Talk:White meat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cierrabeck, Mengyin Zhang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential addition to page
As white meat is a main component of many individuals diets, and when looking up white meat on wikipedia, people might be interested in learning more about the dietary effects of white meat, and how this effects their health. I have been drafting a potential section addition, titled "module 6-final paragraphs" on my sandbox, linked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cierrabeck/sandboxannotatedbib. I have included several academic sources for my writing, included and analyzed in the module 5 and module 4 sections. Please let me know your thoughts on the importance of this addition, and any comments and criticism you may have! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cierrabeck (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative white meats
What about rabbit??? What about cat????? Remember me 16:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pork: Red meat or white?
I've removed the assertion that pork is a white meat, because it contradicts our Red meat article. Whatever the final conclusion on this is, the two articles should agree. FreplySpang 15:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'ved moved the following statement here as it's not only poorly sourced but likely false:


 * The meat of young mammals such as veal and milk-fed lamb, and that of pork is usually considered "white"; while the meat of duck and goose is considered "red", though the demarcation line has been shifting.

The demarcation line shifted long ago! --Amit 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are sources for the previous version of the article; no sources for your version. Are you sure you aren't confusing the gastronomic and the nutritional sense of "red/white meat"?  --Macrakis 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In your latest blanking of well-sourced content, you say "Please get a source that is not 18 years old". It would be nice if up-to-the-minute reference sources were available for everything, but the revision schedules of major reference works simply aren't on that sort of schedule, and frankly 18 years isn't that long a time anyway. Moreover, WP is based on sources. Simply because you believe the meaning has changed in the past 18 years doesn't mean that you can demand a source proving that it hasn't! I realize that the U.S. medical community has been trying to redefine "red meat" as meaning all animal meat, but I don't believe the gastronomic community agrees. What's more, WP tries to have a world-wide perspective; do you have good evidence of a change world-wide? But as a compromise solution, I will add the word "traditionally" to the sentence. That is non-committal about the current meaning while reflecting the well-documented meaning as recently as 18 years ago. Instead of blanking again, please discuss here first. --Macrakis 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The oxford english dictionary isn't the best source for this kind of info. Here's one that calls pork dark meat, though from what I understand it's a pretty irrellevant classification, kind of like vegetable - it's not a scientific term.  WLU 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We really need scientific sources. Dictionaries aren't good sources for this definition as it is controversial, and they are therefore unacceptable. If you'd like to continue to have those statements listed, I recommend getting at least two scientific sources.
 * I understand that the views of the medical and gastronomic communities likely differ. The correct thing to do then is to list both views, as long as they're both properly sourced. It should be obvious that I insist on a proper definition because I believe the gastronomic community cares less about my health and the health of my family and friends than the medical community.
 * As for a world perspective on the definition of red/white meat, I'm open to having that listed but only with the name of the regions where that opinion holds true. --Amit 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see where you're coming from! Well, it's not at all clear that "red meat" and "white meat" are scientific terms.  As far as I can tell, in current nutritional/medical discourse, they are terms used to communicate the concept of low-saturated-fat meats, though the "redness" of meat has to do with its myoglobin concentration (0.005-0.2% in chicken; 0.1-0.3% in pork and veal; 0.4-1.0% in young beef; 1.5-2.0% in old beef), not with its saturated fat content (which seems to be what is nutritionally relevant).  The fat of beef, veal, and chicken is about equally saturated, but beef happens to be not only red, but also more marbled, that is, it contains more intramuscular fat mixed in with the meat, so even if you trim the visible fat off, there is a significant amount of (saturated) fat left in the meat.  This is not true, by the way, of veal.
 * The pork industry's slogan "pork, the other white meat" takes advantage of the traditional meaning of "white meat" to get across their point that well-trimmed pork loin meat has relatively little fat compared to beef. Obviously, the slogan wouldn't work if people didn't still classify pork as "white meat".
 * It would be interesting to have good sources on the history of these rhetorical adventures.... --Macrakis 14:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A correction about saturated fats: According to the USDA food database, beef lard is 49.8 % saturated fatty acids, lard is 39.2 % and chicken fat is 29.8 % (and btw note that fat is roughly 5 % glycerol and only about 95 % fatty acids). Of course, the numbers vary depending on breed and fodder, but the fraction of saturated fatty acids is significantly different in these 3 kinds of fat. Icek 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the fact that a pork chop is WHITE in color have something to do with it? After all, the vast majority of people think of white meat as a color...216.29.165.106 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another quibble
The article currently says, "... domestic chicken and rabbit are invariably considered "white", while the meat of adult mammals, such as beef, mutton, and horse is invariably considered "red". Er, rabbits are mammals. Should this say "large mammals"? But then the pork controversy comes in. Any ideas on how to resolve this? FreplySpang 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Logical alternate terms
Right now we have in the intro in terms of the slow/fast twitch fibres of meat (not talking about white/red) we have white/light versus dark.

This got me thinking. The opposite of 'white' would technically be 'black' but we don't use black I guess because that makes you think of burnt meat. Plus I've never seen dark meat that's literally dark enough to be black whereas the meat does look rather pure white when it's lighter.

One thing I was wondering was, as opposed to "light" meat, has it ever been called "pale" meat? Maybe that's a bad choice because pale may imply that there's some kind of pallour but I think that pale is an apt an antonym to dark as light is. Nym (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The opposition white/red meat should be in a single place, so I've suggested merging this article into red meat, which has much more. --Macrakis (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed
In November 2012, the line stating that the fields of biology, husbandry, and a couple others all agree (blank) was labeled as needing a citation. It's November 2015, and there's still no citation. I deleted the line, and rewrote in more neutral voice. I used the citation on the topic used in the [Red Meat] article. -Laced 96.41.75.84 (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)