• 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

Policenaut said:
If you don't trust what they say they put in their food then don't eat it. Oats≠rats.
Click to expand...

Is this the "America, love it or leave it" argument in a fast food setting? The point is, according to the lawsuit, that Taco Bell falsely and illegally advertises it's meat as meat. According to the content analysis by the plaintiff, the "meat" in question has only 36% real meat. It doesn't matter what the rest is - rat, oat, duck, sawdust, toilet paper - it's that they aren't allowed to call it meat unless it's 70% meat. People expect meat, not 64% fillers, when they pay for what is advertised as meat. Do you honestly think people should be able to lie about anything in order to sell their product then leave it up to the consumer to analyze everything that comes into their purview? Business is impervious to responsible and honest advertising/practices? That is as indefensible a position as any I can think of when it comes to business practices. If that sort of advertising is allowed, immoral capitalism (and Madison Avenue) has reached a new low.
 
Hellbound said:
I don't think anyone here would disagree that, if this woman is something other than the attention-ho she appears to be and there is actually only 36% meat, then yes, TB is guilty of false advertising.

However, unlike some people here, most of us do NOT think that TB is guilty, period, because they use the term "seasoned ground beef" to describe their filling and it contains more than just beef.

And if what TB says is true, and the filling is 88% beef, then this woman has NO case.

The law suit is about whether it has enough beef to be called beef. If 3body's asinine interpretation were remotely correct, there'd be no question at all, and TB would have to have the biggest idiots on the planet for corporate lawyers to even think about fighting it, because their own, self-published ingredients list shows it's not 100% beef.

Frankly, I'm not going to convict TB on the basis of one woman making one claim, with the only evidence being her word that "really, I had it tested".

The entier case will come down to a question of fact: how much beef is there. The disagreement in this thread is whether is has to be 100% (in which case TB has already lost, and their reaction to this as well as the lawsuit in general shouldn't even be a question, and there is the question of why such a flagrant and obvious violation of laws and regulations has gone on...I mean TB has had health inspections, and I find it hard to believe they'd miss, oh, the PUBLISHED IGREDIENT LIST), or whether (as is reasonable) a filling that is mostly beef can be non-misleadingly called seasoned ground beef.
Click to expand...

Nope you've got it all wrong.

The question is very simple, is what Taco Bell use in their tacos "ground beef"? According to the FDA, USDA and the same bodies here in Canada what they use isn't ground beef. Everyone knows it, nobody in there right might would ever confuse the spicy slop they put in a taco as "ground beef". Not even drunk at 3A.M. (or later)
The actual beef content is irrelevant because "ground beef" is 100% beef. And we know what they use isn't 100% beef.

Easiest case ever.
 
themusicteacher said:
Is this the "America, love it or leave it" argument in a fast food setting? The point is, according to the lawsuit, that Taco Bell falsely and illegally advertises it's meat as meat. According to the content analysis by the plaintiff, the "meat" in question has only 36% real meat. It doesn't matter what the rest is - rat, oat, duck, sawdust, toilet paper - it's that they aren't allowed to call it meat unless it's 70% meat. People expect meat, not 64% fillers, when they pay for what is advertised as meat. Do you honestly think people should be able to lie about anything in order to sell their product then leave it up to the consumer to analyze everything that comes into their purview? Business is impervious to responsible and honest advertising/practices? That is as indefensible a position as any I can think of when it comes to business practices. If that sort of advertising is allowed, immoral capitalism (and Madison Avenue) has reached a new low.
Click to expand...
(my bolding)

Not according to spokesmen for the USDA and FTC:

According to the USDA, which regulates the nation's meat supply, "taco meat filling" is required to contain at least 40 percent fresh meat and must be labeled with the product name, including the word "filling."

But that requirement applies to raw meat sold by manufacturers. The USDA doesn't regulate what companies such as restaurants can describe to their customers in advertisements as "beef," "chicken" or "meat," said USDA press officer Neil Gaffney.
The Federal Trade Commission is the agency that regulates whether or not advertising is deceptive. The FTC has no specific rules that define what can be advertised as meat or beef, said Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokeswoman.
Click to expand...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0202-taco-bell-meat-20110202,0,3075583,full.story
 
3bodyproblem said:
The actual beef content is irrelevant because "ground beef" is 100% beef. And we know what they use isn't 100% beef.

