• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Taco Bell sued

Are people still trying to apply the standards for meatpackers to restaurants?

Do they not realize there's a big difference there? Like, *********** huge. I mean, so much for chili being made with "real ground beef". Nope, can't include that because there are too many fillers added - including water.

TB states that they use 88% lean ground beef in their tacos. This is true. And it's not against the law for them to add seasoning to the meat as it's prepared for the end-consumer while still advertising that the beef they use is 88% lean ground beef (because this is true).
 
3bodyproblem said:
Nice shifting the burden of proof. But I'll play.
Click to expand...

Burden of proof? YOU made the claim. There's nothing in your quote about cooked ground beef.

"(r) where the addition of a filler to a meat product is permitted in Column III of an item of this Schedule, the addition of an ingredient that is not a meat product and does not constitute a filler because it is visually distinguishable from the meat product is also permitted where the name used to describe the resulting product is descriptive of the resulting product."

There's no filler allowed in "Ground Meat".
Click to expand...

And this (the part you quoted, anyway) doesn't say that the limitation applies to cooked meat. Since you failed to provde any indication as to where you retrieved this comment (other than it starts with r), for all I know the context could be anything.

"2. For the purposes of this Schedule,
(a) unless otherwise specified, any meat product ingredient set out in Column II of an item of this Schedule may be fresh, preserved or cooked;"

Since the meat:"Fresh boneless skinless meat* is listed in colum II there's no reason to preclude cooked meat.
Click to expand...

And what schedule is this? I was specifically referring to your earlier quote about the definition of ground beef, which was specifically listed under raw products.

And finally:

"In general, mandatory information or claims that are acceptable on a food label may also be used to advertise that food. Unacceptable label information is generally also not acceptable in advertising. Therefore, manufacturers and advertisers should ensure that their labels comply with federal statutes before developing advertisements for the foods."

So it should be labeled and advertised for what it is, which is "filling" (or meat by-product) and not ground meat or in this case "ground beef".
Click to expand...

But it isn't filling. It's ground beef with seasonings. You've STILL not shown that the labelling requirement for ground beef extends to cooked items.

And, it does help if you specifiy the location you get your info from, instead of expecting everyone to search through hundreds of items. BEcause, as most of us understadn, there are mutliple sections to the food code, and not all sections apply to all types of food. THe context matters.

So, care to provide that context for your quotes?
 
JoelKatz said:
But this makes my point. By your reasoning, I could not add purple dye and call it "purple ground beef" because the regulations for ground beef do not permit the addition of dyes.
Click to expand...

No. It has to be "ground beef" in order to make it purple. If you add purple dye to a 50/50 meat and TVP mixture it isn't "purple ground beef". Adding salt or spice doesn't make a 50/50 mixture "seasoned ground beef". Adding salt or spices to what is already "ground beef" makes it "seasoned ground beef".

"Ground beef" has a specific definition under the law. "Ground beef" is ONLY "beef and fat" ground up. And if you put too much fat like 31% fat, it isn't "ground beef".

And if you cook "ground beef", you get "cooked ground beef". Not ham or stir fry or apple pie.
 
Just for fun, I did a bit of googling of my own.

Your first quote:
"(r) where the addition of a filler to a meat product is permitted in Column III of an item of this Schedule, the addition of an ingredient that is not a meat product and does not constitute a filler because it is visually distinguishable from the meat product is also permitted where the name used to describe the resulting product is descriptive of the resulting product."

Pertains to Canadian law, as near as I can tell. The only google hits I find on that phrasing are Canada and this thread.

Your second quote also returns the same three top hits.

Oddly enough, your last quote also returns the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

So, maybe it's just me, but last time I checked Alabama had not seceded from the Union and been annexed by Canada. But I'm willing to entertain any more up-to-date information you may have.

So, care to make other comments about how people should appply critical thinking?

Or are you now a liar and a troll, because you used Canadian law to apply to a U.S. case?

Or should I rationally assume that perhaps you were just mistaken, and did not read the title of the website you quoted for that (or look to the red maple leaf at the top), and that your failure to mention your source was not an intentional attempt to hide the fact that these were not applicible in U.S. law?
 
The "ground beef" definition you're quoting is only for raw product sold as ground beef. Taco bell's "seasoned ground beef" is a cooked product so a different set of regulations apply. Hey, I don't make the rules!
 
3bodyproblem said:
No it isn't. Ground beef has "beef" and "fat" in a specific ratio depending on if it's extra lean or regular or in between.

And it doesn't matter if it's cooked or not :confused:
Click to expand...

And you've still yet to show that that standard applies to anything other than the packaging and marketing of raw ground beef. That was not a universal defintion, but a specific definition placed in the raw meat category.

"Hamburger" is ALSO in the same category, with specifications on the ingredients. No where in that definition does it list lettuce, tomato, onion, mustard, or cheese. DOes this mean McDonald's can also be sued? Their Hamburger has a lot more than meat in it.

And finally, you STILL haven't answered what you think Canadian regulations have to do with a U.S. lawsuit.
 
Hellbound said:
Or are you now a liar and a troll, because you used Canadian law to apply to a U.S. case?

Or should I rationally assume that perhaps you were just mistaken, and did not read the title of the website you quoted for that (or look to the red maple leaf at the top), and that your failure to mention your source was not an intentional attempt to hide the fact that these were not applicible in U.S. law?
Click to expand...

Google FDA and CFIA, they cite each other in publications. That's how I ended up with both. Seeing as Taco Bell operates here in Canada, the .ca website calls it ground beef and the laws about fat content in "ground beef" are identical I don't see any reason to assume the laws differ. Hormones and steriods yah,beef filling no. If there's any significant departure in the law then "oops sorry":blush:

But guess what, murders a crime in Canada too! But it's only manslaughter if you use a hockey stick.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Google FDA and CFIA, they cite each other in publications. That's how I ended up with both. Seeing as Taco Bell operates here in Canada, the .ca website calls it ground beef and the laws about fat content in "ground beef" are identical I don't see any reason to assume the laws differ. Hormones and steriods yah,beef filling no. If there's any significant departure in the law then "oops sorry":blush:

But guess what, murders a crime in Canada too! But it's only manslaughter if you use a hockey stick.
Click to expand...

I can tell you they differ because a search of the FDA regulations do NOT turn up any of your phrases. In any case, it's best to cite your sources, as I've yet to see anything inside US law that supports your view.
 
Hellbound said:
And you've still yet to show that that standard applies to anything other than the packaging and marketing of raw ground beef. That was not a universal defintion, but a specific definition placed in the raw meat category.
Click to expand...

No, you have to show why it isn't if it's such a big deal. The notion that boiling meat allows you to call it whatever you want is completely absurd.

The only reason for it to differ because of cooking would be moisture content, but that wouldn't change what it is, just how much water is in it.

You just don't understand the difference between "cooking" something and "making" it into a Shepard's Pie. The regulation covers for normal prep, seasoning and cooking (and grinding of course)
 
3bodyproblem said:
No, you have to show why it isn't if it's such a big deal. The notion that boiling meat allows you to call it whatever you want is completely absurd.

The only reason for it to differ because of cooking would be moisture content, but that wouldn't change what it is, just how much water is in it.

You just don't understand the difference between "cooking" something and "making" it into a Shepard's Pie. The regulation covers for normal prep, seasoning and cooking (and grinding of course)
Click to expand...

No, the regulation specifically excludes most cooking (adding water means it's not ground beef anymore). And again, why was the ONLY support you've found for your position been from a category SPECIFICALLY referencing raw meat, and nothing else?

I don't have to show why it makes a difference when you cook it, I just have to show what the regulations state. And they state that as a limitation for selling the raw product.

Now, I'm sure there are limitations for what you can call things after preparation, but what you have provided are not them. I am not, nor have I ever, made the claim that cooking it allows you to call it whatever you want. What I have stated, and repeated, is that the standard for raw ground beef is NOT applicable to cooked, unless you can find that in the FDA regulations. I've found nothing yet to set ground beef aside as a protected category in cooked and prepared foods..with the exception that it must, by FDA law, be listed as ground beef in the ingredients, and can only be listed as such if the raw material that went into it was ground beef by the regulation you quoted (i.e.- the raw product used in preperation). I suspect that only false advertising laws would apply here...they couldn't call it ground beef if it was not a majority of ground beef, and they can't call it 100% ground beef unless it is all ground beef. BUt they haven't done either of those things.

