• 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

3bodyproblem said:
Where did I say that? I believe I made the distinction several times between protein (or lean), fat and fillers. If I did it was a mistake.

ETA: You're a liar, I never said that at all post #51:

"It seems to me if they are using the term "meat" to mean both protein and fat it would be misleading."

Why are you lying? Troll.
Click to expand...

You know, you've just lost all pretense at any rationality. I was mistaken, and I readily admit as much. I thought you had referenced the 30% numebr earlier, and misread your post #51 (I missed the "no" between fat and binders).

That being said, your response actually says quite a bit. So, no more kid gloves.

You are misreading the food code to a high degree. The section you quoted concerning ground beef does not define what can be called ground beef in any and all circumstances. It defines what can be legaly labelled as ground beef when sold in its raw form, and what that must contain. The regulation is specifically under the section for labelling of packaged products (and if you check the regulations food prepared at point of sale for consumers on an as-need basis is exempt from this labelling law) beign sold "fresh or frozen"...i.e.-not cooked. No mention of ground beef is made in the section on cooked meats, and under the general labelling regulations it simply states that the labelling should not be misleading. The lawsuit is misapplying that section, as are you. By your interpretation nothing sold at restaurants can be called ground beef, period. If they add water to it, it's not ground beef. If they cook it in oil, it isn't ground beef.

There is a reason this was opened as a civil case, not a matter of law. Taco Bell is not in violation of section 319.15, because that does not apply to their product. That applies to what raw products can legally be labelled as "ground beef".

You've yet to show any indication that this applies to cooked food, beyond your insistence that it does (even though the FDA regulation you quote is specific in that this appies to package labelling and raw products).

Applying critical thinking, you have yet to support your position. And if your immediate jump to liar and troll is any indication, your critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired.
 
Last edited:
As a side note:
When McDonalds came out with the QuarterPounder, somebody sued that they weren't getting a quarter pound of meat. Well McD's started with a quarter pound but with cooking it shrinks. Hence the *weight before cooking 4 oz, now seen in all advertising.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I do. :boggled:

ETA: why didn't you just come and say he was lying? I thought I actually goofed. :)
Click to expand...

Because you have misread my comment. It was short hand for the following:

I can't see any attempt by you to be logical. You've quoted the regulation for the sale of raw meat in a case about the sale of prepared food as if the two are the same and then become defensive at those who have tried to honestly help you see the error of your analysis. I don't want to "figure out where you got this idea" and I'm astounded anyone else does.

But really, if you caught him in a lie then that changes everything. Raw meat is treated exactly the same as prepared meat under all federal laws if Hellbound has ever misquoted, or misunderstood the meaning of, your post. That's entirely logical.
 
Dr. Keith:

Yeah, I got your point (so at least someone understood what you were saying).

And so as not to be accused of any sort of cover-up attempt or half-heartedness:

I was mistaken when I implied that 3bodyproblem thought ground beef could be 30% non-meat (fillers, extenders, water). I apologize, and retract that portion of my statements without reservation.
 
It appears the only leg this lawsuit could stand on would be if the ground beef Taco Bell buys from it's supplier has oats inside as a filler. And that wouldn't be TB's problem, that would be the meatpacker's problem.

Given the ingredients listed, the plaintiff has a lot of work ahead of them to prove their case.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
It appears the only leg this lawsuit could stand on would be if the ground beef Taco Bell buys from it's supplier has oats inside as a filler. And that wouldn't be TB's problem, that would be the meatpacker's problem.

Given the ingredients listed, the plaintiff has a lot of work ahead of them to prove their case.
Click to expand...

I think so.

Not to mention that, if this was as clear cut as 3body's interpretation implies, then TB would have to be absolute idiots to come out and advertise "88% beef"..pretty much an admission of guilt under 3body's application of the regulations.

While I've seen corporations do some bone-headed things. I can't see any corporation with lawyers on staff making a mistake this idiotic. It'd be like someone claiming "I couldn't have killed that person, because I was across town killing this person (giving directions to the body and video of himself murdering the victim)". Seriously, you don't get to me the number one mexican fast food restaurant and rake in millions of dollars by being that stupid.
 
The way I see it, the USDA regulation and nomenclature refers to raw meat product.

Taco Bell's "Seasoned Ground Beef" is not a raw meat product; it's a cooked product (or maybe a processed product they get from someone else according to their recipe), and the USDA regulation does not apply.

Then again, I am not lawyer, judge or jury.
 
Last edited:
Update:

PETA applauds Taco Bell’s ‘almost-veg’ meat recipe
(...)
The media pounced, customers balked, and the company took to newspapers and Youtube in an effort to denounce the claims and repair its battled image.

Out of all this mess, however, Taco Bell can now count on support from a most unlikely ally: PETA.

The animal rights org went online to congratulate the company’s decision to use less meat in its products; saying that since their so-called “beef tacos” are already most vegan — why not go all the way? “One hundred percent cruelty-free” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?,” quipped PETA blogger Michelle Sherrow.
Click to expand...

http://blogs.forbes.com/eco-nomics/2011/01/31/peta-applauds-taco-bells-almost-veg-meat-recipe/

:boggled:
 
Hellbound said:
I think so.

Not to mention that, if this was as clear cut as 3body's interpretation implies, then TB would have to be absolute idiots to come out and advertise "88% beef"..pretty much an admission of guilt under 3body's application of the regulations.

While I've seen corporations do some bone-headed things. I can't see any corporation with lawyers on staff making a mistake this idiotic. It'd be like someone claiming "I couldn't have killed that person, because I was across town killing this person (giving directions to the body and video of himself murdering the victim)". Seriously, you don't get to me the number one mexican fast food restaurant and rake in millions of dollars by being that stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't know about everyone else here, but I can see the 88% beef as meaning "88% lean beef". Go to the grocery store, any quality store (even *********** Walmart) has beef in varying lean percentages because sometimes 90% lean is better than 80% lean for the dish being prepared.

I see no problem with TB. Again, the only real standing this lawsuit would have would be in addressing the actual beef itself, not the prepared filling - and that entails the meatpacker, not TB (plausible deniability).
 
3bodyproblem said:
The USDA has defined what is or isn't "Ground Beef".
Click to expand...

Why are you insisting on using the standard for raw meat as the standard for cooked meat? The USDA separates their standards into Raw and Cooked, but you are insisting that the standard for raw is the same as the standard for cooked.

I seriously doubt that anyone going to TB would expect to get 2lb of raw ground beef if they asked for it.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Why would cooking it change what it is? :confused: If you cook a chicken it doesn't magically become a "turkey". A chicken is a chicken, cooked or walking around the barn. Ground beef is no more than 30% fat and no extenders, cooked or raw, seasoned or not.

The USDA has defined what is or isn't "Ground Beef".


Try using a little critical thinking. If I cook an egg, what is called? If I cook a t-bone steak what is it called? If I cook an apple what is it called?

It's pretty simple, if you cook filling, you get filling. If you cook ground beef, you get ground beef.
Click to expand...
You are not that stupid.
Go look up the "Quarter Pounder".
 
PhantomWolf said:
Why are you insisting on using the standard for raw meat as the standard for cooked meat? The USDA separates their standards into Raw and Cooked, but you are insisting that the standard for raw is the same as the standard for cooked.

I seriously doubt that anyone going to TB would expect to get 2lb of raw ground beef if they asked for it.
Click to expand...
Just to add to that, you can't even go into Taco Bell and buy 2lb (or any amount) of their "seasoned ground beef". You buy a taco, which is obviously going to be less than 40% ground beef. Or you buy a combo meal that contains a taco, a burrito, a dessert, and a drink. That's going to be *way* less than 40% beef.
 
Hellbound said:
You've yet to show any indication that this applies to cooked food, beyond your insistence that it does (even though the FDA regulation you quote is specific in that this appies to package labelling and raw products).
Click to expand...

Nice shifting the burden of proof. But I'll play.

"(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".

"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.

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".
 
PhantomWolf said:
Why are you insisting on using the standard for raw meat as the standard for cooked meat? The USDA separates their standards into Raw and Cooked, but you are insisting that the standard for raw is the same as the standard for cooked.
Click to expand...

No they don't not for ground meat. Feel free to cite this revelation.

I just cited the Canadian law that says it doesn't matter if it's cooked or not.

What do you call the pre-cooked bacon in the states? Why would anyone think pre-cooked bacon could be made of tofu instead of bacon just because it's cooked?
 
3bodyproblem said:
Nice shifting the burden of proof. But I'll play.

"(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".

"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 That would preclude cooked meat.

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...
ftfy
Fresh!= cooked.
Under any known circumstances...
 
3bodyproblem said:
You must realize how flawed this logic is right? If I add purple dye and call is "purple ground beef" it's still "ground beef". Where you put the quotes is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
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. No, "purple ground beef" is *NOT* "ground beef". The whole reason somebody would call something "purple ground beef" is to indicate that it does not meet reasonable consumer expectations for "ground beef".

No. You're screwing up your qualifiers. Think logically, if the regulation says "cars" must have seat belts you can't say it's a "red car" and not be subject to the law.
Click to expand...
Right, that's why the regulations for cars don't say that "cars" must have seat belts, they say that cars must have seat belts. They have completely different purposes -- one is a safety standard, the other is an advertising standard.

This law exists solely to control what products may be sold as "ground beef" or "100% ground beef". It is perfectly routine to use modifiers to indicate a product that doesn't meet the legal requirements for the unmodified term. I would bet that this is precisely why Taco Bell chose to call their taco filling "seasoned ground beef" -- because they know they cannot call it "ground beef". (And because "seasoned ground beef" sounds better than plain old "ground beef", which it is as a taco filling.)

If you saw a product called "red ground beef", wouldn't you expect it to somehow be different from ground beef? And given that what can be called "ground beef" is tightly regulated, wouldn't you expect that it might not meet the requirements to be labeled just "ground beef"? Why else would they call it "red ground beef"? (Perhaps they found some way to make it redder or keep it redder?)

No, the regulation specifically says whether it has seasoning or not is irrelevant to the definition.
Click to expand...
You are confusing being seasoned with having seasonings added. Dry aging beef, for example, seasons it. But no seasonings have been added to it. Taco Bell is saying their product is "seasoned ground beef", not "ground beef to which seasonings have been added". You would have a point if they claimed the latter. (Since oats are not a seasoning.)
 
Last edited:
So this use of fillers is why I've enjoyed Taco Bell more lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom