Olive Garden’s 'Chocolate Brownie Lasagna' Isn’t Really a Lasagna, but Why Quibble?
The limited-time-only, eight-layer dessert doesn't actually contain any pasta.
Not to start on a nitpicky note, but lasagna is first and foremost a type of pasta. Then, similar to how the word "spaghetti" can signify both a type of pasta and a dish made with spaghetti, "lasagna" also commonly refers to the baked dish made with lasagna. Now, some of you brazen types might argue, "But can't the word 'lasagna' also mean something that resembles a lasagna similar to how the word 'sandwich' can mean something that is simply sandwiched together?" I'm here to tell you that no dictionary I have found allows for that usage — not even Wiktionary which you can edit to your heart's desire.
With all that in mind, Olive Garden's new Chocolate Brownie Lasagna — which contains no pasta whatsoever — would in no way appear to be an actual "lasagna." For contrast, check out this recipe for a Nutella lasagna that is made with actual lasagna noodles. But for the record, just because Olive Garden has taken some naming liberties doesn't mean you wouldn't want to eat their new limited-time-only dessert.
So why has Olive Garden decided to play fast and loose with its moniker? The Chocolate Brownie Lasagna certainly has some lasagna-like qualities: It consists of eight layers which alternate between rich brownie fudge and sweet vanilla cream cheese. It's then topped with chocolate shavings and chocolate drizzle. Whatever you want to call it, that sounds like it could be an indulgent dessert. And layers and cheese are admirable qualities. But as far as being a "lasagna"…
With a price starting at $6.99, the Chocolate Brownie Lasagna is slated to hit Olive Garden menus on November 18 and will hang around until May 26, 2019, according to the site Best Products. Meanwhile, if you do decide to go try one, as much as I have proved that this definitely is not a lasagna, please don't give your server a hard time when ordering it: The name isn't their fault, even though it's not technically correct.