Taco Bell sued

[BenBurch]

A big part of this is extending the hold time of a batch in the steam table.

If you go into a Taco Bell kitchen area you will see a clock with colored stickers all over it.

The stickers indicate the time when you put any steam table items into the waste bucket and replace with freshly thawed/heated product. If it were not for the oat fiber and yeast extract, these stickers would be much closer together, the waste would be much higher, and the price to you the consumer would about double.

 

[BenBurch]

Other things sold as beef are not pure beef.

Arby's roast beef, for example; Trimmed Boneless Beef Chunks (Minimum 70%) Combined With Chopped Beef For a Maximum of 12% Fat. Contains up to 9.0% of a Self-Basting Solution of Water, Salt, Sodium Phosphate.

Hardee's Beef Patty, 1/3 lb (pre-cook weight)
Black Angus Beef, Salt with Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and Cottonseed Oil, Sodium Phosphates, Spice.

Hardee's Beef Frank
Pork, Water, Salt, Contains 2% or less Beef, Sugar, Flavorings, Sodium Phosphate, Corn Syrup, Sodium Erythorbate, Sodium Nitrite, Extract of Paprika.

Jack In The Box; Sirloin Beef Patty/Sirloin Beef Mini Patty
Beef Sirloin, Seasoning (Dried Beef Stock, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Spices, Dried Garlic, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Dried Onion, Natural Butter Flavor [Maltodextrin, Natural Butter Flavor], Spice Extract). Grilled and Seasoned with our Topical Seasoning.

 

[tesscaline]

UY --

Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that what Taco Bell provides is not within the realm of "expected" or "usual" in some regard. I've already demonstrated, by way of a huge list of ingredients from other locations, that what Taco Bell provides isn't really any different than what people do to their own home made taco meat (if using a seasoning packet).

I'm really not sure what else to say to you on the matter -- your question about telling the difference between products based on ingredient lists is, quite frankly, nonsensical.

If we were talking about an item sold in a grocery store, the labeling/naming conventions for the item would be handled by the FSIS (www.fsis.usda.gov). It's not though, it's a restaurant item, which is handled generally by the FTC and only in regards to deceptive business practices.

The FTC doesn't have any clearly defined rules about what they consider "deceptive". The FSIS, however, does. So. Let me cite for you an example of what's considered "appropriate".

From http://www.fsis.usda.gov/pdf/labeling_requirements_guide.pdf

1. Determining a Product’s Name
All meat and poultry products must be identified by a product
name on the PDP. The regulations state that the product must be identified by
the name specified by the standard, if there is one, or a common and usual
name, or a truthful descriptive designation of the product.

Is there a standard for "taco meat filling" that is almost 90% beef? Or, does the "taco meat filling" description more accurately describe products that are much lower in beef content?

Well, lets look at the FSIS policy handbook (warning, this pdf is almost 200 pages):

COOKED BEEF, EQUIVALENCY:
In lieu of fresh beef, a 70% yield figure is used if no yield information is provided.

and

COOKED RED MEAT PRODUCTS CONTAINING ADDED SUBSTANCES:

...If cooked, uncured red meat products that contain added solutions/substances prior to
cooking are cooked back to or below the weight of the fresh (green weight) article,
words, such as “seasoned” and “flavored,” are to be used to reflect the addition of the
added substances, e.g., “Seasoned Cooked Beef.”

Taco Bell does indeed appear to be using standardized naming practices for their product.

Unless you can prove that they have less than 70% beef in their product, and/or use a significant amount of extenders for the purpose of extending.

Can you demonstrate either one? The plaintiff in the case hasn't even released their "test results" on the amount of beef contained in the "seasoned ground beef".

So. Again. There is NOTHING deceptive going on here. Nothing. At all. Whatsoever. Unless Taco Bell is lying about the beef content of their recipe enough that it drops below a 70% margin.

 

[BenBurch]

SkeptiChick,

I think this has taken on the character of the smears against P&G. In that case, P&G found the source of the smears, and sued them into oblivion, and then went after those who kept promoting the lies. Not that P&G was ever able to fully recover their reputation, but at least we no longer are subjected to this nonsense on a regular basis.

If I were in charge at Yum! brands, I would sue those spreading this lie for tortious interference with trade. And would win, what's more. That they have chosen to address this with an ad campaign shows that they are far more forgiving than I ever could be.

-Ben

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'm going to steal a bit from Penn Jillette here ...

Want to convince me a test report has shown Taco Bell's meat filling is only 36% meat? Show me the test report.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UY --

Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that what Taco Bell provides is not within the realm of "expected" or "usual" in some regard. I've already demonstrated, by way of a huge list of ingredients from other locations, that what Taco Bell provides isn't really any different than what people do to their own home made taco meat (if using a seasoning packet).

That's not what it hinges on, sorry. It hinges on what a reasonable person would expect when seeing something advertised as "seasoned ground beef" or "seasoned beef" versus what is actually provided ("taco meat filling" in their exact words). I expect a fast-food chain to use extenders. I don't expect them to use language in their advertising that would make it difficult for me to differentiate their product from that of a restaurant that does not use extenders. If it said taco meat filling or beef taco meat filling, I'd have no objection.

I'm really not sure what else to say to you on the matter -- your question about telling the difference between products based on ingredient lists is, quite frankly, nonsensical.

Nonsensical? It seems to me that your language is a bit too extreme for me in this thread.

 

[nathan]

this seems more contentious than Amanda Knox

I don't expect them to use language in their advertising that would make it difficult for me to differentiate their product from that of a restaurant that does not use extenders.

That seems a naive attitude to advertising. Isn't the purpose of advertising to make one's product appear better than the competition's? If the competition doesn't use extenders and yours does (and extenders are bad), then I'd expect your advertising to obscure that.

If it said taco meat filling or beef taco meat filling, I'd have no objection.

Having no idea, prior to this thread, that 'taco meat filling' was some kind of regulated term, I'd've thought anyone claiming their tacos to contain taco meat filling to be demented. Of course they contain taco meat filling -- they're tacos with meat in them!

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of arguing in a vacuum going on here.

 

[sadhatter]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a really well prepared meatloaf. There's a restaurant locally that does theirs with a filet mignon that they chop in house, and top with the most amazing bourbon bbq sauce... It's worth every penny of the exorbitant rate you pay when you order it.

Then there's the meatloaf the german restaurant i used to go to made... With a hard boiled egg in the middle, and wrapped in bacon. Pure heaven.

I'm pretty sure they both had fillers of various sorts. My mother used to use potato in hers. I can't imagine that oats would be bad at all. Especially if it were oatmeal.

You know, i was taken aback a bit at the meatloaf comment. To explain.

I like crappy food. I will admit it, give me something that was squeezed out of a robot somewhere, and injected with chemicals to make me actually want to eat it, and i am good. White castle, taco bell, slim jims, you name it.

( I don't dislike well made food, i just don't have the "ick" tendency when it comes to food that was probably made by Dr. Forester.)

But i wouldn't really put meatloaf in that category , i mean when i think of meatloaf i kind of think of the catered dinners MCI used to put on for their employees. ( while i don't live in a huge city, i live in one big enough to have a few very high quality restaurants. ) they went to the best restaurant in the city, basically rented them out for the day and had them crank out gourmet ( i know i am probably using the word wrong, but what i mean is food that would tend to cost 30 dollars + a plate. Or food that has been prepared by someone who has had the appropriate training, and been given access to very high quality ingredients. ) food en masse. ( contradiction in terms, i know. )

One of the best items from my 3 or so years of going was the meatloaf. Liking poor food lets you really be able to tell when something is using a higher grade of meat, and this stuff must have been about 5 minutes removed from the cow, and seasoned with spices that took the lord of the rings gang to retrieve. I mean when i am looking at fillet minion , and a piece of meatloaf in a buffet ( bad word to use, as it implies lack fo quality, but no idea what else to call it. ) and i can't make a decision, that says something right there.

 

[JoelKatz]

JoelKatz's method seems kind of sound the way he explains it. But--and this holds true in all kinds of areas--when seemingly sound methods end up in results contrary to common sense (such as a component making up more than 100% of a substance), you have to go back and recheck.

