Has anybody posted about this before? Nothing came up in my quick scan of recent searches, but I might've missed something.
I imagine this practice has origins in back-of-the-house restaurant lingo (like "chix" instead of chicken) and now has filtered down to use amongst foodies.
I don't think it gives proper respect to the animal from whence the "protein" came. To get technical about it, there are lots more nutrients in a piece of meat than just protein. And protein is a macronutrient found in many foods, not just animals.
In Top Chef, Episode 8, the contestants had to cook a meal featuring meat from pigs, lambs, and chickens raised at Stone Barns. Two teams were criticized for taking the meat off the bones and removing much of its fat, robbing it of potential flavor and richness. Tom Collichio went on to say that they were not "honoring the protein."
I do not think it honors an animal to come up with a sterile euphemism for its flesh, either.
Mmk, done ranting. What's everybody else's take on this one?
This post is locked.Have something new to say?Create a New Post
Updated 1 year ago | 45
Updated 2 years ago | 27
Updated 1 year ago | 42
Updated 2 years ago | 9
Updated 30 days ago | 10