Taco Bell sued

JohnnyG said:
Does the USDA have a product definition for "seasoned ground beef" or not?
Click to expand...

No. "Ground beef" may contain seasoning, but not fillers and extenders like oats and soy lecithin etc. Once you add them it becomes "taco meat filling".
 
JoelKatz said:
It's not a "product definition". It's simply a description of the type of taco filling it is. It's never used as a label and it's never used in a context where people don't know it's a taco filling. It's equivalent to describing a chocolate lollipop as "chocolate" to people who already know it's a lollipop. It's not deceptive and no law prohibits this.
Click to expand...

Not from saying it, but advertising it the FTC would.

JoelKatz said:
As I explained about 200 posts ago, it actually is a taco meat filling. That means it has to follow the substantive regulations for taco meat fillings. It is not labeled or sold as "ground beef". This means it doesn't have to follow the content restrictions for things sold as "ground beef".
Click to expand...

The FTC may require Taco Bell to follow the USDA guidelines and call it the proper term. Otherwise it might be deceptive.

JoelKatz said:
No specific USDA regulations cover how you can identify a product in a context where people already know what it is, so only normal rules of fraud and deception apply. Describing this taco filling as a "seasoned ground beef" taco filling (only in contexts where people already know it's a taco filling) is not deceptive. And there are no specific laws that affect this practice.
Click to expand...

I suggest you look into the class action suits against restaurants like McDonald's. What you are saying is completely untrue.

JoelKatz said:
I go to a web page for a lollipop shop. They have pictures of various lollipops. One of them has a click-through link labeled 'chocolate' under a picture of a chocolate lollipop. If you click on the link, it goes to a page explaining the ingredients of the lollipop. Is labeling the lollipop "chocolate" deceptive because the lollipop is not "chocolate" but in fact a chocolate lollipop?
Click to expand...

I agree, however, it's easily determined by looking at a lollipop if it's sugar candy or chocolate. That's where your analogy falls apart.
 
3bodyproblem said:
This is correct. Although I did cite the USDA website that says "retail establishments" cannot, and retail establishments include restaurants.



Nope, you're flat out wrong. The USDA determined it's "taco meat filling" not "seasoned ground beef".
You can't argue that, it's a matter of public record and evidenced by the USDA approved label. If it was "seasoned ground beef" that's what the label would say. Otherwise the USDA could force the supplier to change the label to "seasoned ground beef".
Click to expand...

*sigh* You still don't get that the USDA guidelines apply only to food processors - meat packers and the like. That's it. Whether it be the butcher at your local supermarket or Con-Agra or IBF.

You have not once in this thread been able to show that the USDA guidelines apply outside of this area, nearly guaranteed because they don't.


Do you have a USDA definition for "seasoned ground beef" yet? Is 88 > 40?
 
UncaYimmy said:
Sorry, Slingblade, but despite 3B's troublesome methods of communication, he actually has a decent understanding of the process while you and many others do not. Here are some definitive sources.


The sentence in bold is what I think 3B is driving at in principle. Stated simply, if the FDA has regulations regarding certain terms, then if those terms are subsequently used in advertising (where the terms don't directly apply) the FTC will give strong consideration to those definitions. It does not mean that using the terms in an inconsistent manner is automatically misleading, but it does mean that it will be taken under consideration as to what the advertising is likely to be taken to mean. Thus there is a case to be argued.

Here's some more background, but it involves nutrient content. The principle is similar.


Once again, some key points:
* This is not a case brought by the FTC, but I'm reasonably confident that FTC policies, opinions and court rulings will come into play when deciding this case on the California statutes.

* I am only talking about the principles in the argument, not the argument itself. It's by no means automatic that Taco Bell will lose when the above is applied in their case. I'm just discussing how it should be looked at.

So, at this point I have presented two different official policy statements from the FTC showing that FDA regulations are considered when looking at advertisements. Anyone who continues to argue otherwise is just wrong. You can certainly how argue how much consideration should be given or whether the terms are actually being used, but the principle is sound.
Click to expand...

