Indeed, I was thinking of foie gras. Thank you for the correction.

Given that I've twice expressed quite explicitly the point I was making, I fear we're talking past each other. I wish you a good day.

I understand full well that you are expressing that there is some difference between eating and other uses.

You've done little to argue why this difference is substantial (hence my just restating the position I started with, where they are conflated).

"A [real or imagined] respect for animals that led to a reduction in waste product."

is not the same as

"Maximizing profit by turning undesirable or inaccessible meat into nuggets in a potentially dangerous process."

I don't think you're wrong to mention them in the same sentence, but it's definitely disingenuous/uncharitable to compare peoples' sentiments on the two apples-to-apples.

A big part of the point I'm trying to make is that the differing sentiments aren't all that coherent. I don't see how it is disingenuous to express my opinion on the matter.

I guess it might not be especially charitable.

I'm interested here because to me they don't seem at all incoherent. Can you unpack that a bit for me?

It comes down to "Maximizing profit by turning undesirable or inaccessible meat into nuggets in a potentially dangerous process."

I don't agree that is a particularly good description of the process. They are making the meat accessible, it isn't undesirable to begin with.

There could be some occupational hazard, I don't know. It seems clear enough that it isn't much of a food hazard (we've been eating it for decades).