• 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

Whiplash said:
Aren't there about a million better things to worry about, especially in this chaotic world we are in right now? Financial woes.. terrorism.. so many problems.

I mean, I could see if this could be argued to be a real health issue with some kind of study to back it, showing how this was actually hurting people or something. But this is just semantic ******** being stirred up by nanny state activist types who need to find better and more constructive things to put their efforts into.
Click to expand...

Out of the millions of constructive things a person could do, you and I are here posting on an internet forum.
 
To everyone arguing that no one should bother suing TB even if the meat isn't above whatever "arbitrary" line is set...when was the last time you read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
To everyone arguing that no one should bother suing TB even if the meat isn't above whatever "arbitrary" line is set...when was the last time you read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation?
Click to expand...

I haven't read either of those. But I have heard of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by journalist Upton Sinclair. Sinclair wrote the novel to point out the troubles of the working class and to show the corruption of the American meatpacking industry during the early-20th century.
Click to expand...

A novel is a work of fiction, right?
Besides, it's not the early-20th century anymore, is it. Hopefully things are a bit better nowadays.

As far as Fast Food Nation goes, what makes you think it's not just fearmongering?

Looks like a he-said-she-said thing, and both sides have a financial incentive. The author of the book obviously wants to sell books while the other side wants to sell food. The reporter won't take sides; just reports what each side claims.

But as to the point, well, I suppose you are right. Let them sue and maybe we can finally get somebody objective to say who is really right.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
To everyone arguing that no one should bother suing TB even if the meat isn't above whatever "arbitrary" line is set...when was the last time you read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation?
Click to expand...

What does The Jungle have to do with this? It isn't unsafe, unsanitary conditions under discussion, but how much beef has to be in a beef filling.

Personally seeing as 'beef' is still the main ingredient, and the main other one is oat, I can't get in too much an uproar. Perhaps they shouldn't call it 'beef filling' legally, and I'm sure that each side will make it's case in court. It isn't exactly high up on my list of annoying untrue ad claims. There are a ton of actually damaging advertising claims out there that are false that I personally care more about.
 
Puppycow said:
I haven't read either of those. But I have heard of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle



A novel is a work of fiction, right?
Besides, it's not the early-20th century anymore, is it. Hopefully things are a bit better nowadays.

As far as Fast Food Nation goes, what makes you think it's not just fearmongering?

Looks like a he-said-she-said thing, and both sides have a financial incentive. The author of the book obviously wants to sell books while the other side wants to sell food. The reporter won't take sides; just reports what each side claims.

But as to the point, well, I suppose you are right. Let them sue and maybe we can finally get somebody objective to say who is really right.
Click to expand...

The Jungle is not a work of fiction. There were fictional characters as a backdrop, but they were only there as a vehicle to discuss the very real conditions of the meat packing industry. It was meant to call attention to the working condition but ended up calling attention more to food quality issues such as tubercular beef and the fact that your food might contain a bit more human than most people are comfortable with.

That said it really has nothing to do with this case. As far as I know no one has claimed the taco meat is unsafe, just that it's not "beef".
 
Irrelevant. Taco Bell is tasty, and will be the last fast food chain standing in the Demolition Man future.

(Although the portions will probably suck. Better to stock up on Big Box Fat Kid Meals now.)
 
Irony said:
The Jungle is not a work of fiction. There were fictional characters as a backdrop, but they were only there as a vehicle to discuss the very real conditions of the meat packing industry. It was meant to call attention to the working condition but ended up calling attention more to food quality issues such as tubercular beef and the fact that your food might contain a bit more human than most people are comfortable with.

That said it really has nothing to do with this case. As far as I know no one has claimed the taco meat is unsafe, just that it's not "beef".
Click to expand...

I brought up The Jungle for two reasons:

1) It's why the USDA exists and grades your meat. Directly.
2) There's a section of the novel wherein Sinclair describes sausages that are more sawdust than meat, formaldehyde laden milk, and rats as the least concern for what makes it into the meat.

While Fast Food Nation doesn't describe quite the same things, it does address how unsanitary the meat packing industry is and how many corners they'll cut to save a few pennies/lb.


Those who would argue that this particular case has nothing to do with The Jungle and/or Fast Food Nation have doomed themselves to allowing food quality standards to be returned from whence they came - with all the health, safety, and truth-in-labeling requirements thrown out the window.

In short: both these books illustrate why the meat industry (which is driven by fast food restaurants) should be forced to at least meet the minimum standards as set forth by the appropriate Fed agency.

As far as I'm concerned: If Taco Bell has been skimping, stick it the **** to them. If Taco Bell hasn't been skimping, make those who brought the lawsuit pay court costs. But handwaving this away by claiming that it's just an arbitrary guideline anyway, and who cares what's in the meat as long as it's a "healthy" filler, is to ignore the lessons of the past.
 
If you don't trust what they say they put in their food then don't eat it. Oats≠rats.
 
Just to clarify, the lawsuit ALLEGES that, based on an independent test they state they had done by a lab they won't name, the meat was 33 percent beef, with the balance being fillers and spices. Taco Bell states that they make it to a recipe that is 88 percent beef, with the balance being spices and fillers. Their published recipe does include fillers, primarily oats.

I used to eat their stuff all the time, and occasionally still do. It's rather tasty, in a 'meets expectations without exceeding them' sort of way. Their taco meat, when I used to eat it during vegetarian lapses, was certainly not the 77 percent oats that the lawsuit would imply. That wouldn't even be remotely palatable. It tasted and had mouthfeel a lot like the stuff I'd make at home with hamburger and spices. I think this is a fishing expedition by a lawyer with too much time on his hands.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Just to clarify, the lawsuit ALLEGES that, based on an independent test they state they had done by a lab they won't name, the meat was 33 percent beef, with the balance being fillers and spices. Taco Bell states that they make it to a recipe that is 88 percent beef, with the balance being spices and fillers. Their published recipe does include fillers, primarily oats.

I used to eat their stuff all the time, and occasionally still do. It's rather tasty, in a 'meets expectations without exceeding them' sort of way. Their taco meat, when I used to eat it during vegetarian lapses, was certainly not the 77 percent oats that the lawsuit would imply. That wouldn't even be remotely palatable. It tasted and had mouthfeel a lot like the stuff I'd make at home with hamburger and spices. I think this is a fishing expedition by a lawyer with too much time on his hands.
Click to expand...

One thing's for sure. One of them is going to come out of this with egg on their face. Proving the claim true/false is nothing but a bit of random sampling and testing away. So whoever is lying should be exposed in short order.
 
If the beef mixture Taco Bell uses is actually less than 50% beef, I'd say there's reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. If it's 80+% beef, I'd say the lawsuit is nonsense. Taco Bell does claim it's a beef filling, not a filling that contains beef. But they don't say it's 100% beef, nor would that be reasonable for consumers to expect.

The two issues are:

1) What percentage beef is the filling really? (Taco Bell claims 88%. That's about the percentage beef in the homemade beef filling I make for tacos.)

2) What are the most damning claims that can be found where Taco Bell implies that the filling has more beef than it really does?
 
Last edited:
Here's some of the regulation:

PART 319--DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY OR COMPOSITION--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Raw Meat Products


Sec. 319.15 Miscellaneous beef products.


(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. "Chopped Beef" or "Ground Beef"
shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without
seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not
contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water,
phosphates, binders, or extenders. When beef cheek meat (trimmed beef
cheeks) is used in the preparation of chopped or ground beef, the amount
of such cheek meat shall be limited to 25 percent; and if in excess of
natural proportions, its presence shall be declared on the label, in the
ingredient statement required by Sec. 317.2 of this subchapter, if any,
and otherwise contiguous to the name of the product.
 
Last edited:
Does the filling contain extenders? (I believe that it did.)

Did Taco Bell call the filling itself ground beef? (I believe that they didn't.)

We all understand that Taco Bell's ground beef filling is not ground beef. It contains ground beef, but it is not ground beef. (Any chef will tell you that you have to, at a minimum, add water to it to make a sensible taco filling.)

You can make a burger with fillings and extenders. Many fine establishments do. You just can't call it "100% ground beef".
 
Last edited:
DallasDad said:
My understanding is that the complaint is about their wording. To call something "taco meat" in the U.S., it needs to have x percent beef, and Taco Bell has x-3 (or something like that).
Click to expand...

'Taco filling' can have very low actual meat, in this case it is calling it 'seasoned ground beef' that is the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom