"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
>
> > Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
> > disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
> > I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone. Breast
> > meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
> > with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
> > or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
> > chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
> > not right to see blood in poultry.
>
> Right and wrong are meaningless terms in the kitchen. Here's why you
> will increasingly see blood in poultry:
> <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>

I don't buy it. I've been cooking chicken for over 40 years
and when I cook it at home there is never any "blood" or whatever
near the bone. Maybe it's safe to eat when you can see the
"blood" as described in the article you quoted above but that's
not the issue, as far as I am concerned. It may be "done" but it's
not done enough for me.

> > The only meat where I don't
> > mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
> > and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
> > (Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
> > people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
> > I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
> > is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
> > up not ever having rare pork.)
>
> "Rare" is a technical term. You misuse it.

How so? Rare is when the meat is pink or red and bloody, is
it not?

Kate