It's been setting the standard for shitty meat though. Try a Tyson breast and one from a local farm and you don't even need to taste it to know it's different.
I've invested money in a local butcher in Chicago and source pretty much all of my protein from another one closer to me. I'm familiar with the locavore argument and agree that the quality is higher. There are still higher levels of quality to be reached by sourcing heritage birds, and you can optimize for flavor even more by sourcing game birds. Where do you draw the line? I'd rather eat a local farm chicken than a Tyson breast, just like I'd rather eat a dry-aged ribeye than a wet-packed eye of round. That doesn't make the eye of round somehow inedible or "barely meat".
The term "barely meat" as used in the parent was definitely talking about the ground beef you get at fast food restaraunts. Which has been shown in lots of cases to contain additives, notably taco bell etc. You brought up chicken because it's harder to call it barely meat, but fast food chicken is still shittier.
"Shittier" how? Chick-Fil-A's fast-food chicken is likely better than the median supermarket chicken (it's all supposedly antibiotic-free now). I'd like to see a better grounded argument, one that doesn't depend entirely on the premise that "fast food meat must be shitty because we disdain fast food".
All chicken in the US is technically antibiotic-free. [1]
Here I think we’re referring to the “raised without antibiotics” standard.
(Point of order: tptacek probably brought up chicken because TFA is about KFC, a purveyor of ... chicken.)
The article is about plant-based meat replacements. I think it's ludicrous how everyone in this thread seems to think it's oh so important to argue whether their real meat is actually really good or not.