USDA =/= FDA. So until you present an FDA label for seasoned ground beef that indicates Taco Bell's seasoned ground beef is improperly labeled, you're wrong. And then you'd still have to show that the FDA labeling requirements apply to Taco Bell.

As the math has also shown that 88% is a reasonable beef content to expect in taco meat, you're also wrong about the misleading charge. You can't prove that the oats are used as an extender (because they're not), just provide your definitions while ignoring every other opposing/differing definition that's been presented.


Methinks you're being as disingenuous as 3bodyproblem at this point.
 
21 pages of nothing but people who only want to prove one another wrong. Gotta love skeptical groups.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
USDA =/= FDA. So until you present an FDA label for seasoned ground beef that indicates Taco Bell's seasoned ground beef is improperly labeled, you're wrong. And then you'd still have to show that the FDA labeling requirements apply to Taco Bell.

As the math has also shown that 88% is a reasonable beef content to expect in taco meat, you're also wrong about the misleading charge. You can't prove that the oats are used as an extender (because they're not), just provide your definitions while ignoring every other opposing/differing definition that's been presented.


Methinks you're being as disingenuous as 3bodyproblem at this point.
Click to expand...

You're more interested in proving 3B wrong than actually learning anything. It's pretty clear you don't have a knowledge base gathered before this discussion (to be fair, I don't think 3B did either), so you're just making it up as you go along based on what you think it should be. Perhaps these other government documents will clear things up.

http://www.ftc.gov/be/healthcare/docs/V910015agfsisnutrition.PDF
The FTC has jurisdiction over the advertising of food and has concurrent jurisdiction with the FDA and USDA over the labeling of food. The FTC also has statutory authority to enforce a number of laws that mandate disclosure, including the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which regulates appliance labeling, and to enforce several laws relating to standard-setting, including the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty & FTC Improvement Act...
Click to expand...


http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ah715/ah715c.pdf
Three agencies share primary responsibility for Federal regulation of nutrition information: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Federal Trade Commission regulates food advertising, while the other two agencies share responsibility for regulating labels; FSIS regulates meat and poultry product labeling and FDA regulates other foods labeling. The NLEA addressed FDA-regulated packages, and FSIS issued parallel regulations.
Click to expand...


The USDA says...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/aib750k.pdf
Advertising cases are usually brought under the FTC's authority to pursue deceptive business practices. An assessment of what the agency considers deceptive must be determined from cases or other agency pronouncements during the period of interest.
Click to expand...

This last one is what I think 3B is trying to say. The FTC needs to look at what the USDA and other agencies claim when making their determinations even though the FTC is not actually enforcing USDA rules.

Honestly, I don't know how much more clear it can get.
 
UncaYimmy said:
You're more interested in proving 3B wrong than actually learning anything. It's pretty clear you don't have a knowledge base gathered before this discussion (to be fair, I don't think 3B did either), so you're just making it up as you go along based on what you think it should be. Perhaps these other government documents will clear things up.







The USDA says...


This last one is what I think 3B is trying to say. The FTC needs to look at what the USDA and other agencies claim when making their determinations even though the FTC is not actually enforcing USDA rules.

Honestly, I don't know how much more clear it can get.
Click to expand...

So, the FTC applies USDA guidelines for raw beef processing to cooked meals?
 
UncaYimmy said:
Sorry, Slingblade, but despite 3B's troublesome methods of communication, he actually has a decent understanding of the process while you and many others do not. Here are some definitive sources.
Click to expand...

I can be an effective communicator, but I rely on people listening and being unbiased.
It's hard to explain things like the difference between raw and cooked, or the definition of seasonings when people say things like "When I cook a chicken I get stir fry" :boggled:. I'm working under the assumption people can distinguish preparing a recipe and "cooking". Sometimes I give people too much credit.

I don't know if the FTC will get involved or not. They may be unwillingly dragged into it by Taco Bell if this proceeds. It seems to me if Taco Bell can get the FTC to say they don't find the advertising misleading there isn't much of a case. Then again California has a history of being more strict with regulations than the feds.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
So, the FTC applies USDA guidelines for raw beef processing to cooked meals?
Click to expand...

Labels have little to do with processing.

But yes, you only have to look at McDonald's to see how cooking something doesn't exempt you from USDA guidelines and the FTC.
 
I doubt it will have much of an impact, judging from the way this thread has been progressing, but I thought I'd share this anyway.

While rummaging around in the freezer to see what was handy for a quick stir-fry, I took the opportunity to look more closely at the label on some frozen chicken.

Being raw chicken purchased at a grocery store, I would think that any USDA and FDA regulations concerned with the labeling of packaged raw meat would apply.

It was a bag of FoodLion brand "Skinless Boneless Chicken Tenderloins". In significantly smaller type below that it also was labeled "Contains up to 15% seasoning solution."

On the back of the package, way at the bottom, in one corner, in type small enough to require my reading glasses I was advised that the "seasoning solution" consisted of "water, salt."

ETA: Just wanted to add; When I purchased that chicken, many, many moons ago I saw and read the "15%" statement on the front of the package, and just assumed it meant that they had added water to it, so it came as no revelation to determine that this was, indeed, the case. I don't feel that I had been misled by deceptive labeling.
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
*sigh* You still don't get that the USDA guidelines apply only to food processors - meat packers and the like. That's it. Whether it be the butcher at your local supermarket or Con-Agra or IBF.
Click to expand...

*sigh

"Most states and cities set standards for store-packaged ground beef which, by law, cannot be less than Federal standards. If products in retail stores were found to contain more than 30% fat, they would be considered "misbranded" under Federal law. "

From the USDA website: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/ground_beef_and_food_safety/index.asp
 
UncaYimmy said:
This last one is what I think 3B is trying to say. The FTC needs to look at what the USDA and other agencies claim when making their determinations even though the FTC is not actually enforcing USDA rules.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you. Your google-fu is much better than mine. I've been looking for this for a bit.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't feel that I had been misled by deceptive labeling.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't. What you described is to the letter of the law from what I've read. In the coming months it looks like the nutritional information will be required on the label as well. Even if you bought it roasted from the deli.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
So, the FTC applies USDA guidelines for raw beef processing to cooked meals?
Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly because you don't want to be wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, they consider what the other agencies do when making the judgment about what is misleading. Likewise, if you would read my citations, the FTC makes recommendations to other agencies regarding the wording they use in their regulations and pronouncements.

As I said, you're welcome to argue to what degree they should consider - I'm sure the FTC does the same thing. I don't really care about getting into that argument. My point is that the principle is sound: the FTC considers what the FDA and USDA say when evaluating advertising. There's nothing inherently wrong with looking this case from that angle. Reasonable people will disagree on the conclusion, but I keep seeing people saying that that such an angle is not appropriate. It is.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Nope. Restaurants are retail stores (and the like).
Click to expand...

Nope. Restaurants are not "retail stores" for the basal ingredients; you don't buy ground beef from a Taco Bell any more than you buy hops from a microbrewery or eggs and flour from a pancake house.

Taco Bell puts something into the product that they sell -- that something is called an 'ingredient.'

What's the ingredient? Well, they took ground beef and they seasoned it, so it's `seasoned ground beef.' It's no longer `ground beef' (because it's been seasoned), so it's appropriate to describe it as `seasoned ground beef,' but of course `ground beef' is one of the ingredients that they put into their product.
 
daSkeptic said:
21 pages of nothing but people who only want to prove one another wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree (of course) but I'll tell you why. It isn't about right or wrong as much as it is about being informed. It was dismissed by quite a few people as a frivolous lawsuit. I believe it has merit because it isn't "frivolous", it's about Taco Bell being truthful. If they were seeking damages I wouldn't have thought about it for a second. I never got into the McDonald's hot coffee thread because it seemed frivolous and stupid.

And they advertise the coffee as hot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom