Taco Bell sued

[I Am The Scum]

Definitely.

Oh wait, you're the guy who thinks I might be secretly adding ingredients to my hypothetical pan. Nevermind.

 

[Hellbound]

Nonsense, it was Title 1 sc 313 f. iv.

Of what? Do you even understand what sourcing means?

You go into Bob's Diner and ask them for the ingredients list of their famous "1/3 Pounder with cheese", including the caloric count. I'll get one for Mc Donald's famous 1/4 Pounder. First one to do so gets $100. Ready? Go!

Um...hate to tell you this, but McDonald's has been providing that information for years already. The ingredients lists were mandatory long before the most recent laws. So, for that matter, was the nutritional information. The ONLY thing that has changed is that the nutrional information must be placed on the menu (before, it was usually on a pamphlet at the counter or sometimes even on the back of the tray liner). The same for every fast food chain in the nation. This situation is NOTHING NEW OR AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THE HEALTHCARE REFORM ACT.

Wait, in America you get to chose the laws you follow? In Soviet Russia, laws choose you!

No, in America you don't have to follow the law until it actually comes into effect. Which means if your entire argument in this case rests on the Healthcare law (specifically, the LEAN act provisions that were incorporated into the same), and those specific provisions in question have not been enacted yet, then your argument fails because the laws do NOT apply at this time. What you're suggesting it that if a law passed making blue jeans illegal, then everyone prior tot hat point who wever wore blue jeans shoudl be arrested. It's idiotic.

I don't see how they could exist and contradict one another? How is that possible, because that's what you're suggesting.

No, what he's suggesting is that if you don't follow American politics, don't understand American law, and (as you've displayed) essentially have no clue of what you're talking about, it's probably best not to so strongly defend a position that's obviously wrong.

Your failure to understand English doesn't mean he's contradicting himself.

 

[Furcifer]

Oh wait, you're the guy who thinks I might be secretly adding ingredients to my hypothetical pan. Nevermind.

No, I specifically asked you how would I know it was ground beef and not taco meat?

The question was so ridiculous I wanted clarification because I thought it had to be a trick. You dodged the question for the exact reasons you said you would dodge a question, you dun goofed.

 

[Furcifer]

This situation is NOTHING NEW OR AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THE HEALTHCARE REFORM ACT.

HE SAID REGULATIONS I CITED NOT THE HEALTH CARE ACT! READ THE QUESTION!

No, in America you don't have to follow the law until it actually comes into effect. Which means if your entire argument in this case rests on the Healthcare law (specifically, the LEAN act provisions that were incorporated into the same), and those specific provisions in question have not been enacted yet, then your argument fails because the laws do NOT apply at this time.

NO I SAID IT WAS IRRELEVANT ANYWAYS BECAUSE THE EXEMPTIONS CAN BE REVOKED UNDER THE REGULATIONS I CITED. (by the time this goes to trial the laws may be in effect anyways)

No, what he's suggesting is that if you don't follow American politics, don't understand American law, and (as you've displayed) essentially have no clue of what you're talking about, it's probably best not to so strongly defend a position that's obviously wrong.

I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUND BEEF AND TACO MEAT. I believe, despite your objections, you do too. You're just playing Devil's Advocate, that's fine, but you're still wrong.

ETA: and nice dodge, since you're so familiar with American politics answer the question, how can the USDA and FDA have different regulations?

 

[Spindrift]

ETA: and nice dodge, since you're so familiar with American politics answer the question, how can the USDA and FDA have different regulations?

A) Because they regulate two different areas
and
B) we're familiar with American politics

 

[Hellbound]

HE SAID REGULATIONS I CITED NOT THE HEALTH CARE ACT! READ THE QUESTION!

I know exactly what he was discussing. And there is NO revocation of the exemptions for McDonald's regarding those regulations. The USDA requirements have ALWAYS applied to the USDA mandated ingredient lists. Again, your failure to comprehend U.S. Law is not a problem with his argument.

NO I SAID IT WAS IRRELEVANT ANYWAYS BECAUSE THE EXEMPTIONS CAN BE REVOKED UNDER THE REGULATIONS I CITED. (by the time this goes to trial the laws may be in effect anyways)

By that time it won't matter, because the case will consider the time fo the alleged infraction, not the laws by the time it gets to trial. Are you actually that ignorant of the American legal system?

I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUND BEEF AND TACO MEAT. I believe, despite your objections, you do too. You're just playing Devil's Advocate, that's fine, but you're still wrong.

Um, no, I'm not. I'm seriously failing to understand why you are so adamantly defending an incorrect position, concerning a field you have demonstrably little knowledge in.

Tell you what, let's see how the trial goes, eh? My prediction is that Taco Bell will eb able to support it's claim that their product is 88% (or thereabouts) beef, and the case will be thrown out, and they will still be able to legally market their filling as seasoned ground beef.

The case is really about how much beef there is, period. The question is if there is enough beef to legally call it "seasoned ground beef". The USDA regulations you cited do NOT apply, as anything with regulatory power. They apply to, as others have stated, raw product labelling (you can't sell a raw product as gorund beef unless it meets those requirements) and USDA-mandated ingredients lists (which taco bell has for it's "Seasoned Ground Beef", and which does not include the wording you object to). No where in any of the FDA/USDA-regulated areas do they use the term "ground beef". They only use that in marketing.

The case is about whether this is a false claim or not, and THAT depends upon finding of fact, not interpretation of law. YOU are the only one involved that seems to have a failing in the interpretation of law, and the fact that NO ONE ELSE COMMENTING ON OR INVOLVED IN THE CASE agrees with your interpretation should tell you something (even the news agencies reporting on it disagree with your interpretation). Seriously, you are claiming that you know American law better than everyone else on this thread, the news agencies reporting on the case, and the corporate law team of Taco Bell (as their actions make NO sense under your interpretation).

 

[Hellbound]

ETA: and nice dodge, since you're so familiar with American politics answer the question, how can the USDA and FDA have different regulations?

They don't, at least not in regards to ingredient labelling and raw meat labelling. FDA regulations are based on USDA regulations. BUt these typically concern food sources, nutrition, and ingredient listing. Marketing is controlled by the FTC.

 

[Furcifer]

I know exactly what he was discussing. And there is NO revocation of the exemptions for McDonald's regarding those regulations. The USDA requirements have ALWAYS applied to the USDA mandated ingredient lists. Again, your failure to comprehend U.S. Law is not a problem with his argument.

Nice back peddling. Anyways...

Wrong. Mc Donald's is subject to regulations that most "restaurants" aren't. You obviously don't know the law and yet you claim to.

By that time it won't matter, because the case will consider the time fo the alleged infraction, not the laws by the time it gets to trial. Are you actually that ignorant of the American legal system?

Apparently, I thought once a bill was passed it became law. I didn't know there was a waiting period to sort things out.

Please stop being a typical American and expecting everyone to know how your laws are passed. You aren't the center of the World.

I'm seriously failing to understand why you are so adamantly defending an incorrect position, concerning a field you have demonstrably little knowledge in.

And yet I'm supporting the same position a legal professional from the US has brought forth. Stop being so naive, you're obviously lacking in legal skills if you don't understand why this lawsuit came to be.

Yes, me the one that knows nothing is explaining a legal case to you that you obviously don't understand.

Tell you what, let's see how the trial goes, eh? My prediction is that Taco Bell will eb able to support it's claim that their product is 88% (or thereabouts) beef, and the case will be thrown out, and they will still be able to legally market their filling as seasoned ground beef.

Sure, you'll lie like a Persian rug when the decision comes out and hand wave about how you didn't really understand what was going on and was making your decision based on something else yada yada yada

The case is really about how much beef there is, period.

Wrong. It's about their claim they serve "seasoned ground beef". I suggest you read the law suit.

YOU are the only one involved that seems to have a failing in the interpretation of law, and the fact that NO ONE ELSE COMMENTING ON OR INVOLVED IN THE CASE agrees with your interpretation should tell you something (even the news agencies reporting on it disagree with your interpretation).

And yet before looking at the actual legal case I described it perfectly. You know why? Because I'm right.

Seriously, you are claiming that you know American law better than everyone else on this thread, the news agencies reporting on the case, and the corporate law team of Taco Bell (as their actions make NO sense under your interpretation).

Apparently better than you, despite my being Canadian. You might not want to tell people a Canadian explained a legal case to you. It's pretty embarrassing.

 

[I Am The Scum]

No, I specifically asked you how would I know it was ground beef and not taco meat?

Because I said it was ground beef? My post contained no mention of "taco meat." Take a deep breath and read it again, slowly.

The question was so ridiculous I wanted clarification because I thought it had to be a trick. You dodged the question for the exact reasons you said you would dodge a question, you dun goofed.

No, it's not a trick. Just a simple yes or no question. You're making paranoid assumptions. Here's the question again:

If a container holds a sample of one pound of ground beef, and then a pinch of salt is added to that sample, does the container still hold ground beef?

 

[mortimer]

As a side note, McDonald's adds salt and pepper to their 100% beef patty. They also cook it using cottonseed and/or soybean oil.

Wendy's uses salt in their ground beef patties.

Jack in the Box's 100% beef sirloin hamburger patty is made from 100% beef sirloin and salt.

Burger King has the BK Stuffed Steakhouse Burger which is 100% USDA Inspected ground beef, pasteurized
 process
 cheddar 
cheese 
[cheddar 
cheese 
(milk, 
cheese 
culture, 
salt,
 enzymes),
 water,
 sodium
 phosphate,
 cream,
 salt,
 sorbic 
acid
 (preservative), 
apo‐carotenal (coloring),
 natamycin], 
jalapeno
 peppers, 
seasoning
 [encapsulated
 salt
 (salt,
 hydrogenated
 vegetable 
oil),
 dextrose,
 palm 
oil, 
spice,
 natural
 flavors] ETA: that is the contents of the hamburger patty itself

 

[Furcifer]

A) Because they regulate two different areas

Oh really? Explain then, what different areas? Remember this is about ground beef, not Zoloft. So please explain the different areas.

(nice vague, I don't have a clue answer)

 

[Furcifer]

Because I said it was ground beef?

Your word means nothing, prove it. How do I know it isn't taco filling?

 

[JoelKatz]

True. Like you said, maybe they will extend them latitude because it's "seasoned ground beef". I don't know. It seems to me seasoning isn't oats and soy and all that crap. Seasoning is like salt some cumin and coriander, maybe a little chili powder.

Do you still not understand the difference between seasoning something and adding seasonings to something? If I told you that I had fished for something, does that necessarily mean it's a fish?

Taco Bell is claiming their taco filling is seasoned ground beef. Adding the other ingredients to the ground beef seasons it. Thus it *is* seasoned ground beef. It is ground beef which has gone through a process that seasons it.

A "seasoning" (the noun) is an additive that improves a food flavor. However, "seasoning" (the verb) means to make something, usually a food, more zesty or interesting. You can season your speech with humor, but you cannot add seasonings to your speech.

 

[Hellbound]

Nice back peddling. Anyways...

Wrong. Mc Donald's is subject to regulations that most "restaurants" aren't. You obviously don't know the law and yet you claim to.

No. The exceptions are made for smaller restaurants, which is why there is a difference. You obviously don't know the laws you claim to...

Apparently, I thought once a bill was passed it became law. I didn't know there was a waiting period to sort things out.

It depends. Many bills specifically list effective dates (such as the healthcare bill) for specific measures. Absent these dates, they are expected to be enforced immediately.

Please stop being a typical American and expecting everyone to know how your laws are passed. You aren't the center of the World.

I find this enormously, humorously ironic from someone who is busily telling me, and every other American here, how our laws work.

And yet I'm supporting the same position a legal professional from the US has brought forth. Stop being so naive, you're obviously lacking in legal skills if you don't understand why this lawsuit came to be.

Stop being so arrogantly stupid, you obviously don't understand either. YOu want to call me naive, but don'tunderstand that there are many motivations as to why the case may be here that do NOT require the very narrow interpretation you are applying?

Yes, me the one that knows nothing is explaining a legal case to you that you obviously don't understand.

Well, we're still waiting for the evidence that we don't understand it. Because it isn't just me. It's pretty much everyone except you.

Sure, you'll lie like a Persian rug when the decision comes out and hand wave about how you didn't really understand what was going on and was making your decision based on something else yada yada yada

Wow! Have you applied for Randi's challenge? NO, I'm saying that, if I am correct about the facts (that is is 88% beef), then the case will be found groundless...a result that will contradict your interpretation of law in this thread. If the case is decided the other way, with the 88% beef finding (or, realy, anything about 60% or higher), I'll admit I was wrong. Unlike you, I can admit a mistake.

Wrong. It's about their claim they serve "seasoned ground beef". I suggest you read the law suit.

Yes, and it's specifically about the beef content. Does it have enough beef to be legally called beef. It has little to do with the USDA regulation on ground beef, which DOES NOT APPLY to restarurants marketing (only their USDA mandated ingredient lists).

And yet before looking at the actual legal case I described it perfectly. You know why? Because I'm right.

Of course you are. The lack of evidence and constant assertions of the same must prove it.

Apparently better than you, despite my being Canadian. You might not want to tell people a Canadian explained a legal case to you. It's pretty embarrassing.

It would be, if I accepted your explanation.

You still haven't explained why hamburgers are sold with bread, lettuce, and condiments added. That violates USDA definitions, as well (they shouldbe called "Hamburger sandwiches", because a hamburger MUST be meat).

You seem to be arguing two different things.

There are two issues here, a question of fact and a question of law.

I'm arguing the question of law: The USDA regulation for "ground beef" does NOT apply here. Period. At all. You are misreading the regulation, and really no one else agrees with you (either here, on TB's legal team, or in the news media).

FTC fair trade guidlines do apply here, if somethign does NOT contain a majority of beef, then it is misleading to label it as such. That makes this a question of fact...how much beef is in there?

I'm not arguing the fact, because we don't know yet. We have one unsubstantiated claim on one side, with the company saying something else. IF the fact is that the filling is 36% beef only, then yes, it IS false advertising.

However, if the facts turn up that the filling is 88% beef, an amount which would STILL violate teh USDA guidelines and interpretation of law you insist is correct, then this is where we differ...I say TB is fine, you say they're still wrong.

So, by YOUR interpretation, the legal team of a major American corporation is stupid enough, and understands law to a lesser degree, than ONE CANADIAN and a single plantiff and a single lawyer who get their moment of fame whether they win or lose the case.

ETA: At this point, I'll simply wait for the case to prove me right. You've still shown nothing beyond your assertions to support your arguments, and I see no point in continuing to enable your childish retorts. So, until you can actually post something substantive to support your claim (such as any text from anyone that supprots your interpretation), I'm done here.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Your word means nothing, prove it. How do I know it isn't taco filling?

You're pretty funny.

Yeah, when I get home I'll take an imaginary picture of my hypothetical meat and send it to you.

Do you even know what a hypothetical is? Have you ever encountered a thought experiment that didn't cause an unidentifiable liquid to leak from your ears?

 

[Furcifer]

You're pretty funny.

Yeah, when I get home I'll take an imaginary picture of my hypothetical meat and send it to you.

Do you even know what a hypothetical is? Have you ever encountered a thought experiment that didn't cause an unidentifiable liquid to leak from your ears?

Is it hypothetical taco filling?

I'm just trying to make a decent argument out of you inane question. You don't really consider adding salt to ground beef as some profound statement on the issue here do you? I'm trying to make this all apply to the law suit, not the Food Network.

 

[Furcifer]

Do you still not understand the difference between seasoning something and adding seasonings to something?

Do you realize "oats" aren't a seasoning?

 

[BenBurch]

This lawsuit is going to get slapped down hard. It's simply a money grab.

I wish the courts handed out more Rule 11 sanctions, because this case cries out for one.

 

[Furcifer]

@Hellbound

You don't have to be rude. You're wrong and I've told you exactly why. And the reason you're wrong has nothing to do with me not knowing how long it takes for a bill to become a law. The two are unrelated and as such your just presenting a fallacy.

Taco meat ain't ground beef. You can't call it that. End of story. Cease and desist. Anyone that considers taco meat filling ground beef needs to get out to a real restaurant and stop eating junk food. Ground beef can be very healthy for you and very tasty if prepared properly.
Have you ever had steak tartare? Now that's ground beef

 

[mortimer]

You don't really consider adding salt to ground beef as some profound statement on the issue here do you? I'm trying to make this all apply to the law suit, not the Food Network.

Of course it is profound. Per your interpretation of regulations, adding *anything* to ground beef makes it something other than ground beef.

Adding salt to ground beef means you can't call it ground beef anymore, according to you.

Which implicates not only Taco Bell, but pretty much every other restaurant on the face of the planet that serves food that has ground beef in it.