This is the same argument that rejected the idea that use of negative numbers to denote amounts of money. That is now widely accepted.

It is simply impractical to track the actual percentage of orange juice back from the volume obtained from the oranges when juice is squeezed and concentrated. It makes much more sense to define "100% orange juice" as having a concentration of orange juice that is 100% what is typically found in the juice of an orange. By this very useful, and perfectly reasonable, definition, double-strength orange juice has 200%.

It only seems to defy common sense when you phrase it badly. For example, saying "this drink is 130% orange juice" seems to confuse people. But saying "this liquid has 130% the concentration of orange juice as the juice of an orange" works better. Percentages greater than 100 work just the same as percentages less than 100.

 

[Uncayimmy]

this seems more contentious than Amanda Knox

Yeh, I don't get that.

That seems a naive attitude to advertising. Isn't the purpose of advertising to make one's product appear better than the competition's? If the competition doesn't use extenders and yours does (and extenders are bad), then I'd expect your advertising to obscure that.

It's not naive on my part. I've created advertising campaigns for businesses as part of my business. The idea is to present your product/service in the best light possible by telling the truth in a way that will not be misunderstood by a significant number of customers to mean something untrue about something material to their buying decision. The part in italics is required by law, and many businesses try to come as close to the edge as possible. It's a gray area that is decided on a case by case basis based the full context, which includes specific words and phrases, pictures and manner of presentation.

Generally speaking it takes a lot of complaints or an egregious violation for somebody like the FTC to get involved. California, which is the state in which this case was filed, passed a law that allows consumers to bring businesses to court without having to go through the executive branch of the government. That's what happened here.

Having no idea, prior to this thread, that 'taco meat filling' was some kind of regulated term, I'd've thought anyone claiming their tacos to contain taco meat filling to be demented. Of course they contain taco meat filling -- they're tacos with meat in them!

The biggest problem in this thread is that people are confused about what's really going on. The case was started by a consumer under the authority of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The only question is whether the marketing properly reflects what is sold. It can be truthful and still misleading. It doesn't have to be intentionally misleading. In fact, unless the complainant can show the company was willfully misleading and failed to remedy the situation, no damages can be assessed.

Everything else should just be an argument about that judgment. The FTC has guidelines about what's misleading, so it's useful to look at their policy statements to see how this case will be treated. Various government agencies have explicit requirements for certain terms, and while they do not directly apply in this case, they are relevant in the sense that those same terms used in another context have an implication/expectation, and that's what's at stake here.

How people prepare their own tacos is relevant only to level it influences the general public's expectation when seeing the term "seasoned ground beef." If people don't refer to it as seasoned ground beef but as taco filling, then that pretty much means Taco Bell needs to change their marketing. It's all about reasonable consumer perception and expectation based on the exact wording and imagery.

Why we need a bazillion pages to get that, I dunno.

 

[sadhatter]

I think Bob has me on ignore, but this is just wrong. We're in the murky world of what constitutes deceptive advertising. At the extreme end, suppose Taco Bell created a soy/oat based filling that had the appearance and texture of ground beef. Suppose further that this "filling" had 1% pure ground beef in it.

The legality of how they advertise their product would depend entirely the exact phrasing and context. Technically, their filling contains pure ground beef. The question is how many consumers looking at a picture of a taco with what appears to be seasoned ground beef and seeing "contains pure ground beef" would reasonably conclude that 99% of the filling is really oats and tofu.

Being truthful is but one burden. It also must not mislead customers acting "reasonably" under the circumstances in a way that affects a material part of their decision process. If I sell a mouthwash that I say prevents colds, that would be an untruthful specific claim. If I sell a mouthwash that kills the germs that cause colds, that would be truthful. However, the implication is that my mouthwash prevents colds, which is not true. This is the example the FTC gives.

So, when Taco Bell says their tacos are made with a tortilla, lettuce, cheese and seasoned ground beef, that's truthful. The question is whether it's misleading. I happen to think it is. I make tacos using ground beef. After I cook the meat, I pour off the liquid since I can't easily separate the water from the fat. I then add various spices (chili powder, cumin, salt, paprika) and a wee bit of water. That's seasoned ground beef.

