The other restaurants tested had 85-90% chicken instead of 50%. The chicken ends up ground up into tiny bits and bound with other things - basically salt and sugar - so I don't think it is possible to have 100% chicken post-processing. The difference is something like the difference between a raw plank and particleboard.

IMO, if it is 85-90% chicken then labeling it "chicken" is not unreasonable.

Then what's the point of processing it?

Consistency, portioning and mixing in cheaper stuff.

Obviously as you head towards 100% chicken less stuff is mixed in, but that still leaves the consistency and portioning.

The point is being able to use chicken that virtually nobody would want to eat.

Having it be entirely chicken. Google how they make chicken nuggets for McDonald's.

Doesn't seem that bad:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-chicken-mcnuggets-are-mad...

The "chicken skin for flavoring" part isn't especially appealing, but chicken skin is fat+protein, just like the rest of the nuggets.

So long as you're eating chicken, adding in the skin isn't too unreasonable. You eat the skin with chicken wings and fried chicken anyway. And it's not like they're using chicken skins in vegan foods, where you otherwise wouldn't expect the involvement of chicken.

> The "chicken skin for flavoring" part isn't especially appealing

How is that un-appealing? The best part of a roasted chicken is the skin.

Their original nuggets were awful. The present "white meat" nuggets are totally different (not that I eat there).

As for other chains: note how they don't even use the word "chicken" in the product name, just "nuggets")