From: lordstu...@aol.com (LordStupid)
Subject: A new food u.l. re: "chicken"?
Date: 1999/03/29
Message-ID: <19990328233420.06921.00001612@ng30.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 460214339
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
X-Admin: n...@aol.com

I searched the FAQ and Deja News, but didn't find anything about this.  Forgive
me if my research was inadequate or otherwise flawed... 

The other day, someone dropped the following on me:  there is a reason why KFC
(formerly known as "Kentucky Fried Chicken") and Boston Market (supposedly
formerly known as "Boston Chicken") changed their names.  The alleged reason is
that the product these companies sell as "chicken" is so pumped up full of
steroids, growth enhancements, and other chemicals, that the end result is no
longer truly the meat of a "chicken."  Hence, the aforementioned
establishements were legally required to change their names.  

A great story, but it immediately raised a u.l. flag in my mind.  Among other
factors doing so, it struck me as odd that the restaurants in question would
have to change their names, but could still sell the product as "chicken" in
their menus.   Also, I can't recall ever hearing of a legal definition of
"chicken" based on the amount of chemicals, hormones, etc. that have been used.
 

Anyone else ever hear this one?

-chuck