So, care to try again, or will you just continue with bald assertion?
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
I can tell you they differ because a search of the FDA regulations do NOT turn up any of your phrases. In any case, it's best to cite your sources, as I've yet to see anything inside US law that supports your view.
Click to expand...

Well here, everything under "Cooked Meats" under the FDA Composition regulation:

Subpart C--Cooked Meats

319.80 Barbecued meats.
319.81 Roast beef parboiled and steam roasted.

No ground beef. You know why? Because "cooked ground beef" isn't some magical sub category :rolleyes:
 
NewtonTrino said:
The "ground beef" definition you're quoting is only for raw product sold as ground beef.
Click to expand...

Prove it. You're just making this up.

"Well not if it's made by a smurf, this regulation is only for non smurf made ground beef" :)
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol, you made this up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I clarified above. Name me any cooking method that does not add something to the meat?

Also, since you insist that the "Raw Meat Products" category was not really the way they meant it, can you clarify why McDonald's, Wendy's, and several other places can legally sell "hamburgers"? Because they're the next paragraph:

(b) Hamburger. ``Hamburger'' shall consist of chopped fresh and/or
frozen beef with or without the addition of beef fat as such and/or
seasoning, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not
contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders. Beef cheek meat
(trimmed beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of hamburger only
in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of this
section.

No mention of lettuce, buns, cheese, mustard, or anything else. But if you want to limit this to the patty, then Burger King is in trouble with their stuffed Angus hamburger, huh?
 
3bodyproblem said:
Well here, everything under "Cooked Meats" under the FDA Composition regulation:

Subpart C--Cooked Meats

319.80 Barbecued meats.
319.81 Roast beef parboiled and steam roasted.

No ground beef. You know why? Because "cooked ground beef" isn't some magical sub category :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting FDA? Taco Bell was sued under the USDA labeling policy. Available here. (you can get to the rest of the policy, if you want, by substituting _3 for _1 or _2 in the link)

TACO FILLING:
Product must contain at least 40 percent fresh meat. The label must show true product name, e.g., —Taco Filling with Meat,“ —Beef Taco Filling,“ or —Taco Meat Filling.“
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
Are people still trying to apply the standards for meatpackers to restaurants?

Do they not realize there's a big difference there? Like, *********** huge. I mean, so much for chili being made with "real ground beef". Nope, can't include that because there are too many fillers added - including water.

TB states that they use 88% lean ground beef in their tacos. This is true. And it's not against the law for them to add seasoning to the meat as it's prepared for the end-consumer while still advertising that the beef they use is 88% lean ground beef (because this is true).
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I've been trying to say, myself.

The regulations quoted by 3body are for raw, processed meat. They regulate what the meat processor can put into the raw meat during processing.

Those specific regulations do not then also and equally apply to a commercial kitchen, because the kitchen is not processing raw meat for sale as raw meat.

There are other regulations regarding cooked food and how it must be labeled. Cooked food regulations do not then also and equally apply to the meat processing plant in exactly the same way, because the meat processor is not preparing cooked meat for sale as cooked meat.

They are two different operations, with two different sets of regulations, because they do two different things.

If I take raw ground beef and add seasonings and water to it when I cook it, I can then legally call it "seasoned ground beef," because that is exactly what it is. I honestly do not understand how anyone can fail to see this clear distinction.
 
roger said:
Why are you quoting FDA? Taco Bell was sued under the USDA labeling policy. Available here. (you can get to the rest of the policy, if you want, by substituting _3 for _1 or _2 in the link)
Click to expand...

Thank you, roger. This is what I was trying to get 3body to concede...his little labelling info was only for raw meat.

Now, the USDA does happen to coincide with the FDA regulations on the label "Ground Beef".

So, does the ground beef phrase apply, since "Seasoned Ground Beef" is actually the product name, and "Seasoned Ground Beef" is actually a descriptive name, indicating that something has been done to it during preparation (it isn't just ground beef), and it's ingredients are listed IAW USDA guidelines (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/ingredientstatement)? The ingredient label that must be approved by the USDA before it can be used?

The only issue I can see for this is if it can be shown that Beef is not the most common ingredient in their taco filling, as listed on their ingredients list. The "Ground Beef" red herring is immaterial, since it has been shown that the FDA itself referred to it as "cooked ground beef" and the USDA approved ingredient list used by Taco Bell lists it as "Seasoned Ground Beeef".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom