Evolving offal: does it change with the times?

[Fat Guy]

A discussion tangent on another topic raised the following question: what the heck is offal anyway?

Two views seem to exist.

One says that there is a list of stuff that is considered offal. The list includes heart, kidneys, whatever. The point being, the list is the list, offal is offal.

The other says that offal is defined as by-product, trimmings, waste. Therefore, one generation's by-product is not necessarily another generation's waste. According to this view, when sweetbreads cost more per pound than filet mignon, and are mainstream menu items in the finest restaurants, they are no longer rightly called offal.

Those who already posted research should of course feel free to carry it over here.

[raji]

Gourmet hormones?

or.....

Offal?

[slkinsey]

I'm not sure I agree that it changes with the times. Fundamentally you have two parts of the animal: muscle meat and other stuff. The other stuff is offal. So, for example, there was a time when skirt steak wasn't eaten much in America. Then, as America discovered fajitas, and now it's very popular. But it was always meat. An expanded definition of offal might also include "little greasy bits of muscle meat that are hard to get out in one appetizingly large piece."

To make a few examples: Tongue? Not offal. Beef and pork cheeks? Not offal. Trotters? Not offal. Marrow? Offal. Sweetbreads? Offal. Liver? Offal. Mousse de foie gras? Offal.

Here are some things I've written in other threads that are pertinent to this discussion:

<blockquote>I'd say that the easiest definition of offal would be the "fifth quarter" -- which is to say, all the stuff that's left over after the animal is separated into the four primary quarters of muscle meat. This would include the organs and glands, of course, but would also include things like tendons, blood, ears, nervous tissue, etc. -- and, of course, the products made from them, like scrapple, blood sausage, haggis, pate, pölsa, etc.</blockquote>

I had originally included feet and head in the above, but I'm not sure I agree with that anymore. The meat that comes from feet and heads is all just meat, and not offal. I wouldn't consider a boiled pig's trotter to be offal. Products made by boiling whole feet or a whole head, known by names like testa, head cheese, souse meat, etc., might be considered offal under the expended definition.

<blockquote>The 1828 Webster's dictionary defines offal as: "Waste meat; the parts of an animal butchered which are unfit for use or rejected."

The current (10th) edition of Webster's has it as: "1 : the waste or by-product of a process: as a : trimmings of a hide b : the by-products of milling used especially for stock feeds c : the viscera and trimmings of a butchered animal removed in dressing : VARIETY MEAT"

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the word origins as: "1398, "waste parts, refuse," from off + fall; the notion being that which "falls off" the butcher's block; perhaps a translation of M.Du. afval."</blockquote>

I think it's entirely possible for a food to be both offal and an expensive luxury ingredient.

Edited April 27, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[BryanZ]

That's a great post.

While I agree that offal is fundamentally non-muscle meat and not simply "waste." I would like to throw in this kink. Many people (the general dining public) would consider tongue to be offal and some would even consider pork or beef cheek to be offal. Are they simply mistaken or is there some truth to the "weird" animal part = offal mantra?

[slkinsey]

I think that if you cooked a beef or pork cheek, or a tongue, and sliced it up for someone... most people would not consider it offal. I think very few would even be able to tell you that it's any different from "regular meat." Some people may not like it or might be squeamish about it, but some people are squeamish about chicken thighs. I mean, if pork cheeks are offal, then what about pork belly? Does turning a pork cheek into guanciale make it no longer offal? Does turning a pork belly into bacon make it no longer offal?

[Fat Guy]

One possible difficulty with the meat/non-meat distinction is that there doesn't appear to be a formal definition anywhere that supports it in a logical manner.

The dictionary definitions all seem to indicate that the issue is waste. (As an aside, that would seem to be in opposition to the idea that offal can be a luxury product.)

The culinary definitions seem to focus on butchering. One possibly authoritative culinary definition would be the one in Larousse Gastronomique.

In Larousse, the definition begins, "The edible internal parts and some extremities of an animal, which are removed before the carcass is cut up. It therefore includes the head, feet and tail, and all the main internal organs." That would seem to argue for Sam's earlier "fifth quarter" leanings, in that the definition is dictated not by culture, and not by muscle meat versus not muscle meat, but rather by butchering.

Incidentally, at least according to Larousse, foie gras would not be offal because, "The offal from poultry is called the giblets."

In an older edition of Larousse, there's also a discourse on "white offal" versus "red offal."

