pa'logh {veDDIr} rIchlu'taHvIS, jatlh s.k. 1998.03.23: "the plural of
this word is {veDDIrmey} rather than {veDDIrDu'}".

'a pa' {DIr} rIchlu'taHvIS, jatlh s.k. 1998.03.23: "this word takes
the suffix {-Du'} when it refers to skin still on the body, and {-mey}
otherwise".

maj; DaH ghe''orDaq De'vam vorgh wIngeH, 'ej mu'tlhegh veb wIbuS..

"the warrior cooks sheep legs in the camp fire"

mu'tlheghvam wImughtaHvIS, nuq wIlo'nIS ? {DI'raq 'uSDu'} {DI'raq 'uSmey} ghap ?

You failed to quote the relevant part:

Thus {DIrmey} "skins"  and {veDDIrmey} "pelts" are not (or, perhaps better, are no longer) body parts, but rather are materials from which things (clothing or blankets, for example) may be made.  They've lost their association with the creatures that originally had them.

A skin, in the context of removing it from an animal's body, is a body part. A skin, in the context of a material used for hangings, blankets, and clothing, is not a body part. Likewise with pelts.

The question then becomes whether turning body parts into food changes them from body parts to non-body parts. My initial reaction is no: we have tIqnagh lemDu' tknag hooves from KCD. I can't think of any other food item from a body part that has been pluralized in canon.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name