Taco Bell sued

[BobTheDonkey]

Wah? You're conflating the two! There's taco filling and seasoned ground beef. I distinguish between the two, you on the other hand fail to see the difference.

I was referring to the two levels of product, not the meat content levels.

You are conflating ground beef as sold by the meat packer with ground beef as an ingredient in a prepared meal/dish. They are not the same and are not subject to the same regulations.

As for my conflating the two, that's because the definitions of seasoned ground beef and taco meat filling are not mutually exclusive as you are arguing.

 

[Uncayimmy]

http://www.namamillers.org/products_oat_product_usage.html
Oat products have been used for some time as meat extenders. Oat bran was used successfully until the oat bran craze made it uneconomical. Quick and baby rolled oats are currently used. Texture of the final product is the most important factor when choosing a meat extender. Meat flavorings can all be carried in the fats used in the formulation, and they are strong enough to mask oat flavors.

No mention as use as a thickener anywhere on that page even though it lists a number of other uses. Oat flour, like any flour, can be used as a thickener. But oats are good meat extenders.

It's not "nonsensical" to call it a meat extender. Jack in the Box uses "texturized vegetable protein" in their cheap tacos, so it's not like they would be the only ones.

 

[Furcifer]

As for my conflating the two, that's because the definitions of seasoned ground beef and taco meat filling are not mutually exclusive as you are arguing.

Absurd. All you have to do is ask "Which product is of higher quality, taco filling or seasoned ground beef or are they the same?". I say with utter confidence people will tell you seasoned ground beef is inherently better than taco filling. Even if they don't know why, they know which. A very, very small portion of the population will say they are the same.

 

[BenBurch]

The REASON the oat fiber is in here is because of the use in a steam table. It retains moisture. Something I have told you here about a dozen times.

People who have no idea about food science have about as much business criticizing this as people who are not climate scientists have criticizing AGW.

There is a lot of science involved here.

The product has to remain moist, retain a good color, and taste right even though pre-cooked.

There is absolutely no way to do that with "100% beef" or "100% beef with a pinch of spices" as some of the food-science-ignorant people in this thread seem to believe.

Taco Bell produces and honest, clean, high-quality product, and it is really hideous for a bunch of Internet posters to be passing on these lies like people used to about McDonald's being worm meat or Tim Horton's adding nicotine to their coffee.

 

[Furcifer]

Reading the Jack in The Box ingredients list 3 things stand out
1) they call it taco "filling", the first ingredient is beef, then TVP, it's labeled correctly, and the advertised taco says "spicy beef". It's legit, although some might question "spicy beef" as being misleading
2) the hamburger patty listed ingredients are -beef and salt all the makings of "ground beef" but still not listed as such
3) Pork chorizo- the first ingredient is "ground pork"

Comparing the beef patty and the chorizo it suggests they don't actually use "ground beef" in the patty. I'm willing to bet it's the cuts of meat they use that prevent them from listing "ground beef" as an ingredient. Wendy's lists "ground beef and salt" as the ingredients in their patties.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The REASON the oat fiber is in here is because of the use in a steam table. It retains moisture. Something I have told you here about a dozen times.

1) You have no evidence.

2) None of their other products have it.

3) All of their other products *and* the tacos contain the typical starch components used for that.

4) It's a fast food joint with covered trays that have a fast turnover, so losing moisture is just not an issue.

5) It's not like an unattended buffet table. Workers are actually using the stuff constantly and can add a bit of water if needed, which is not likely anyway.

6) Burger joints manage to keep their burgers moist without oats.

But other than that, you're spot on. Way to go!

People who have no idea about food science have about as much business criticizing this as people who are not climate scientists have criticizing AGW.

People who live in glass houses are seriously messed up in the head. I mean, who lives in a house made of glass?

There is a lot of science involved here.

The science is irrelevant. Look, if you're 100% correct that the oats and isolated oat products are somehow necessary for them to create a quality product that stays dry <cough>, it's still wouldn't matter. It's not what they do, it's what they call it in their advertising! They can simply call it taco meat filling.

I find it amusing that if the two terms are essentially synonyms in the eyes of some while others figure it's expected that it's an inferior product that they still argue vehemently that Taco Bell shouldn't have to use the term. If it makes no difference, why the big fight?

There is absolutely no way to do that with "100% beef" or "100% beef with a pinch of spices" as some of the food-science-ignorant people in this thread seem to believe.

Tell that to Jack in the Box and McDonalds, who both manage to do it with their burgers.

Taco Bell produces and honest, clean, high-quality product...

Now you're just trolling!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Absurd. All you have to do is ask "Which product is of higher quality, taco filling or seasoned ground beef or are they the same?". I say with utter confidence people will tell you seasoned ground beef is inherently better than taco filling. Even if they don't know why, they know which. A very, very small portion of the population will say they are the same.

Ahh, but what does the definition say? Because that's what counts in this discussion, not public perception of the two names.


You are presenting this as if it's a dichotomy - it can be one or the other, but that is simply not the case. That you are unable to understand how that can be is not my fault. 88>40, as such, Taco Bell's seasoned ground beef can be rightfully labeled taco meat filling. Both are accurate labels for their product.

 

[Furcifer]

People who have no idea about food science have about as much business criticizing this as people who are not climate scientists have criticizing AGW.

There is a lot of science involved here.

Usually a thread gets Godwinned before the "It's sofistimacated beyond your understanding!" comes out.

The product has to remain moist, retain a good color, and taste right even though pre-cooked.

Well there's undeniable proof someone doesn't eat at Taco Bell.

There is absolutely no way to do that with "100% beef" or "100% beef with a pinch of spices" as some of the food-science-ignorant people in this thread seem to believe.

lol, a pinch? Not unless they're making 12g batches of filling. Andre the Giant couldn't pinch the 54g per pound Taco Bell uses.

Taco Bell produces and honest, clean, high-quality product, and it is really hideous for a bunch of Internet posters to be passing on these lies like people used to about McDonald's being worm meat or Tim Horton's adding nicotine to their coffee.

Something's high here, but it ain't the quality.

 

[Furcifer]

Ahh, but what does the definition say? Because that's what counts in this discussion, not public perception of the two names.

Incorrect, public perception is everything in a class action lawsuit like this.

You are presenting this as if it's a dichotomy - it can be one or the other, but that is simply not the case.

It is a dichotomy. If you find something between taco filling and ground beef in the USDA guidelines please let us know.

 

[slingblade]

It actually does more than one thing. It is a seasoning or "flavor modifier," it extends the shelf-life of meat, and it promotes moisture retention:

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/2010/08/label-friendly-meat-shelf-life-solutions.aspx?pg=2

Oat opportunity

Oxidation isn’t the only problem some natural ingredients tackle in meats. An all-natural, oat-derived flavor modifier extends the shelf life of meat and poultry products while promoting moisture and flavor retention. “It is a cost-effective, value-added antioxidant flavor potentiator," says Ron Ratz, director of protein development, Wixon, Inc., St. Francis, WI. “An alternative to other meat extenders, such as soy or starch, this flavor modifier intensifies inherit [sic] savory notes without adding any visual distractions or off flavors that could negatively impact product taste.

“It also adds the benefits of fiber, while reducing the warmed-over flavor often found in pre-cooked meats," adds Ratz. “It has been shown to increase moisture retention up to 15 times of the inclusion rate of up to 1.5%, allowing for greater yields in a variety of meat applications." Applications include fresh, frozen, precooked and further-processed meats.

“The product is highly effective in conjunction with ground, emulsified and internal addition uses, regardless of species, with minimal impact to pH," says Ratz. This dry ingredient is labeled as: isolated oat product, natural flavor, carrier (customer-specific).

 

[JoelKatz]

So in this willy nilly world of yours what is used as a sounding board to determine if people are being mislead by product description?

I'm not sure it would be helpful to try to respond factually to a question posed in that way. But you're welcome to look at any consumer fraud lawsuit to see how a determination that a product's labeling or advertising is misleading is actually made. In particular, look at cases where there was no claim that the purchasers suffered any economic harm or were at any risk.

 

[Furcifer]

It actually does more than one thing. It is a seasoning or "flavor modifier," it extends the shelf-life of meat, and it promotes moisture retention:
“It has been shown to increase moisture retention up to 15 times of the inclusion rate of up to 1.5%,

lol, could you name a filler that doesn't retain moisture

(aside from styrofoam)

What they are saying: "We make it more moist"
What they are doing: "$elling you water"

It sounds to me like the claim of 36% might actually be true, if in fact oats hold 15 times their inclusion rate in water They're like natures edible Sham Wow!

 

[JoelKatz]

It is a dichotomy. If you find something between taco filling and ground beef in the USDA guidelines please let us know.

It doesn't matter. If it's advertised as ground beef, then the rules for things advertised as ground beef apply, even if it's a taco filling. If it is a taco filling, then the rules for taco fillings apply even if it's advertised as ground beef. If it meets neither of these criteria, then neither of those sets of regulations apply, even if it's in some way similar to products that otherwise do have to meet those regulations. It can be both a taco filling and advertised as ground beef. It can be neither. There are all kinds of foods that don't meet any of the categories for specific regulations and so no specific regulations (and just general fraud principles or regulations that apply to all foods) apply to them.

Again, the laws don't work the way you seem to think they work. If there are laws that regulate cars and laws that regulate all consumer products, then both sets of laws apply to a car sold to consumers. And a truck may not be covered by either set of laws or it might be covered by both, depending on precisely how the laws define what they cover.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not sure it would be helpful to try to respond factually to a question posed in that way. But you're welcome to look at any consumer fraud lawsuit to see how a determination that a product's labeling or advertising is misleading is actually made. In particular, look at cases where there was no claim that the purchasers suffered any economic harm or were at any risk.

But look joel you're claiming restaurants aren't held to any standard and that's patently false. They use USDA and FDA definitions to determine fraudulent claims.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... Tim Horton's adding nicotine to their coffee.

Really?

*digs out passport and checks border wait times*

 

[slingblade]

lol, could you name a filler that doesn't retain moisture

(aside from styrofoam)

What they are saying: "We make it more moist"
What they are doing: "$elling you water"

It sounds to me like the claim of 36% might actually be true, if in fact oats hold 15 times their inclusion rate in water They're like natures edible Sham Wow!

We'll all see eventually, won't we?

I'm wondering what the response will be if it's eventually found that the filling does contain 88% 100% USDA ground beef, and 12% seasonings and water.

 

[Furcifer]

Again, the laws don't work the way you seem to think they work.

You're just plain wrong. If you joelKatz start selling cat piss to customers as orange juice you can't bet if you get sued the USDA definition of orange juice will apply to what you are selling.

You can say the USDA regulations don't apply to you, but you're still subject to the definitions and standards they create if and when they are needed.

 

[Furcifer]

We'll all see eventually, won't we?

I'm wondering what the response will be if it's eventually found that the filling does contain 88% 100% USDA ground beef, and 12% seasonings and water.

Honestly? If it gets to trial and this is determined I believe they will be ordered to stop calling it "seasoned ground beef".

 

[slingblade]

I'm not sure the suit is specifically about what they call it.

I think the suit is about their seasoned ground beef not containing enough ground beef to meet the minimal requirement of taco filling.

I think the person who brought the suit says there's not much meat in it. That most of it is actually oats.

I think he'd still be unhappy if the ingredient amounts stayed the same, and only the name of it changed.

I'm pretty sure he wants and expects there to be more meat than vegetable in the seasoned ground beef, but believes he can show there's more vegetable than meat in it.

I don't think he'd be happy with just a name-change for the product.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm not sure the suit is specifically about what they call it.

I think the suit is about their seasoned ground beef not containing enough ground beef to meet the minimal requirement of taco filling.

You're wrong. Go read the lawsuit and the California legislation under which it was filed.