[slkinsey]

The OED says that the oldest meanings had to do with scraps, chips and refuse (as in wood shavings or metal filings). Here's what they have next:

2. a. The parts which are cut off in dressing the  carcase of an animal killed for food; in earlier use applied mainly to the entrails; now, as a trade term, including the head and tail, as well as the kidneys, heart, tongue, liver and other parts.

One of the earliest reference quotes they give (c. 1420) refers to "tho offal and tho lyver of a swan," supporting their observation that the term originally referred to the intestines (entrails) only.

Their modern definition would seem to support my idea that offal equals non-muscle meat and "hard to get greasy little bits" or otherwise challenging small pieces of muscle meat associated with lots of connective tissue. That would mean, for example: Pig cheek as part of a whole boiled pig's head? Offal. Separated and cured/fried or braised pig cheek? Not offal. (I'm not sure I personally agree with their inclusion of the tongue with offal, but accept that it is often considered such.)

Edited April 28, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[Fat Guy]

Pig cheek as part of a whole boiled pig's head?  Offal.  Separated and cured/fried or braised pig cheek?  Not offal.

←

I can't figure out where you're getting that from, in terms of any of the definitions above. The way I read it, OED seems to be saying pretty much what Larousse is saying.

[DRColby]

I'd read that offal was what the French aristocracts threw into the streets for the poor to eat, hence the evolution of offal butchers.

Today, since most offal isn't even available in the super-safe, litigious society, I thnik most offal goes into unsafe pet food.

Dave

[slkinsey]

Pig cheek as part of a whole boiled pig's head?  Offal.  Separated and cured/fried or braised pig cheek?  Not offal.

I can't figure out where you're getting that from, in terms of any of the definitions above. The way I read it, OED seems to be saying pretty much what Larousse is saying.

Because, when the cheek is prepared part of the whole head, I would call it a "hard to get greasy little bit or otherwise challenging small pieces of muscle meat associated with lots of connective tissue" because that's what the head mostly is made of. Similarly, although veal neck isn't considered offal, if the head was boiled together with part of the neck and presented at the table, I'd consider it to be an offal dish. When it is a cow or large pig it is possible to remove the cheek meat in one relatively large piece. Beef cheeks, in particular, can be quite large and steak-like in aspect (look here for a picture of a beef cheek, and you'll see what I mean). In my opinion, there is nothing offal-like about a braised beef cheek stew, and I wouldn't consider this an offal dish. Braised beef head stew, on the other hand, is offal-like, and I would consider it an offal dish.

[Fat Guy]

I'm still having trouble navigating your reasoning here. You refer to "Their modern definition." By that I think you mean the latter part of the OED's definition, "The parts which are cut off in dressing the carcase of an animal killed for food; in earlier use applied mainly to the entrails; now, as a trade term, including the head and tail, as well as the kidneys, heart, tongue, liver and other parts." From there, I don't get how you derive, "hard to get greasy little bit or otherwise challenging small pieces of muscle meat associated with lots of connective tissue."

[slkinsey]

That's my own expanded definition from one of my posts above. I mean, what makes heads and tails "offal"? (I'm actually not sure I think oxtails are offal. Pig tails, yes. But there's plenty of muscle meat on a big oxtail.) Why is the head offal and not the neck? Well, because the head is comprised mostly of connective tissue, skin, sinew, and little bits of meat that can't easily be eaten. If you're eating tête de veau, you're picking at little bits of stuff. On the other hand, if you can pull off a piece of the cheek in one relatively large "steak" you've got a nice big piece of muscle meat, no picking required. It just requires a little flexibility in thinking about what goes into these definitions.

In a way, it goes back to the earlier "waste" idea of "offal." The muscle meat was considered the "best part" of the animal that went to the people with money. If you were the owner of the pig or cow, you probably didn't care what happened to the other stuff. Throw it away for all you care. The "secondary products" consisted largely of the organs, but would also include blood, skin, and the portions of muscle meat that were considered unacceptably low in quality because they were full of tendons and cartilage, tough, full of fiddly little bones, had to be picked off of the skull or boiled away and made into a terrine as a way of using every last bit of the animal, etc. To a rich person in those days (and, hey, to a lot of people today in any socioeconomic class) those parts would all be considered "waste." This pretty much accords with the OED definition you quoted above: "parts which are cut off in dressing" being the "greasy picky bits" of the carcass, and entrails and organs being... well, entrails and organs. However, to continue exploring the definition, if the beef cheeks are cut off and reserved separately, they are not "cut off in dressing."

I can't imagine that Larousse, if presented with a stew made of beef cheeks and another made of beef chuck would, upon tasting them, proclaim the former "offal" and the later "not offal."

Edited April 28, 2007 by slkinsey (log)