I don't add any oats, flour, soy or yeast. Some people add corn starch. So, reasonable people will disagree on their expectations of seeing "seasoned ground beef" in the advertising (the exact list of ingredients is irrelevant to the advertising).

Side Note 1: The retail price of flour is about 60 cents per pound. The retail price of ground beef is about $2 per pound. When you sell a bajillion tacos, 5% starches can be a significant savings.

Side Note 2: While closing on our house about eight years ago, I got to talking with the clerks about Taco Bell wondering how they could sell tacos so cheap. This person, who said he used to work there, claimed that the "taco meat" came to them dehydrated. He said they added water to reconstitute it. I make no claims as to the veracity.

Side Note 3: Think outside the bun? How about thinking outside the frigging tortilla?

You know, if taco bell had along standing history of serving healthy nutritious foods , i would kind of see your point that it could be deceptive. They suddenly change their m.o. and don't tell the customer.

But lets be honest here, we are talking about taco bell. The place that has a main selling point of being cheap. The place that everyone, including those who like it know is going to turn your stomach into an alchemists pot in about 2 hours.

Would it be deceptive for a Gourmet restaurant to suddenly start using " Seasoned ground beef" instead of " ground beef" , for sure, one expects a certain quality of ingredient from them and they changed that.

But TB , really? If they say anything other than " 100% pure, ground beef, with nothing added" i am going to safely assume that the resulting gray paste , probably does have meat in it, but also has a lot of other garbage in there.

And at the end of the day, what does it matter? You went there to get something cheap, filling and with a certain taste, as long as those all synch up , ( and obviously they are not putting anything harmful or dangerous in.) what exactly is the issue? I could understand if they said they had no beef and there was beef in it, sure, you might have some moral issue with eating it. But it seems to me that someone is essentially saying " you didn't kill enough cows.".

 

[sadhatter]

So does anyone here actually eat taco bell?

Anyway I think the crux of the matter here is the claim that only 36% of the FILLING is made of beef. If Taco bell uses the recipe they have claimed (88% of the recipe is 100% ground beef) then I don't have a problem with the way they are advertising it.

Personally I think it tastes like crap so I always order chicken or steak (not that I eat at taco bell as a regular thing, I don't). I wonder how much tofu is in the steak?

It just goes to show the differences in people's taste.

I enjoy taco bell , but will only go with the standard grey paste ( seasoned ground beef is what some call it. ), because i find the steak has a " one day over its due date " taste to it, kind of a weird tang that just doesn't do it for me.

While the grey paste i find awesome, as long as it is made right. ( i have had almost lumpless grey paste one time, and i wasn't digging it. )

 

[BenBurch]

OK, UncaYimmy - What about those "Beef" franks, and those "Sirloin" strips I posted, huh?

"Book'em Danno?"

How about "Milk" shakes that have carageenan gum and seaweed?

This is clear evidence that this is acceptable usage and not deceptive as defined by law.

I know you don't ever want to admit you are wrong, but now would be a good time.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You know, if taco bell had along standing history of serving healthy nutritious foods , i would kind of see your point that it could be deceptive. They suddenly change their m.o. and don't tell the customer.

Please try to remember that "deceptive" in this case does not necessarily mean what we expect it to mean in casual conversation or even in law. It simply has to be reasonably misunderstood by a significant number of people in a way that portrays the product in a manner that is not accurate and which is material to their decision. Think of it as perceptually misleading.

Would it be deceptive for a Gourmet restaurant to suddenly start using " Seasoned ground beef" instead of " ground beef" , for sure, one expects a certain quality of ingredient from them and they changed that.

Once again, every case is evaluated on its own merits. It's pointless to ask about other scenarios since the only one that matters is this one. The exact words. The exact imagery. The exact market.

But TB , really? If they say anything other than " 100% pure, ground beef, with nothing added" i am going to safely assume that the resulting gray paste , probably does have meat in it, but also has a lot of other garbage in there.

And I'm sure TB will make a more nicely worded argument along those lines. That doesn't mean that this case shouldn't be brought to court.

And at the end of the day, what does it matter? You went there to get something cheap, filling and with a certain taste, as long as those all synch up , ( and obviously they are not putting anything harmful or dangerous in.) what exactly is the issue? I could understand if they said they had no beef and there was beef in it, sure, you might have some moral issue with eating it. But it seems to me that someone is essentially saying " you didn't kill enough cows.".

If it's not perceptually misleading, there is no problem. If it is, then there is.

 

[rwguinn]

That's not what it hinges on, sorry. It hinges on what a reasonable person would expect when seeing something advertised as "seasoned ground beef" or "seasoned beef" versus what is actually provided ("taco meat filling" in their exact words). I expect a fast-food chain to use extenders. I don't expect them to use language in their advertising that would make it difficult for me to differentiate their product from that of a restaurant that does not use extenders. If it said taco meat filling or beef taco meat filling, I'd have no objection.


Nonsensical? It seems to me that your language is a bit too extreme for me in this thread.

Let's bring in the Nanny State full bore.
Why should we have to rely on such nonsense as common sense and taste to decide what to eat. Let the gubmint tell us...
and sue anybody who deviates from such dictates

 

[Uncayimmy]

Let's bring in the Nanny State full bore.
Why should we have to rely on such nonsense as common sense and taste to decide what to eat. Let the gubmint tell us...
and sue anybody who deviates from such dictates

Hey, if you wanna change the law, go for it. I don't consider accurate advertising to be part of a nanny state, but you're welcome to.

I find this thread amusing in some ways.

* Some argue that the stuff the add to the ground beef is what one do at home and thus it's not misleading. Of course, they don't actually use oats, isolated oat product or yeast nor does the Taco Bell brand powdered taco seasoning, but so what? And they don't bother to mention whether they call it taco meat filling or seasoned ground beef. Taco Bell calls it "taco meat filling" internally, but meh. What do they know?

* Some argue that they expect cheap stuff like Taco Bell to have things like meat extenders. After all, how could they sell it so cheap? Caveat emptor, right?

* Some argue that these are not extenders. It's just there to keep things moist.

* Some argue that in other retail avenues (grocery stores, for example), terms like seasoned ground beef and taco meat filling have specific legal definitions that likely have an effect on what consumers expect from the marketing materials.

* My argument is that there's a reasonable case to be argued, but the verdict is not obvious. Yet for some reason, I'm catching a raft of ****.

I had no idea Taco Bell could be so polarizing.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Let's bring in the Nanny State full bore.
Why should we have to rely on such nonsense as common sense and taste to decide what to eat. Let the gubmint tell us...
and sue anybody who deviates from such dictates

Just one further comment about the nanny state thing since it tends to come from conservatives. This case is being brought under state law. It's not being brought a state agency. It's being brought by a consumer.

 

[Uncayimmy]

OK, UncaYimmy - What about those "Beef" franks, and those "Sirloin" strips I posted, huh?

"Book'em Danno?"

How about "Milk" shakes that have carageenan gum and seaweed?

This is clear evidence that this is acceptable usage and not deceptive as defined by law.

I know you don't ever want to admit you are wrong, but now would be a good time.

Are you referring to those posts were you listed unsourced definitions and ingredient lists without any commentary as to your point? If so, I mostly ignored them.

As for me being "wrong" about something, my facts are accurate and sourced. My opinions are simply my opinions just as yours are your own. That you continue to bring up other scenarios demonstrates an almost willful ignorance about how these types of cases are handled. Each situation is unique based on it the specific wording, imagery, context and market. Bringing up other products with other wording, other imagery, other contexts and other markets is just a waste of time and proves nothing.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Ok, UY, so how much beef, by percentage, must be contained within the "seasoned ground beef" for it to be accurate?

 

[mortimer]

Some people like their french fries a little softer and chewy-er, some like them more crispy. I would suppose both groups of people would have grounds to sue McDonald's because the fries weren't as they expected. Pretty much everyone would have grounds to sue any food distributor or restaurant because the food they buy doesn't meet their expectations.

Is that what we really want as a society?