatoes rather than prepared with seasoning and oil, they'd stick to each other in the hopper, an

          • Nobody cuts potatoes by hand. We have machines for that. There's no reason you couldn't set up a small enough system to do that at any fast food place. If you can store frozen bags of fries, you can store potatoes alongside a fry cutter. That's not going to take up any more space than a freezer would.

            A local pub I sometimes visit has an open kitchen. They've got a bin of washed potatoes below a fry cutter. Cook throws a potato from the bin into the hopper, sticks a bowl under the chute, pulls the lever and

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spitzak ( 4019 )

              They do that at In And Out, so it is possible for a fast food restaurant to do it.

        • Which makes it even worse. Fries should be just sliced up potatoes. Nothing more.

          Nothing at McDonalds, or any fast food is just what it is supposed to be. Most fast food places: the ingredients to make just the pickles is at least a dozen items long... yeah, pickles are not just the dill and the vinegar... there's a whole long list of crap going into it. You've probably got another score of ingredients to make the ketchup, a dozen ingredients to make the bun... Nothing, not even fries, are going to be just one ingredient.

      • I'd be surprised if they bothered trying to keep them seprate at KFC, Burger King, or other fast food places; the fryers are McD's were segregated by temperature, not what went in them, when I worked at one. (Also, if i recall correctly, it was tallow in the fries themselves, not the oil, that made the fries non-vegan.) Even if there was a corporate directive not to, the first dinner slam that hits the restaurant will have the staff frying the meatless food in whatever fryers are available.

        Tallow [wikipedia.org] is rendered beef fat. Tallow was the frying medium at McDonald's until 1990 (93% beef tallow, 7% cottonseed oil). The best tasting fries are fried twice at different temperatures, so it makes sense to separate fryers based on temperature. My point is if beef tallow as a cooking medium at McDonald's (an establishment not necessarily known for healthy cooking) caused such an uproar, then sharing the same cooking surfaces between animal meat and faux meat may cause similar outrage.

    • McDonald's already got in trouble for using cow fat in their deep fryers (French fries were no longer vegetarian!).

      You have it backwards; McDogfood "fries" contained beef fat until ten or twenty years ago; now it's just engine oil, flavor "enhancers" and preservatives.

      • McDonald's uses frozen fries that are par-cooked in oil that contains natural beef flavor [thoughtco.com] before being frozen. The restaurants themselves use 100% vegetable oil in the frying, so the Beyond Meat patty won't be coming into contact with any beef flavor other than that which leaches off the fries themselves.

        "Natural beef flavor" is derived from milk and wheat proteins, so no cows are slaughtered in the process of creating the flavoring. Still, the flavoring isn't used in India even though many beef and pork ab

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by godrik ( 1287354 )

      Didn't Burger King said a couple weeks back that their impossible burgers were not vegetarian because they were cooked with other meats?

    • The company I work is diverse. We have vegans, vegetarians, people who don't eat red meat, and omnivores.

      . . . but does your company have people who eat vegans and vegetarians . . . ?

    • I'm sure Burger King and Del Taco also have a system in place where Beyond Meat isn't "contaminated" by real meat.

      I'm pretty sure they don't. Space in such restaurants is limited and they aren't going to install a special very expensive broiler or fryer for the very few people who would give a shit about such things. If having your veggie patty touching the same cooking surface as a meat burger bothers you then take your business elsewhere. You know their business is primarily serving meat so anyone who complains about it is a hypocrite for buying their food whether or not they actually eat the meat themselves.

      • Apparently Burger King still uses a flame broiler in the restaurant, and they don't have any way to prevent one getting some meat grease on their impossible Whopper patty. I thought they were nuking burgers now, because why else does the Whopper need some kind of wacky flavoring? It's the only burger I'm still burping up the flavor of by dinnertime, and I have cooked many a burger over fire. But anyway, it's not unmeated.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      They don't, hence they don't keep the fryers separate. If you think for one second that anyone in corporate hq feels about the vegan/vegetarians, you're mistaken.

      There will be a meat and non-meat fryer like it is now and cross-contamination will be alerted with a little bit of signage.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It tastes like chicken

  • No impossible chicken? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @09:27AM (#59125482)
    I did try the Impossible "beef" burger and a beyond meat "beef" burger. The beyond meat burger was okay but really not a substitute, it was however ok on its own.
    Now the impossible burger, well that was a surprise. If you didn't know you would never guess it wasn't beef. Flavour and importantly texture were very similar. It is a fermented soy based product, and since you need like 9kg of veggies plus lots of water plus more area to make 1 kg of beef, I find it an interesting development in the context of global warming - because you don't feel like giving up on flavour, at least for a burger structure. Additionally my friend (who was also impressed when he tried it) and I both have the impression that it was less heavy to digest.
    Anyway, I am curious if they can now develop convincing chicken substitute where you don't feel half sorry for yourself. Also going forward, would be interesting if the muscle structure of classic meat cuts can be replicated.
    These sure are fascinating developments.

    • Mmm, I too picked up the impossible burger out of curiousity -- a whopper in this case.

      It wasn't 'terrible' but it certainly wasn't nearly as tasty as a real burger. The fixings on the whopper masked the different taste pretty well, but trying a bite of the 'burger' by itself: it was much drier, had a bit of a funky aftertaste, and the mouthfeel was totally off.

      IMO these companies are going about this all wrong, you'll never convince anyone that a plant based, imitation product is superior to the real thin

    • Now the impossible burger, well that was a surprise. If you didn't know you would never guess it wasn't beef.

      The last one I had I put sharp cheddar and bacon on it. That was indistinguishable. And delicious.

      • Re:No impossible chicken? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Cyrano de Maniac ( 60961 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @12:13PM (#59126390)

        Absolutely. My wife ordered an Impossible Burger at a sit-down restaurant. I, ever the skeptic, tried a bite and I was amazed at how convincing it was. If you had served it without telling me what it was I wouldn't have had any reason to doubt its animal origin, and would have thought it one of the better burgers I'd had in a long time. I'm sure part of the convincing nature was careful preparation, but dang if it wasn't a good burger.

        Once they perfect this thing so it can be prepared at home with great results I'll have no qualms about switching to it.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        The fast food burgers typically are pre-cooked, so you're basically re-frying a fried, then frozen, then fried again piece of meat. Also, it's cooked thoroughly both in the factory and after to make sure no 'pink' is in the burger and typically the beef has been minced into a slurry and then some binding agents so you get a consistent piece of meat.

    • You could do more for the environment by driving an electric car or taking the bus to work, putting in LED bulbs or buying local produce.
      (I guess if you already do all those thing knock yourself out).

      https://reason.com/2019/07/29/... [reason.com]
      https://skepticalscience.com/a... [skepticalscience.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Solandri ( 704621 )

      It is a fermented soy based product, and since you need like 9kg of veggies plus lots of water plus more area to make 1 kg of beef, I find it an interesting development in the context of global warming

      That's how vegetarians like to spin it. The reality is that it won't have anywhere near that effect. The story starts in the 1930s with the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. For the first time, the country couldn't produce enough food to feed everyone. The government freaked out about that, and implemen

  • There's a reason why they call themselves KFC, rather than Kentucky Fried Chicken:

    1. The state of Kentucky objected to KFC's use of the word Kentucky as it would tarnish the state's reputation
    2. "Fried" sounds so unhealthy, so KFC's PR department prefers to avoid its use
    3. "Chicken": it's not really chicken, but processed plant matter...

    • Nope (Score:4, Informative)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @10:59AM (#59126014) Journal

      There's a reason why they call themselves KFC, rather than Kentucky Fried Chicken:

        The state of Kentucky objected to KFC's use of the word Kentucky as it would tarnish the state's reputation

      Uh, no [snopes.com].

      "The real reason behind the shift to KFC had nothing to do with healthy food or finicky consumers: it was about money — money that Kentucky Fried Chicken would have had to pay to continue using their original name. In 1990, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, mired in debt, took the unusual step of trademarking their name. Henceforth, anyone using the word “Kentucky” for business reasons — inside or outside of the state — would have to obtain permission and pay licensing fees to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It was an unusual and brilliant scheme to alleviate government debt, but it was also one that alienated one of the most famous companies ever associated with Kentucky. The venerable Kentucky Fried Chicken chain, a mainstay of American culture since its first franchise opened in Salt Lake City in 1952, refused as a matter of principle to pay royalties on a name they had been using for four decades. After a year of fruitless negotiations with the Kentucky state government, Kentucky Fried Chicken — unwilling to submit to “such a terrible injustice” — threw in the towel and changed their name instead, timing the announcement to coincide with the introduction of new packaging and products to obscure the real reasons behind the altering of their corporate name.