Easiest case ever.
Click to expand...
Yes, nobody thinks a taco is 100% beef. The actual beef content is irrelevant because Taco Bell makes no beef content claims.
 
themusicteacher said:
Is this the "America, love it or leave it" argument in a fast food setting? The point is, according to the lawsuit, that Taco Bell falsely and illegally advertises it's meat as meat. According to the content analysis by the plaintiff, the "meat" in question has only 36% real meat. It doesn't matter what the rest is - rat, oat, duck, sawdust, toilet paper - it's that they aren't allowed to call it meat unless it's 70% meat. People expect meat, not 64% fillers, when they pay for what is advertised as meat. Do you honestly think people should be able to lie about anything in order to sell their product then leave it up to the consumer to analyze everything that comes into their purview? Business is impervious to responsible and honest advertising/practices? That is as indefensible a position as any I can think of when it comes to business practices. If that sort of advertising is allowed, immoral capitalism (and Madison Avenue) has reached a new low.
Click to expand...

It's true though, where are we at in society where we need to set a percentage of meat to define meat?

Maybe TB is run by vegetarians slowly trying to take over the World? I know TB was the only place I ate at when I was a vegetarian. I've said at least once in this forum before Taco Bell tastes better without the "taco filling". It's horrible.
 
JoelKatz said:
Yes, nobody thinks a taco is 100% beef. The actual beef content is irrelevant because Taco Bell makes no beef content claims.
Click to expand...

True. Like you said, maybe they will extend them latitude because it's "seasoned ground beef". I don't know. It seems to me seasoning isn't oats and soy and all that crap. Seasoning is like salt some cumin and coriander, maybe a little chili powder.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Nope you've got it all wrong.

The question is very simple, is what Taco Bell use in their tacos "ground beef"? According to the FDA, USDA and the same bodies here in Canada what they use isn't ground beef. Everyone knows it, nobody in there right might would ever confuse the spicy slop they put in a taco as "ground beef". Not even drunk at 3A.M. (or later)
The actual beef content is irrelevant because "ground beef" is 100% beef. And we know what they use isn't 100% beef.

Easiest case ever.
Click to expand...
Repeating this lie over and over again doesn't make it true. You've been shown over and over again that the regulations you are citing are not applicable to restaurants.
 
3bodyproblem said:
It's true though, where are we at in society where we need to set a percentage of meat to define meat?
Click to expand...

Okay, so I have an empty skillet.

I place a pound of ground beef in my skillet.

My skillet now contains ground beef.

I add a pinch of salt to the skillet.

What does my skillet now contain?
 
mortimer said:
Repeating this lie over and over again doesn't make it true. You've been shown over and over again that the regulations you are citing are not applicable to restaurants.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe health care reform didn't pass. :rolleyes:

You've been told 10 times, the USDA has the right to reconsider any exemption under the regulations. Big chain restaurants are subject to different regulations, you only have to walk into a Mac Donald's to see that.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Only if you believe health care reform didn't pass. :rolleyes:

You've been told 10 times, the USDA has the right to reconsider any exemption under the regulations. Big chain restaurants are subject to different regulations, you only have to walk into a Mac Donald's to see that.
Click to expand...
You have shown *zero* evidence that the USDA has the right to reconsider any exemption.

What exactly about McDonald's is a result of the USDA reconsidering exemptions that would otherwise have applied to McDonald's?

You have been presented evidence that the regulations put forth in the healthcare reform bill are to be put into effect by the FDA, not the USDA, and probably not for another 3-4 years. But you seem to have ignored that.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
How do I know you didn't put unseasoned taco meat filling in the pan?
Click to expand...

Let's stop being coy.

We both know why you won't answer my question. You've seen the errors in your reasoning and so you try to deflect attention away from the issue. If it is the case that for anything to qualify as "meat" then it must contain meat and absolutely nothing else, then we're left with with the absurd situation wherein a pinch of salt transforms a meat product into a non-meat product. As much as the vegetarians would delight at the scenario, we both know this is not the case.

When someone refuses to answer the simplest of questions, it's usually because they've realized that they're wrong.
 
mortimer said:
You have shown *zero* evidence that the USDA has the right to reconsider any exemption.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, it was Title 9 sc 303.3 d (edited)


mortimer said:
What exactly about McDonald's is a result of the USDA reconsidering exemptions that would otherwise have applied to McDonald's?
Click to expand...

You go into Bob's Diner and ask them for the ingredients list of their famous "1/3 Pounder with cheese", including the caloric count. I'll get one for Mc Donald's famous 1/4 Pounder. First one to do so gets $100. Ready? Go!

mortimer said:
You have been presented evidence that the regulations put forth in the healthcare reform bill are to be put into effect by the FDA, not the USDA, and probably not for another 3-4 years. But you seem to have ignored that.
Click to expand...

Wait, in America you get to chose the laws you follow? In Soviet Russia, laws choose you!

I don't see how they could exist and contradict one another? How is that possible, because that's what you're suggesting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom