Taco Bell sued

3bodyproblem said:
You're just plain wrong. If you joelKatz start selling cat piss to customers as orange juice you can't bet if you get sued the USDA definition of orange juice will apply to what you are selling.

You can say the USDA regulations don't apply to you, but you're still subject to the definitions and standards they create if and when they are needed.
Click to expand...
If you think that somehow is responsive to what I wrote, you just aren't reading what I'm saying. As I explained, there are four ways the regulations might apply:

1) There are regulations that control what can be labeled as "orange juice". If you label your product "orange juice" (and otherwise fall in the scope of the regulations) these apply to you.

2) The are substantive regulations that apply to orange juice directly no matter what you call it. If your product is orange juice, these apply to you.

3) There are basic regulations about food safety and hygiene and the like. These apply to all food products and thus apply to you.

4) There are principles of consumer fraud, mislabeling, deceptive trade practices and the like. These apply to you.

However, when you try to combine these to make new requirements, that's where your argument fails. For example, you can't try to make 1 apply to something called "orange juice drink". You can't make 4 extend the requirements of 1 to products it doesn't explicitly cover. You can't argue that something must be covered under 1 because nothing else applies. You can't argue that because something is covered by 2 it can't be covered by 1. And so on.

No matter how many times I explain this, it still doesn't seem to sink in. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I can.
 
Last edited:
JoelKatz said:
No matter how many times I explain this, it still doesn't seem to sink in. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I can.
Click to expand...

I'm calling Occam's on this. The USDA defines a product, that definition is applicable to everyone.
 
nathan said:
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has jurisdiction in the American State of California? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm preparing my case. :D

Nobody has demonstrated any differences in the laws therefore there is no reason to assume they differ. If they did, TB sells and advertises their product to Canadians so they are applicable, if not now in the future.
 
I've read the suit. Several times. I know what it says, I know that a woman is listed as the plaintiff, and that the lead attorney on the suit is a man. I know it says that the product Taco Bell uses doesn't contain enough beef to be legally called beef.

If the product Taco Bell uses actually does contain only 36% beef, then it can't legally even be called "taco meat filling," which by law must contain a minimum of 40% fresh meat (not specifically beef).

So, no, I don't think what the suit actually seeks is just to have the name of the product changed. I think it seeks to show that whatever Taco Bell uses, it isn't legally meat or meat filling of any kind.

If it is shown there is only 36% meat in TB's "taco meat filling," then TB is going to have to do more than just change the name of their "taco meat filling" product, aren't they? They're going to have to change their product to one that meets at least the minimum standard for "taco meat filling." Changing the name of the product won't be enough, legally.

Even the attorneys can't keep their stories straight, though:

Just 35 percent of the taco filling was a solid, and just 15 percent overall was protein, said attorney W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III of the Montgomery, Ala., law firm Beasley Allen, which filed the suit.
Click to expand...

http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/01/lawsuit-filed-in-beef-over-taco-bell-meat.html

Attorney Miles says only 15% of the sample was protein.

And only 35% of the taco filling was even a solid? Seriously, sixty-five percent of the taco filling tested was a gas or liquid?
 
slingblade said:
And only 35% of the taco filling was even a solid? Seriously, sixty-five percent of the taco filling tested was a gas or liquid?
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty high.

Those oats are a sponge. If they are 2% of the mix they could hold 30% of the water. 55-60% of protein is water depending on how lean it is.

So yah, it's not that hard to imagine really. Juicy beef flavored oat sponges is what they should call it.

edit-changed to correct percentage
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
That's actually pretty high.

Those oats are a sponge. If they are 2% of the mix they could hold 30% of the water. 55-60% of protein is water depending on how lean it is.

So yah, it's not that hard to imagine really. Juicy beef flavored oat sponges is what they should call it.

edit-changed to correct percentage
Click to expand...


Thanks for that link. It's quite revealing in showing how information can be clearly printed and clearly read, and yet still be misleading (sorry, I meant) misunderstood. (my mistake, apologies for using the wrong word.)

For instance, from the link you provided:

Naturally Occurring Moisture Content of Meat and Poultry
Meat and poultry are composed of naturally occurring water, muscle, connective tissue, fat, and bone. People eat meat for the muscle. The muscle is approximately 75% water (although different cuts may have more or less water) and 20% protein, with the remaining 5% representing a combination of fat, carbohydrate, and minerals.
Click to expand...

Even a piece of actual beef flesh is only 20% protein. To say that the taco meat filling TB uses tested as 15% protein means it has very nearly as much protein content as a chunk of actual, unadulterated beef flesh. But when the attorney says it, it sounds quite shocking, doesn't it? :D
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
Even a piece of actual beef flesh is only 20% protein. To say that the taco meat filling TB uses tested as 15% protein means it has very nearly as much protein content as a chunk of actual, unadulterated beef flesh. But when the attorney says it, it sounds quite shocking, doesn't it? :D
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. I tried to explain this earlier to Skeptichick but she didn't quite understand.

I think you can see from this chart TB's claim of 88% "beef" is probably "pre-cooked" but the numbers mean so little out of context and without proper explanation. Restaurants know this and know how to use it to their advantage.
 
slingblade said:
And only 35% of the taco filling was even a solid? Seriously, sixty-five percent of the taco filling tested was a gas or liquid?
Click to expand...
Cooked beef is normally about 40% water if you pulverize it and then separate it. If you separate it without pulverizing it, it will obviously be almost entirely solid. Much of the fat (15% the total volume) will be solid at room temperature but a liquid at serving temperature. So basically it all depends how you measure.
 
3bodyproblem said:
No they didn't, they just claim it's in their tacos.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Please show where they say that what is in the Taco is "Ground Beef".

I also note you failed to answer the question, which reminds me that you have consistantly failed to answer my question about the pork too. Why is that?
 
JoelKatz said:
Cooked beef is normally about 40% water if you pulverize it and then separate it. If you separate it without pulverizing it, it will obviously be almost entirely solid. Much of the fat (15% the total volume) will be solid at room temperature but a liquid at serving temperature. So basically it all depends how you measure.
Click to expand...

I've never seen pulverized beef. Only deer in pemican.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Evidence? Please show where they say that what is in the Taco is "Ground Beef".

I also note you failed to answer the question, which reminds me that you have consistantly failed to answer my question about the pork too. Why is that?
Click to expand...

What pork question?

ETA: there's no pork question on this page

ETA: no pork question in the last 150 posts:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom