Healthy Choice Café Steamers Chicken Pesto Classico  » Food  »
1 votes
Are you familiar with this?
Feel free to rate it!
  • I prefer heartier pasta shapes, like rotini or farfelle
  • I wanted to try Chicken Pesto Classico because the pasta was rotini and I love pesto

    • by carblover

      all reviews
      The main complaint I had with the last Café Steamers entrée I tried was the angel hair pasta. I prefer heartier pasta shapes, like rotini or farfelle. I wanted to try Chicken Pesto Classico because the pasta was rotini and I love pesto. Also, from the picture, this seemed to have more vegetables than the last one I tried. The calorie count looked good – just a little over 300 calories – and the

      fat content is pretty low, considering that the sauce is pesto.

      The basil-pesto sauce would’ve taste better if they had added a little more salt. The basil flavor was prominent and I could tell they used fresh basil because it didn’t taste minty. The zucchini was nicely cooked; it wasn’t mushy and it still had a slight crunchy. It would have tasted better if the sauce covering it had more salt to bring out the ...

      • zucchini flavor. The chicken had nice grill marks and I could taste the smoke from the grill in the chicken. Though it was few in number, the chicken was moist and nicely cooked. And again, the chicken would’ve tasted even better if the sauce was better. The pasta would’ve tasted better too, because it has the grooves to hold on the sauce. I just wish the sauce had been more robust.

        Overall, the chicken

        and vegetables were cooked nicely and the combination of zucchini and chicken was a good one. But the sauce was a bit disappointing. The basil flavor was good but the sauce lacked salt. I was tempted to add my own. Because there wasn’t enough salt to bring out or enhance the natural flavors of the chicken and zucchini, the entrée tasted kind of bland. Healthy Choice needs to make some improvements with this entrée.

    • Don't Be Nice. Be Helpful.

    Sorry, there are no related reviews at moment
    The review was published as it's written by reviewer in February, 2010. The reviewer certified that no compensation was received from the reviewed item producer, trademark owner or any other institution, related with the item reviewed. The site is not responsible for the mistakes made. 2722021001490828/k2311a0222/2.22.10
    Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms & Conditions
    Privacy Policy