Taco Bell sued

[roger]

Thank you, roger. This is what I was trying to get 3body to concede...his little labelling info was only for raw meat.

Now, the USDA does happen to coincide with the FDA regulations on the label "Ground Beef".

So now the question becomes one of fact: Are there fillers in the taco bell meat, or is it ground beef? And does the ground beef phrase apply, since "Seasoned Ground Beef" is actually the product name, and it's ingredients are listed IAW USDA guidelines (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/ingredientstatement)?

I don't see anything in the USDA guidelines stating anything about 40% meat for "ground beef" - perhaps I missed it, or another document applies? And, all of the news reports specifically say that Taco Bell was sued because the measured 38% (or whatever the # was) was below the 40% required by the USDA. Which leads me to believe this suit is about the "taco filling" labelling requirement that I quoted.

 

[Hellbound]

I don't see anything in the USDA guidelines stating anything about 40% meat for "ground beef" - perhaps I missed it, or another document applies? And, all of the news reports specifically say that Taco Bell was sued because the measured 38% (or whatever the # was) was below the 40% required by the USDA. Which leads me to believe this suit is about the "taco filling" labelling requirement that I quoted.

May be, I was just referencing the USDA labelling guideline for listing "Ground Beef" which happens to be the same as what 3body was posting.

Of course, I can't see where they call it Taco Meat Filling, unless it's just on their bags and such (the web site doesn't mention that). So since Taco Bell does not label anything in their menu as Taco Meat Filling, I don't see how that could be the issue at hand (could be wrong, though).

But, as I clarified above (you responded before I was done editing, dang it ), they use the term "Seasoned Ground Beef", which is also what is listed as the ingredient in their USDA approved labelling. No mention of Taco Meat Filling. Since we're discussing labelling guidlines, that makes me wonder. I think the news are, well, just inaccurate (suprise!) as I've found at least one that specifically referenced the gorund beef contention.

I think the main thrust is targetted at the ingredient list, because "beef" is listed as the primary ingredient, and if it does contain more filler than beef then this is incorrect, and would mean Taco Bell was in violation of USDA guidelines and procedures.

 

[Ferguson]

No ground beef. You know why? Because "cooked ground beef" isn't some magical sub category

Well, at least in my state, cooking ground beef changes its taxable category from "Food" to "Prepared Food." Next time I'm at Meijer I'll try the "chicken is chicken!" angle to save myself 30 cents on rotisserie. If cooking changes tax category I don't see why cooking wouldn't also regulation category.

One funny aside to that, the sushi place I always used to go to never charged sales tax, claiming since they only sell raw food they don't have to. Seems a bit fishy cool to me, but I'm not a lawyer... but they did it for as long as I went there (about 3 years).

 

[eeyore1954]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41258574/ns/business-consumer_news/

This is a class-action lawsuit because the plaintiff claims that Taco Bell's 'seasoned beef' is not 100% beef.

This seems like the dumbest lawsuit I've heard in a while. Doesn't the USDA regulate this stuff? If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Don't like it? Don't buy it. We don't need self-appointed food cops trying litigate the definition of 'seasoned beef.'

I don't much care what is in it. The only thing better than a Taco Bell taco is a Jack in the Box one and I am pretty sure their percentage of beef is -15%.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

May be, I was just referencing the USDA labelling guideline for listing "Ground Beef" which happens to be the same as what 3body was posting.

Of course, I can't see where they call it Taco Meat Filling, unless it's just on their bags and such (the web site doesn't mention that). So since Taco Bell does not label anything in their menu as Taco Meat Filling, I don't see how that could be the issue at hand (could be wrong, though).

But, as I clarified above (you responded before I was done editing, dang it ), they use the term "Seasoned Ground Beef", which is also what is listed as the ingredient in their USDA approved labelling. No mention of Taco Meat Filling. Since we're discussing labelling guidlines, that makes me wonder. I think the news are, well, just inaccurate (suprise!) as I've found at least one that specifically referenced the gorund beef contention.

I think the main thrust is targetted at the ingredient list, because "beef" is listed as the primary ingredient, and if it does contain more filler than beef then this is incorrect, and would mean Taco Bell was in violation of USDA guidelines and procedures.

Given the ingredients listed for the "Taco Meat Filling", I find it hard to believe there is less than 40% ground beef in the filling. I don't know about you guys, but the tacos I get from TB certainly aren't full of water and/or seasonings...

 

[JoelKatz]

No. It has to be "ground beef" in order to make it purple. If you add purple dye to a 50/50 meat and TVP mixture it isn't "purple ground beef". Adding salt or spice doesn't make a 50/50 mixture "seasoned ground beef". Adding salt or spices to what is already "ground beef" makes it "seasoned ground beef".

Since nobody disputes that Taco Bell begins with ground beef when they make seasoned ground beef, I'm not sure what relevance your argument has. Adding purple dye to ground beef makes it no longer "ground beef", but it is "purple ground beef". The adjective indicates that it is modified and no longer qualifies as unqualified "ground beef".

"Ground beef" has a specific definition under the law. "Ground beef" is ONLY "beef and fat" ground up. And if you put too much fat like 31% fat, it isn't "ground beef".

Right. As far as I know, nobody disputes any of this.

And if you cook "ground beef", you get "cooked ground beef". Not ham or stir fry or apple pie.

Right. And this is true even if you add water and fat too in the cooking process, as many people do. You still wind up with "cooked ground beef" even if it no longer meets the legal requirements to be called "ground beef" because there are no specific legal requirements attached to the label "cooked ground beef". Straightforward principles of fraud and deception would apply, not the technical definition that only applies to "ground beef". Adding both fat and water to ground beef in the process of cooking it is routine.

 

[WildCat]

I can't believe Taco Bell got sued, and nowhere in the suit is "explosive diarrhea" mentioned.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

The standard you keep reciting says that it is for Raw meat. It also says "Fresh and/or frozen." Under what stretch of the imagination would cooked meat in a hot taco be considered "fresh" or "frozen".

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

Then a pity for you that this case isn't in Canada.

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?

I'm not in the US so I have no idea what they call it, we'd likely call it pig meat before it's processed into bacon.

We do have chicken bacon and lamb hams here though, no one seems to have an issue with that, and if I buy Butter Chicken I'm not expecting it to be poultry rubbed in dairy product and I'm certainly not expecting it meet the standards for raw chicken either.

But hey, if you like your tacos made with uncooked fresh and/or frozen ground beef, more power to you.

 

[JoelKatz]

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?

You're confusing two completely different issues. One is the specific regulatory requirements for marketing things as "ground beef". The other is general principles of fraud and mislabeling. Sure, if something sold as 'pre-cooked bacon' contained more than a small amount of tofu, you might have a good argument that there is fraud under general principles of fraud and mislabeling.

If 'seasoned ground beef' sold as a taco filling is 88% ground beef, there is no fraud or mislabeling. Ground beef taco fillings ordinarily contain water, texture modifiers, added fat, and the like. Anyone who doesn't know this is welcome to check out Taco Bell's ingredient lists, which are made public. The filling is almost entirely ground beef and no basic principles require it to be 100% ground beef. (Nor should it be. That would make a lousy taco filling.)

Context is everything. Something labeled strawberry that looks like a lollipop would not be expected to contain much, if any, actual strawberries. A taco filling labeled 'seasoned ground beef' would not reasonably be expected to be completely devoid of any of the ingredients ordinarily found in taco fillings. Strawberries are both a fruit and a flavor category. The same is true of 'seasoned ground beef' when applied to a taco filling.

So the only argument left is about the technical requirements surrounding the term 'ground beef'. But that doesn't apply because of the modifier 'seasoned'. The requirement is only to protect the use of the *term* 'ground beef'. It does not mean that ready-to-eat products cannot contain the phrase 'ground beef' non-deceptively in combination with other terms to describe what they actually are.

 

[slingblade]

I'm simply nonplussed that it took so many posts to explain the difference between regulations for producing processed raw meat and regulations for labeling a product that contains cooked meat.

...or are we not done yet?

 

[Puppycow]

Usually the urban legend is about "hooves and lips". That's wrong because for one thing the regulations prevent the use of cartilage and bone (a percentage limit) for anything but pet food. (or processed to make gelatin). For another there just isn't enough to meet the demand for hot dogs and sausages. There are plenty of "scraps" to make hot dogs or sausages (or scrapple).

The regulations (I cited earlier) do however allow for much more fat to be used in fresh porkbreakfast sausages than for hot dogs. In that sense there is more crap in them.

The regulations do allow for defects like rodent hairs, droppings, maggots, insects and mold. It's called the Food Defect Action Level. While it doesn't cover meat products specifically, it does say that it is treated on a "case by case" basis if needed.

I hope that helps clarifies things a bit.

Thanks for the clarification.
More details here

I note that these are legal limits for contamination, not what you should expect to get from a reputable and sanitary food provider at least 99% of the time.

The FDA set these action levels because it is economically impractical to grow, harvest, or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects. Products harmful to consumers are subject to regulatory action whether or not they exceed the action levels.

It is incorrect to assume that because the FDA has an established defect action level for a food commodity, the food manufacturer need only stay just below that level. The defect levels do no represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products--the averages are actually much lower. The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product "adulterated"; and subject to enforcement action under Section 402(a)(3) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.

I wouldn't worry too much that you are literally eating rat filth every time you eat a taco, a hot dog, or a breakfast sausage. Breakfast sausages do contain a lot of fat, but that's how they are supposed to be made. They shouldn't contain any rat hairs or insects in principle, and usually don't in practice, but if they do contain them below these levels, it shouldn't be harmful to health.

 

[Hellbound]

Given the ingredients listed for the "Taco Meat Filling", I find it hard to believe there is less than 40% ground beef in the filling. I don't know about you guys, but the tacos I get from TB certainly aren't full of water and/or seasonings...

Well, the definitions in the USDA guidelines are specifically for ingredient labelling. In other words, if you list one of your ingredients as "ground beef", or you market your product as "ground beef", it must conform to those requirements or you have to call it something else (and seasoned ground beef is not a misrepresentation).

Whiel what Taco Bell makes is used as a Taco Meat Filling, no where in their literature do I see that listed as an ingredient or called Taco Meat Filling. I suspect "Taco Meat Filling" would be more likely seen on the ingredients list of a Nuka-Burrito package . Someone did post a picture, but I can't find that phrasing in their marketing or ingredients list anywhere, so I don't know if that is the name they use for it.

If you look at their ingredients list for the product they call "Seasoned Ground Beef", it specifically lists the ingredients. And oddly enough, they do NOT list ground beef, just beef.

So I don't really know what the case here is. Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the suit? Is that available anywhere? It seems to me that we shoudl find out what they are actually suing about. Is it the "Ground Beef" label? I can't see how that would apply, and the same with "Taco Meat Filling". The only thing I can think of that would apply is if beef is not the most common ingredient, as listed in the ingredients list, so that's my assumption right now (i.e. they are arguing there is more filler than beef)

 

[Emet]

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the suit? Is that available anywhere?

In case anyone's interested, here's the lawsuit:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70366868/Read-the-full-Taco-Bell-lawsuit-here

(...)
A false-advertising lawsuit filed last week that caused an online stir alleges the company's filling doesn't have enough beef to be called that. The lawsuit seeks to make the company stop calling it "beef," and pay the suing law firm's bill.
(...)
The plaintiffs would have to prove that most diners believe they are getting something other than what Taco Bell serves. Most customers realize taco meat has ingredients besides beef, said Marc Williams, an attorney at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough with extensive experience in fast-food litigation.
In addition, the lawsuit cites U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for labeling ground beef. The problem? They don't apply to restaurants. The USDA's rules apply to meat processors — the companies Taco Bell buys its meat from.
(...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110129/ap_on_re_us/us_taco_bell_lawsuit

 

[Hellbound]

Thanks, Emet, but that also expalins why I didn't see it the first itme. That site (docstoc) is blocked from here.

But it does look as if I were almost right, and their argument, while not about the listing of "beef" in the ingredient list, is about the name beef in the title and how much beef there actually is.

And, of course, here we have another confirmation that the USDA rules are not for restaurants.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm simply nonplussed that it took so many posts to explain the difference between regulations for producing processed raw meat and regulations for labeling a product that contains cooked meat.

...or are we not done yet?

Simply Nonplussed, a new fragrance by Elizabeth Taylor. Can't you just see the commercial for it? I can, and it's beautiful! Black-and-white, of course, with Liz herself on all fours on a palatial terrace, eating huge fistfuls of loose taco meat from a vast mound of it. A handsome young European-looking guy in a tux comes up to her and says "That's not entirely beef!" Liz pauses, looks up, and smiles, her mouth and jaw sticky with grease and clumps of meat. "It's never simple....it's Simply Nonplussed!" Maybe there could be a Taco Bell tie-in, with Liz pulling out a chihuahua's skeleton from the meat and tossing it aside, and customers get a sample of Simply Nonplussed and Simply Nonplussed For Men with every purchase of a Pukelada con Queso or something.

 

[roger]

Whiel what Taco Bell makes is used as a Taco Meat Filling, no where in their literature do I see that listed as an ingredient or called Taco Meat Filling. I suspect "Taco Meat Filling" would be more likely seen on the ingredients list of a Nuka-Burrito package . Someone did post a picture, but I can't find that phrasing in their marketing or ingredients list anywhere, so I don't know if that is the name they use for it.

Well, that is one of the things that the suit is complaining about. Taco Bell calls it "ground beef", whereas (they allege) it should be correctly labelled as "taco meat filling". And, furthermore it (they allege) does not even conform to that labelling requirement, as it falls below the 40% meat requirement.

from the suit:

In reality, a substantial majority of the filling is comprised of substances other than beef, and is required to be labelled and advertised as "taco meat filling".

They also provided proof that internally they do call the product "taco meat filling" by providing a scan of the label.

I would suspect (I ain't no lawyer) that the USDA labelling policy would apply because Taco Bell functions as both a restaurant and manufacturer. Their manufacturing division provides ready made taco meat filling to the restaurants. I doubt you can use the fact that both arms of a business are under the same roof to get around labelling requirements. For example, there are extensive rules about labelling frozen pizzas. You can't just go buy a grocery chain, sell your mislabeled pizzas there, and then claim "but the rules don't apply to groceries, so bite me", I would suspect. I don't claim this paragraph is true, it's just my speculation. It'll be interesting to see how the courts interpret this.

 

[BenBurch]

I can't believe Taco Bell got sued, and nowhere in the suit is "explosive diarrhea" mentioned.

They KILLED KENNY!

 

[Hellbound]

Well, that is one of the things that the suit is complaining about. Taco Bell calls it "ground beef", whereas (they allege) it should be correctly labelled as "taco meat filling". And, furthermore it (they allege) does not even conform to that labelling requirement, as it falls below the 40% meat requirement.

I see.

But, Taco Bell calls it "Seasoned Ground Beef", not "Ground Beef"; the "Ground Beef" definition applies to meat packaging and labelling as an ingredient; and "Seasoned Ground Beef" is the name of their product with a USDA approved ingredients listing (and Ground Beef is not one of the ingredients, Beef is).

Not to mention I think their testing is FoS

I think what someone suggested was correct, this case was hoping for a PR settlement, and TB decided "Screw that" and called their bluff. I bet they suspected more filler than TB actually usues (like 30% or something), and did not expect that TB would turn around and claim 88%. I have a feelign this could go badly for the plantiff.

Of course, they still get their 15 minutes of fame either way.

 

[Emet]

Of course, they still get their 15 minutes of fame either way.

Which, since they're not asking for monetary damages, seems to me to be the purpose of the lawsuit.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But, Taco Bell calls it "Seasoned Ground Beef", not "Ground Beef"; the "Ground Beef" definition applies to meat packaging and labelling as an ingredient; and "Seasoned Ground Beef" is the name of their product with a USDA approved ingredients listing (and Ground Beef is not one of the ingredients, Beef is).

It would be funny if they suggest in court that it's a question of punctuation, and the taco filling ingredients are more properly labelled "Seasoned ground, beef". If the jury has eaten at Taco Bell, they will believe it.