      Kentucky Fried Chicken were not the only ones who bravely refused to knuckle under. The name of the most famous horse race in North America, held every year at Churchill Downs, was changed from the “Kentucky Derby” to “The Run for the Roses” for similar reasons; many seed and nursery outfits that had previously offered Kentucky Bluegrass switched to a product known as “Shenendoah Bluegrass” instead; and Neil Diamond’s song “Kentucky Woman” was dropped from radio playlists at his request, as the licensing fees he was obligated to pay the Commonwealth of Kentucky exceeded the performance royalties he was receiving for the airplay."

      Basically, the state of Kentucky got greedy and tried to bilk KFC and other companies. All those companies called their bluff.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by zeugma-amp ( 139862 )

        "The real reason behind the shift to KFC had nothing to do with healthy food or finicky consumers: it was about money â" money that Kentucky Fried Chicken would have had to pay to continue using their original name. In 1990, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, mired in debt, took the unusual step of trademarking their name. Henceforth, anyone using the word âoeKentuckyâ for business reasons â" inside or outside of the state â" would have to obtain permission and pay licensing fees to the

  • Meatless chicken - don't you mean a "Chicken McNugget"? Even though my wife argues with me, I firmly believe McDonald's chicken nuggets have been meat-free for years (99.9% filler, 0.1% bone flakes so they can claim there's "chicken" in the nugget). Maybe this is McDonald's chance to turn the tide and finally come clean and admit they were a pioneer in this field before it was cool.

    • Meatless chicken - don't you mean a "Chicken McNugget"? Even though my wife argues with me, I firmly believe McDonald's chicken nuggets have been meat-free for years (99.9% filler, 0.1% bone flakes so they can claim there's "chicken" in the nugget). Maybe this is McDonald's chance to turn the tide and finally come clean and admit they were a pioneer in this field before it was cool.

      I've never seen a chicken whose meat is "grey" the colour of McDonald's chicken nuggets. That should give some clue.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @09:34AM (#59125530)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "Yes, you could grab a bucket of chicken without feeling quite so guilty -- or greasy"

    This is not how fried chicken works, you dont eliminate grease by eliminating the breast, these are still fried............

  • Chicken isn't greasy. Fried chicken with breadding and skin is, and that's why it is delicious.

    Chicken tenders are ok there as tenders, but suck compared to fried chicken. I imagine this is just a pointles substitute of white meat chicken for tenders and sandwiches.

    Carbs wrapped in carbs, you're going the wrong way.

  • Gardein (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pchasco ( 651819 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @10:05AM (#59125710)

    My wife is vegetarian, so I inevitably eat vegetarian most of the time because it doesnâ(TM)t make sense to prepare two meals, or modify a meal so that we can both have an entree that meets our preferred diets. Gardein makes a fake chicken product that is sold in most grocery stores which tastes pretty close to real chicken, especially when dipped in any sort of sauce.

    Eventually the efficiencies of fake meats over real meats will translate to cheaper prices. When we reach that critical point I believe youâ(TM)ll see many carnivorous humans opting for the fake versions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      I'll eat the fake stuff when they decide to whack the salt content. If I want salt, I'll suck on a bullion cube. Not a big fan of meat either, but at least it is possible to get it without it tasting like a salt lick.

    • The imitation meat probably works well for burgers or anything replacing processed meat products. However, until they figure out a way to make a replacement steak I don’t think it will truly replace the existing meat industry. It does likely mean that people eating hamburger helper will get a better tasting meal though. There may even be a shift towards grass-fed beef instead of all this nonsense of stuffing them with corn at feedlots.

    • Eventually the efficiencies of fake meats over real meats will translate to cheaper prices.

      And this will be the end of a lot of people in the poor and middle class eating real meat.

      Fast food meat drives a massive share of the meat industry. As that declines the large scale farming which supports it will decline, and that will likely push prices up. At some point it's likely that real meat is going to be prohibitively expensive for a majority of the population. It might end up being the sort of thing you reserve for a special occasion.

      A second pressure on the real meat farming industry is going to

  • You could do more for the environment by driving an electric car or taking the bus to work, putting in LED bulbs or buying local produce.
    (I guess if you already do all those thing knock yourself out).

    https://reason.com/2019/07/29/... [reason.com]
    https://skepticalscience.com/a... [skepticalscience.com]

    On the other hand you can make the sacrifice and FEEL you have done something weather or not it is actually useful or effective, maybe that is the point. Seems to be for a lot of people now days.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kwerle ( 39371 )

      I think you meant to say "This is not *as* helpful..."

    • Re:This is not helpful... (Score:5, Informative)

      by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Monday August 26, 2019 @03:43PM (#59127196)

      Not true at all. The damage done by the meat industry is huge, more than you can really comprehend. For example, see

      https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
      http://science.time.com/2013/1... [time.com]

      This paragraph from the first one may give you a sense of the scale of the problem.

      The global scope of the livestock issue is huge. A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth's terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet's arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. Seventy percent of Brazil's deforested land is used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder. And in Botswana, the livestock industry consumes 23 percent of all water used. Globally, 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the livestock industry--more than is produced by transportation-related sources. And in the United States, livestock production is responsible for 55 percent of erosion, 37 percent of all applied pesticides and 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, while the animals themselves directly consume 95 percent of our oat production and 80 percent of our corn, according to the Sierra Club.

      • The first thing that should give you a clue that the information you are consuming should be double checked is citation. "according to the Sierra Club" might just as well read "According to Howard stern", :"According to Rush Limbaugh" or "According to Donald trump" all of whom are sources no sane person trust for any attempt at finding actual truth of any situation.

        Of coarse fact checking my original links isn't much better. The second link is for certainly about as biased as "Rush Limbaugh" the first on

        • It seems to me you just changed your position. Here's what you said in your first post:

          On the other hand you can make the sacrifice and FEEL you have done something weather or not it is actually useful or effective, maybe that is the point. Seems to be for a lot of people now days.

          That sounds pretty clear to me. You were saying that reducing your (personal) meat consumption doesn't actually help the environment, it's just a way to make yourself feel good. But your second post argued a totally different point:

          It would be MUCH simpler and effective and easier to accomplish to just pass a law that forbid further manufacture and sale of internal combustion engines. I generally think there is not much chance of that happening, but the chances of changing making meaningful reduction in livestock production are a whole lot less, would require the passage of many laws and regulations...(etc)

          You've gone from discussing what impacts each person's behavior has to instead talking about what laws we should pass. And you're no longer saying there's no benefit from people eating les

  • Not to mention the eleven herbs and spices, especially the salt.
    • It's junk food either way, and if it's similar to the impossible whopper, the nutritional value will be more or less the same as the meat version.

  • I want the real deal, not the fake stuff made with artificial ingredients that was rushed through the FDA approval process. who knows what type of health affects it may caused down the road.

    • What about KFC gives you the impression you're getting an all natural product just because a chicken died somewhere along the line?

      • It's the vibrant color of all of their "meals", duh.

        *shudder*

        Every time I see a KFC "meal deal" ad it's just repulsive. Brown on brown on gray on white, all sloppy and greasy. In my old age I'm starting to think that we need an FDA rule that you can't call something a "meal" if it doesn't capture at least 25% of your RDA of at least 50% of things that have an RDA. KFC's offerings are so nutritionally deficient that it's actually really shocking to me. At least McDonalds tends to throw a couple of token vege

  • Have you met a live chicken? Those motherfuckers deserve to be eaten. Horrible creatures. One of only a handful of species that will pick a member of its own group and choose to ostracize it. Chickens will literally peck to death one of their own. Not just in crowded farming conditions among chicks, either. It happens with adult free range chickens too.

    Off with their heads and into the fryers with them! It never happened to a more deserving animal.

  • We have certainly seen and heard stories like this before... http://uncoveror.com/chicken.h... [uncoveror.com] http://uncoveror.com/chickin.h... [uncoveror.com]

  • Just a few miles north of the chosen location is "The Big Chicken" an iconic local landmark, newly remodeled last year. Why they didn't do it there is beyond me.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close