Chicken Nugget Autopsy: "Chicken Little" Found Inside

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around the findings from an autopsy of chicken nuggets, highlighting the composition of the nuggets and raising questions about food processing and consumer awareness. Participants explore the implications of these findings within the context of food science, consumer expectations, and the broader issues of food quality and safety.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites a study revealing that one chicken nugget contained 40% meat, primarily fat, while another contained 50% striated muscle, skin, and nerve tissue, raising concerns about the transparency of food labeling.
  • Some participants express shock at the findings, suggesting that the presence of non-meat components in chicken nuggets is unexpected.
  • Another participant compares the findings to a study on fast food hamburgers, noting that the meat content was significantly low and included various unexpected tissues, which may relate to processing methods.
  • Discussion includes references to acceptable levels of contamination in food products, as outlined by the FDA, which some participants find troubling.
  • A participant reflects on their past experience with USDA standards for food contaminants, suggesting that such issues are inherent in processed foods.
  • Some express personal revulsion at the idea of consuming processed foods, while others argue that such contaminants are unavoidable in commercial products.
  • One participant humorously suggests that they might enjoy unusual animal parts if not informed of their nature, indicating a disconnect between expectation and reality in food consumption.
  • There are anecdotes about school food practices, including complaints about undercooked burgers, which some participants find amusing or indicative of broader food quality issues.
  • A participant shares a personal connection to farm life, contrasting it with the processed food experience.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of shock, humor, and personal opinions regarding the findings, with no clear consensus on the implications of the chicken nugget composition or the acceptability of food processing practices. Disagreement exists on the personal impact of these findings, with some finding them revolting and others more accepting.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in sample size and the potential for misleading labeling in food products. There is also an acknowledgment of the inherent contaminants in processed foods, which may vary based on production methods.

jim mcnamara
Mentor
Messages
4,789
Reaction score
3,852
I do not know where to post this one. It is kind of "science-lite" IMO.

"The autopsy of chicken nuggets reads 'Chicken Little'"
Richard D. deShazo, MD, Steven Bigler, MD, Leigh Baldwin Skipworth, BA
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00396-3/abstract

Two chicken nuggets from different sources were sectioned and analyzed microscopically.
One was 40% meat, the majority of the nugget was fat. A small portion was cartilage and bone.

Nugget #2 was 50% striated muscle - what we think of as meat. The rest was skin, epithelial tissues (gut lining), nerve tissue.

Ignoring the sample size issue, this is interesting - another aspect of the 'pink slime' syndrome in "Food Science". At the worst, though, I think it is going to undermine chicken nugget sales. It is fair to put whatever you want (FDA approved) into food, as long as consumers know. My wife gets frozen nuggets sometimes, the label just says 'chicken'. Which is correct. Just like 'pink slime' is a meat product. Misleading but correct. Here we go with more fun and games.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Golly, I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
 
You snooze, you lose. Always get chicken tenders or breast fillets and skip anything that says nuggets. Now popcorn chicken ...
 
Yes shocked. That means the chicken beaks and toes are going someplace else into another product...
 
Not as bad as ground beef.

In a study in the USA in 2008, eight different brands of fast food hamburgers were evaluated for water content by weight and recognizable tissue types using morphological techniques that are commonly used in the evaluation of tissue's histological condition. The study found that the content of the hamburgers included:
Water content 37.7% to 62.4% (mean, 49%)
Meat content 2.1% to 14.8% (median, 12.1%)
Skeletal tissue
Connective tissue
Blood vessels
Peripheral nerve tissue
Plant material
Adipose tissue
Bone and Cartilage ("Bone and cartilage, observed in some brands, were not expected; their presence may be related to the use of mechanical separation in the processing of the meat from the animal. Small amounts of bone and cartilage may have been detached during the separation process")[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_beef

Not to mention allowable amounts of feces, insects, etc...

The Food Defect Action Levels: Levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods that present no health hazards for humans is a publication of the United States Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition[1] detailing acceptable levels of food contamination from sources such as maggots, thrips, insect fragments, "foreign matter", mold, rodent hairs, and insect and mammalian feces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels
 
I worked for the USDA a long time ago (1967) - wheat flour had defined limits for insect frass, and exoskeleton fragments as well. These are all artifacts of grain storage.

As I said earlier this is interesting, not necessarily personally revolting. Processed foods produced in industrial environments are going to have contaminants. Period. Seven sigma it ain't.
 
Well, it is personally revolting, but unavoidable if you eat commercial products. I don't know how much cleaner Kosher meat is.
 
I feel like I've become immune to some of these reports. The concept of "eating the entire animal" isn't new. It's just that these products are so surprisingly palpable and we expect them to be utterly disgusting.

If you gave me a ligament and brain sandwich and didn't tell me what it was, there's a pretty good chance I'd like it. (As long as it doesn't have capers... I HATE capers.)
 
This made me laugh - School Pulls All-Beef Burgers From Menu, Citing Complaints

School board member Ryan McElveen, who has pushed for fresh and nutritious food in schools, "said that the change occurred after students noticed that the old patties appeared to be pink in the middle," The Post says.

Noting that Fairfax schools' lunch cafeterias precook their burgers, the newspaper reports "McElveen said it's likely that the all-beef patties did not have a caramel coloring additive."

Sounds to me that they weren't cooking them completely and nobody noticed until real burgers without food coloring were served. Solution: serve the other undercooked burger that just looks like it's been cooked. :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
I live on the edge... I like my burgers with a little pink in the middle. And I especially love them served by school cafeteria ladies...
 
  • #11
so happy to be living in farm country. My children got to know their chickens before they watched their plucked, decapitated carcasses go into the oven.