In the 1970s and 1980s, American poultry producers faced a problem hidden in plain sight. Consumers loved dark meat: legs and wings. They were tender, juicy, flavorful. Chicken breast, by contrast, sold slowly and often ended up discarded or heavily discounted. For an industry built on volume and efficiency, this imbalance was a financial threat. Every bird came with only two wings and two legs, but a large amount of breast meat that nobody really wanted.
Producers tried to limit the damage by grinding the excess into cheap chicken mince, a mix of leftover meat, skin and whatever could be trimmed from the carcass. But ground meat sold for far less. Profit margins shrank. Something had to change.
So the major poultry companies did what large industries often do when market forces don’t cooperate. They gathered through their trade associations and invented a new consumer reality. They funded “independent” scientific studies about the dangers of red meat and the benefits of lean white meat. And as long as the headline was clear, there were always researchers willing to fill in the conclusion.
Within a few years, the narrative spread everywhere. Red meat became a symbol of an unhealthy past. White meat stood for purity, lightness, modern nutrition. Magazines echoed the message, doctors repeated it and families reorganized their diets. Chicken breast, once the least desirable cut, turned into the emblem of healthy eating.
But by the early 1990s, this manufactured success created a new crisis. Americans weren’t just eating more chicken - they were eating almost exclusively the breast. The demand for white meat skyrocketed, while legs and wings, the former favorites, were now piling up as unwanted leftovers. The exact problem of the 1970s returned, only reversed. If the trend continued, producers would soon have to grind legs and wings into cheap filler, because nobody wanted them anymore.
To keep up with the white-meat obsession, the industry began reshaping the bird itself. Selective breeding transformed the traditional chicken into a creature with a massive, exaggerated chest. It solved part of the problem, but the underlying imbalance remained.
Then the producers realized what was coming. If consumers kept choosing only breast meat, the dark-meat surplus would become unmanageable. They would lose money on half of every bird. And so they did what had already worked once: they quietly launched a new wave of messaging.
A new wave of articles began appearing in the press: “White Meat Isn’t Actually That Healthy,” “The Hidden Downsides of Chicken Breast,” “Balance Your Diet: Why Dark Meat Matters.” Not alarmist, not extreme - just enough to tilt the narrative. Enough to make consumers pause and reconsider. Enough to keep demand distributed across the whole bird.
And that is how the industry has lived ever since. Not by following consumer preferences, but by gently steering them. Every 10 to 15 years, the public belief system swings from white meat to dark meat and back again. It always looks spontaneous. It never is. Behind every shift lies the same balancing act, maintained through selective science, well-timed narratives and the constant pressure of an industry that cannot afford for any part of the bird to become useless.
References: