Taco Bell sued

[Jonnyclueless]

I hear that once you factor in the bread, toppings, and the packaging, it's really only like 5% beef. If you include the soda, even less.

 

[Furcifer]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0202-taco-bell-meat-20110202,0,3075583,full.story

And that's basically the same here in Canada, the FCC requires advertising to follow the CFIA (Canadian Foods Inspection Agency) guidelines for labeling.


ETA: after reading more of the USDA guidelines this may all hinge on the fact that what Taco Bell adds is actually more nutritious than the fat it is replacing.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I hear that once you factor in the bread, toppings, and the packaging, it's really only like 5% beef. If you include the soda, even less.

If you get ice in the soda, you can't label it "soda" anymore as it's adulterated...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Wrong, an exemption does not mean the law does not apply.

Wait, are you honestly attempting to redefine "exemption" to mean something other than "exemption"? Because that's what you're doing. If I am exempted from the speed limit, that means the speed limit laws don't apply to me. That's exactly what "exempted" means.

Try using some logic,

Says the person attempting to redefine "exemption" to mean something other than "exemption"...

do you honestly think every restaurant in NA is going to submit a recipe and preparation methods to the FDA?

When did I ever imply that I believed they would? And what does that have to do with the discussion we are having here and now?

Nor is every backyard butcher doing a cow for a freezer order going to be required under the law to follow the regulations. The same goes for a grocery store cutting up a loin to sell as chops.

Actually, until they receive an exemption, they are required to follow the regulations - whether they're inspected or not. However, once an exemption has been granted, the regulations no longer apply.

It's pretty obvious how the laws apply to Mac Donald's and other large chains aren't the same for Uncle Peppey's Steak Emporium off route 10.

Evidence?

 

[Furcifer]

First off, the LEAN Act never passed... it was partially incorporated into the healthcare reform act.

I don't pay attention to US politics, are you saying the Health Care reform act never passed? I thought it did.

First, it's McDonald's, not Mac Donald's. Second, nobody is claiming that they are free from such regulations. They just want you to back up your claims about these regulations, which you've failed to do, over and over again.

Why would Taco Bell be free of regulations that Mc Donald's isn't? It seems to me the ball is in your court.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't pay attention to US politics, are you saying the Health Care reform act never passed? I thought it did.



Why would Taco Bell be free of regulations that Mc Donald's isn't? It seems to me the ball is in your court.

No, you're claiming there are all these regulations that make TB's advertising and/or labeling illegal. And while I admit regulations do exist, you have yet to evidence your claims with the appropriate statute.

What little bit of law quoting you've done has been conclusively shown to not apply to TB.


So, no, 3body, the ball is not in our court. It's in your court. You are making the claim, you back it up.

 

[mortimer]

I don't pay attention to US politics

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Nice attempt at a dodge. Want to address the substance of my post?

it was partially incorporated into the healthcare reform act. Those provisions are for posting caloric and other nutritional information about menu items (again, "seasoned ground beef" is NOT a menu item), not about listing ingredients. But that's up to the FDA to decide, so that provision is not going to go into effect for several years.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...ie-disclosure/

But feel free to provide evidence that this provision removed *any* exemptions to rules around the packaging of meat products.

Why would Taco Bell be free of regulations that Mc Donald's isn't? It seems to me the ball is in your court.

Is English your first language? I'm asking because you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding it. I said that nobody is arguing that Taco Bell should be free of regulations that would apply to McDonald's, or any other fast food chain. But you haven't been able, thus far, to name and source these regulations. Each one you bring up has been shown to be completely non-applicable to fast food chains, or any restaurant for that matter.

 

[Furcifer]

If I am exempted from the speed limit, that means the speed limit laws don't apply to me. That's exactly what "exempted" means.

Well you seem to understand just fine. An ambulance may be exempted from speeding laws, but that's contingent on having a passenger or going to a call or having a serious emergency.
If an ambulance is going to lunch, you can bet your sweet bippy the laws apply. That's the distinction between an "exemption" and the flat out "laws don't apply".
The same goes for the police or F1 race cars. There are exemptions, but the law still applies.

Do you need more examples or do you understand?

 

[Furcifer]

No, you're claiming there are all these regulations that make TB's advertising and/or labeling illegal. And while I admit regulations do exist, you have yet to evidence your claims with the appropriate statute.

What little bit of law quoting you've done has been conclusively shown to not apply to TB.


So, no, 3body, the ball is not in our court. It's in your court. You are making the claim, you back it up.

What are you talking about? It's pretty clear the FCC will be using the USDA or FDA labeling criteria, as has been outlined numerous times already, to determine if Taco Bell is being deceptive or misleading.

 

[Furcifer]

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Nice attempt at a dodge. Want to address the substance of my post?

You're just a bald faced liar, the Health Care reform act passed, I just Googled it. Why do you continue to fabricated things?

 

[Emet]

ETA: after reading more of the USDA guidelines this may all hinge on the fact that what Taco Bell adds is actually more nutritious than the fat it is replacing.

I don't see how anyone who has read the complaint can come to that conclusion. It is about false advertising.

"Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of Taco Bell's false and misleading advertising message, and correct the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers."

The Chicago Trib article I linked is the final nail in the coffin.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well you seem to understand just fine. An ambulance may be exempted from speeding laws, but that's contingent on having a passenger or going to a call or having a serious emergency.
If an ambulance is going to lunch, you can bet your sweet bippy the laws apply. That's the distinction between an "exemption" and the flat out "laws don't apply".
The same goes for the police or F1 race cars. There are exemptions, but the law still applies.

Do you need more examples or do you understand?

*sigh* You're comparing partial exemption with full exemption, and then claiming that exemption doesn't mean "law doesn't apply". What you've described with the ambulance is a situation where the usual law doesn't apply, but rather a different law applies. That doesn't mean the ambulance is only partially exempted from the original law (except as where the exemption states that it's only a partial exemption - such as authorizations to drive 10mph over the posted limit...it's a partial exemption), it means the original law doesn't apply and a different law does.

Regardless, you haven't shown that Taco Bell is not exempt from the statute you're claiming applies, while many others have shown that the law doesn't apply to Taco Bell.

 

[mortimer]

You're just a bald faced liar, the Health Care reform act passed, I just Googled it. Why do you continue to fabricated things?

Good for you. You might have saved yourself the effort if you had actually read my post. Nowhere have I said the healthcare reform act didn't pass. I said the LEAN Act didn't pass, while you claim it did.

And you continue to avoid answering other questions while beating strawmen to death.

 

[Furcifer]

Good for you. You might have saved yourself the effort if you had actually read my post. Nowhere have I said the healthcare reform act didn't pass. I said the LEAN Act didn't pass, while you claim it did.

And you continue to avoid answering other questions while beating strawmen to death.

"LEAN passed as part of the health care reform bill in March 2010. The law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide nutritional information on their menus."

http://rc.etundra.com/Welcome/Restaurant_News_Trends/Restaurant_News/Restaurant_Healthy_Menu/Menu_Labeling_Law.aspx

Again, I'm not up on US politics, but if was part of the Health Care Reform Act, and it passed, how could the Lean Act not pass?

I thought that was one of those things about US politics, tacking things onto bills to get them passed? I saw Legally Blonde, the second or third one.

So please, explain to me how everyone is wrong but you? I'm not following your reasoning here. Or maybe you think the LEAN Act was limited to Nutrition? It isn't and it specifically addresses 319 of the FDA regulations as they pertain to restaurant exemptions on labeling.

 

[mortimer]

"LEAN passed as part of the health care reform bill in March 2010. The law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide nutritional information on their menus."

http://rc.etundra.com/Welcome/Resta...estaurant_Healthy_Menu/Menu_Labeling_Law.aspx

Again, I'm not up on US politics, but if was part of the Health Care Reform Act, and it passed, how could the Lean Act not pass?

I thought that was one of those things about US politics, tacking things onto bills to get them passed? I saw Legally Blonde, the second or third one.

So please, explain to me how everyone is wrong but you? I'm not following your reasoning here. Or maybe you think the LEAN Act was limited to Nutrition? It isn't and it specifically addresses 319 of the FDA regulations as they pertain to restaurant exemptions on labeling.

There is no LEAN Act. Is was incorporated into the healthcare reform bill. Which is exactly what I said from the start. You can continue to harp on this unimportant fact if you wish, or you can actually, you know, address the important stuff. If you feel LEAN is significant in the Taco Bell case, feel free to present your case.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't see how anyone who has read the complaint can come to that conclusion. It is about false advertising.

"Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of Taco Bell's false and misleading advertising message, and correct the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers."

The Chicago Trib article I linked is the final nail in the coffin.

The Trib article doesn't address the key issue : "Taco Bell mislabels its products by telling consumers they are eating "beef" or "seasoned ground beef," despite having the product labeled internally as "taco meat filling."

That's ultimately the question that will need to be addressed. I may have mentioned "ground beef" has a specific definition under the regulations.

Everyone knows what "ground beef" is, the FDA and USDA have specific definitions of what "ground beef" is and what Taco Bell claims is "ground beef" is not "ground beef".

I'm fairly certain they will be required to change their website and refrain from using the term "seasoned ground beef" in any advertising.

If it's proven their mixture doesn't contain enough "beef" they may have to make some changes but I'm not sure. That's a separate issue I'm not really sure has any merit to be honest. All I'm trying to say is what Taco Bell claims is "seasoned ground beef" is not "seasoned ground beef". It's "seasoned taco meat filling", exactly what they call it in house, but misrepresent in advertising.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The Trib article doesn't address the key issue : "Taco Bell mislabels its products by telling consumers they are eating "beef" or "seasoned ground beef," despite having the product labeled internally as "taco meat filling."

That's ultimately the question that will need to be addressed. I may have mentioned "ground beef" has a specific definition under the regulations.

Everyone knows what "ground beef" is, the FDA and USDA have specific definitions of what "ground beef" is and what Taco Bell claims is "ground beef" is not "ground beef".

I'm fairly certain they will be required to change their website and refrain from using the term "seasoned ground beef" in any advertising.

If it's proven their mixture doesn't contain enough "beef" they may have to make some changes but I'm not sure. That's a separate issue I'm not really sure has any merit to be honest. All I'm trying to say is what Taco Bell claims is "seasoned ground beef" is not "seasoned ground beef". It's "seasoned taco meat filling", exactly what they call it in house, but misrepresent in advertising.

And yet you haven't shown that the USDA guidelines for what constitutes "ground beef" apply to Taco Bell. When you find the USDA guidelines, do let us know.

In the meantime, this is back to what I said it was: The supplier to TB is perhaps filling their meat, but that's not TB's liability. As long as TB is purchasing what they believe to be "ground beef", then listing "ground beef" as an ingredient is correct. If the ground beef is not "ground beef", then that is the meatpacker/distributor's problem, not Taco Bell's.

 

[Furcifer]

There is no LEAN Act.

The Labeling Education and Nutrition (LEAN) Act was introduced in 2008 and sets a national standard for restaurant menu labeling. It is supported by the NRA and the Coalition for Responsible Nutrition Information (CRNI), an NRA-led advocacy group.

LEAN passed as part of the health care reform bill in March 2010. The law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide nutritional information on their menus.


Your not very credible. Is this a Jedi mind trick?

 

[Furcifer]

And yet you haven't shown that the USDA guidelines for what constitutes "ground beef" apply to Taco Bell. When you find the USDA guidelines, do let us know.

lol, why would the USDA be different from the FDA? Because you want them to? Unreal.

USDA- "ground beef"- "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."

The supplier to TB is perhaps filling their meat, but that's not TB's liability.

lol, there's a joke in their but I'm not touching it. It's clearly Taco Bell's liability, the supplier calls it correctly "taco meat filling", Taco Bell then claims it's "seasoned ground beef".

It isn't!!! It's "taco meat filling"! It says so on the label!!!

 

[Furcifer]

Here's a link to the response ad TB is running:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/242169/TACO-BELL-MEAT-BEEF-LAWSUIT-NEWSPAPER-ADS.jpg

You'll note that is stays VERY clear of calling their product "seasoned ground beef". Why? Because it isn't of course.

I don't understand why people continue to insist Taco Bell is correct in claiming products like the Nachos Supreme consist of:Crisp, freshly prepared tortilla chips covered with seasoned ground beef, warm nacho cheese sauce, diced ripe tomatoes, chives and cool sour cream.