Taco Bell sued

[Furcifer]

Fine, you're 100% right. I was entirely wrong about what the label was used for. Now, can you respond to my argument -- the one that decimates your argument -- please?

I did. You're mistaking a production description for a label. You could sell the product as "The King's Dinner" on the front of the package, it still has to be labeled "taco meat filling" on the back. Nobody is going to be deceived into thinking this is what actual king's for dinner.

 

[Furcifer]

Then if those regulations apply to ground beef as used by a cook, why do they specify something the cook cannot know, and has no control over? If they apply to him or her and the cooking process, why are the regulations so specific about beef cheek meat? The cook is, according to you, supposed to adhere to the part of that paragraph that specifies the ground beef must contain at least 70% flesh, and 30% fat, and no water is to be added. Why then, does the cook also need to know about the sentences immediately following those, regarding beef cheek meat?

This has 0 to do with cooks. I know Skeptichick told you that but she's wrong. This is about advertising and the USDA definition of a product.

Could it be that those regulations apply only to those who process the beef, and so who would know what they're putting in it, and how much?

They only apply when the FTC is asked to apply them.

Yes, and we're all aware you haven't understood as much of what you read as you seem to think you do.

I understand it perfectly fine. So does the supplier and the USDA. It's Taco Bell's advertising department that doesn't understand. They may have confused you as well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. One wonders why you bring it up at all.

I brought it up because there are numerous regulations that cite labeling requirements, all from different bodies or agencies, like the FDA, the USDA, the FSIS, the FTC, Customs and probably a few others I missed.

Can you show me where I made such a claim?

You implied you knew more about the involved organizations and therefore the issue we are discussing. That's a lie. You didn't realize I was talking about Customs or you would have said so instead of making insinuations.

 

[Furcifer]

I give up. You still don't understand that the "seasoned" in "seasoned ground beef" has *NOTHING* to do with the "seasoning" in the ingredient list.

Wah? this doesn't make sense. It's either "seasoned" or it isn't. And if it's "seasoned" it can't be "seasoned" with fillers and extenders. Since it is, it really isn't "seasoned" at least when it comes to "ground beef".

Taco Bell does two very different things:

1) They call their taco filling a "seasoned ground beef" taco filling. They only do this in a context where people already know it's a taco filling. The phrase "seasoned ground beef" accurately describes the type of taco filling it is, just like "chocolate" accurately describes a chocolate lollipop to people who already know it's a lollipop. (Even though it obviously won't meet the legal labeling definitions for "chocolate".)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Unfortunately this doesn't work out when your legal label definition is also a description. Just because the law encompasses the description doesn't make it any less deceptive.

You might see "seasoning" and think it wouldn't include extenders like oats. But since it says "oats" just a few words later, no reasonable consumer could be deceived.

lol, what Taco Bell ads have you seen? They never read the ingredients on TV. If they did your argument might have some merit.

You want to somehow link the "seasoned" in "seasoned round beef" to the "seasoning" in the ingredients. That won't work because, as I explained, "seasoning" something is not the same thing as adding "seasoning" to it. They are two different meanings for the same word (noun and verb). Fishing for something doesn't make it a fish.

lol, it isn't about the "seasonings" being deceptive, it's about the "ground beef" part being deceptive. It isn't ground beef. Period. End of Story.

There's no such thing as "seasoned ground beef" according to the USDA. It's seasoned "ground beef". You seem to think there is and you've over looked the "standardized food product" part of this.

 

[Furcifer]

What you've done here joel is make up your own product definition "seasoned ground beef".

Unfortunately the USDA won't recognize this product. It's either "taco meat filling" or seasoned "ground beef" (ground beef with seasonings maybe). If you want to create a subcategory I suggest you petition them to change the regulations. Until then Taco Bell is deceiving people in the same way you've deceived yourself into believing this "seasoned ground beef" is a real product.

 

[slingblade]

This has 0 to do with cooks. I know Skeptichick told you that but she's wrong. This is about advertising and the USDA definition of a product.

You said the USDA regulations you cited so many times apply to restaurants, not to meat packers, or not exclusively to meat packers. You're wrong.

They only apply when the FTC is asked to apply them.

We're talking about things you've said.

I understand it perfectly fine. So does the supplier and the USDA. It's Taco Bell's advertising department that doesn't understand. They may have confused you as well.

We're talking about the regulations you kept quoting, and to whom they apply.

I brought it up because there are numerous regulations that cite labeling requirements, all from different bodies or agencies, like the FDA, the USDA, the FSIS, the FTC, Customs and probably a few others I missed.

I simply told you that you didn't seem to have a good understanding of the various agencies and departments that regulate US food. You still don't, by your own admission.

You implied you knew more about the involved organizations and therefore the issue we are discussing. That's a lie. You didn't realize I was talking about Customs or you would have said so instead of making insinuations.

You weren't talking about customs when I made the particular reply to which you refer. And I implied nothing at all. I simply mentioned that my husband knows those regulations you've been citing have never applied to him in his work. He's never had to know the content of beef cheek meat allowed in ground beef specified by the very regulations you quoted, because he's not a meat packer.

I have not lied. You've made up something I've never said, ascribed it to me as if I had said it, and are now calling me a liar about these things I've not said.

Is a straw man really the best you can do?

 

[Furcifer]

You said the USDA regulations you cited so many times apply to restaurants, not to meat packers, or not exclusively to meat packers. You're wrong.

They do when they advertise. Just ask the FTC.

Is a straw man really the best you can do?

lol, I'm addressing yours. Not knowing off hand all the bodies and organizations that deal with food labels is pointless. That's your lie and your strawman.

ETA: no yours alone. someone else tried to imply not knowing how a bill becomes a law was somehow relevant to knowing what taco meat filling is. That's a laugh.

 

[slingblade]

They do when they advertise. Just ask the FTC.

They've been asked, and a spokeswoman has replied. But we can keep quoting it for you, since you keep missing it:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 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.

 

[Furcifer]

We actually covered this issue of how the regulations apply pages ago. The USDA defines things and in this case the FTC may or may not apply them to advertising.

 

[Furcifer]

They've been asked, and a spokeswoman has replied. But we can keep quoting it for you, since you keep missing it:

*sigh

The FTC doesn't really have any specific rules. They determine what is or isn't deceptive or misleading.

This isn't hard to understand. The FTC doesn't have a specific rule stating "Calling taco meat ground beef is against 501.23 c of the FTC Act"

They say "This practice is deceptive because the USDA defines ground beef as something entirely different, as such people expect they are getting something they actually aren't"

 

[JohnnyG]

The USDA determined it's "taco meat filling" not "seasoned ground beef".

You can't argue that, it's a matter of public record and evidenced by the USDA approved label. If it was "seasoned ground beef" that's what the label would say. Otherwise the USDA could force the supplier to change the label to "seasoned ground beef".

What you've done here joel is make up your own product definition "seasoned ground beef".

Unfortunately the USDA won't recognize this product.

Does the USDA have a product definition for "seasoned ground beef" or not?

If they do, it would be easy to tell if the TB product complies. Then all you have to do is prove the USDA regulations apply to restaurant marketing - which you have failed to do so far.

If not, the only label TB can use to accurately describe seasoned ground beef for tacos is "taco meat filling" and the last thread your argument was hanging from just broke.

 

[JoelKatz]

What you've done here joel is make up your own product definition "seasoned ground beef".

It's not a "product definition". It's simply a description of the type of taco filling it is. It's never used as a label and it's never used in a context where people don't know it's a taco filling. It's equivalent to describing a chocolate lollipop as "chocolate" to people who already know it's a lollipop. It's not deceptive and no law prohibits this.

Unfortunately the USDA won't recognize this product. It's either "taco meat filling" or seasoned "ground beef" (ground beef with seasonings maybe). If you want to create a subcategory I suggest you petition them to change the regulations. Until then Taco Bell is deceiving people in the same way you've deceived yourself into believing this "seasoned ground beef" is a real product.

Why wouldn't they recognize it as a taco meat filling, providing the sales label read "taco meat filling"?

As I explained about 200 posts ago, it actually is a taco meat filling. That means it has to follow the substantive regulations for taco meat fillings. It is not labeled or sold as "ground beef". This means it doesn't have to follow the content restrictions for things sold as "ground beef".

No specific USDA regulations cover how you can identify a product in a context where people already know what it is, so only normal rules of fraud and deception apply. Describing this taco filling as a "seasoned ground beef" taco filling (only in contexts where people already know it's a taco filling) is not deceptive. And there are no specific laws that affect this practice.

I go to a web page for a lollipop shop. They have pictures of various lollipops. One of them has a click-through link labeled 'chocolate' under a picture of a chocolate lollipop. If you click on the link, it goes to a page explaining the ingredients of the lollipop. Is labeling the lollipop "chocolate" deceptive because the lollipop is not "chocolate" but in fact a chocolate lollipop?

 

[slingblade]

*sigh

The FTC doesn't really have any specific rules. They determine what is or isn't deceptive or misleading.

This isn't hard to understand. The FTC doesn't have a specific rule stating "Calling taco meat ground beef is against 501.23 c of the FTC Act"

They say "This practice is deceptive because the USDA defines ground beef as something entirely different, as such people expect they are getting something they actually aren't"

The only answer that can be made to you now, after all these pages and all these careful posts, is that you do not understand what you're talking about.


You do not understand what you're talking about.

 

[Neurolanis]

I really don't see why anyone would trust fastfood resteraunts, especially after all that has come out about McDonald's over the years. Business is business (they are all about the bottom line.) You can't trust them with food, insurance, anything. Unless of course they are dealing with powerful customers and don't want to face a lot of heavy sawsuits or political problems. That's why it's better to pay a little extra and eat at a quality resteraunt.

 

[slingblade]

I really don't see why anyone would trust fastfood resteraunts, especially after all that has come out about McDonald's over the years. Business is business (they are all about the bottom line.) You can't trust them with food, insurance, anything. Unless of course they are dealing with powerful customers and don't want to face a lot of heavy sawsuits or political problems. That's why it's better to pay a little extra and eat at a quality resteraunt.

Because you don't take a bunch of data points and decide from them that an entire industry is undeserving of your trust...whatever that actually means.

If you don't like fast food, don't eat it. It's really simple.

 

[gnome]

Another point--not trusting doesn't mean not calling them out (legally if necessary) when they go out of bounds.

But I have a hunch Taco Bell isn't on the hook here and they know it.

 

[BenBurch]

Another point--not trusting doesn't mean not calling them out (legally if necessary) when they go out of bounds.

But I have a hunch Taco Bell isn't on the hook here and they know it.

I have a hunch they may counter-sue people who spread the lie, too.

 

[eeyore1954]

I think i am going to print out my free taco from taco bell coupon and have some filling.
Call it whatever you like it tastes good and as fast food goes it is not that bad for you.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The only answer that can be made to you now, after all these pages and all these careful posts, is that you do not understand what you're talking about.


You do not understand what you're talking about.

Sorry, Slingblade, but despite 3B's troublesome methods of communication, he actually has a decent understanding of the process while you and many others do not. Here are some definitive sources.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-food.shtm
The Commission has previously indicated that where a claim is subject to the joint jurisdiction of the FTC and the FDA, it will accord significant deference to the FDA's standards...The use in advertising of FDA-defined terms in a manner inconsistent with FDA's definitions is likely to mislead consumers.

The sentence in bold is what I think 3B is driving at in principle. Stated simply, if the FDA has regulations regarding certain terms, then if those terms are subsequently used in advertising (where the terms don't directly apply) the FTC will give strong consideration to those definitions. It does not mean that using the terms in an inconsistent manner is automatically misleading, but it does mean that it will be taken under consideration as to what the advertising is likely to be taken to mean. Thus there is a case to be argued.

Here's some more background, but it involves nutrient content. The principle is similar.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-food.shtm
The Commission recognizes the importance of consistent treatment of nutrient content and health claims in food advertising and labeling and seeks to harmonize its advertising enforcement program with FDA's food labeling regulations to the fullest extent possible under the statutory authority of the FTC Act. The Commission also recognizes the scientific expertise of FDA in this area...

The Commission will examine advertising to ensure that claims that characterize the level of a nutrient, including those using synonyms that are not provided for in FDA's regulations, are consistent with FDA definitions. Commission precedent establishes that an advertisement that can reasonably be interpreted in a misleading way is deceptive, even though other, nonmisleading interpretations may be equally possible.Thus, when express or implied claims suggest that a food product meets the standard for use of an FDA-defined term, advertisers should ensure that the food actually meets the relevant FDA standard. For example, depending on the context of an ad, use of the phrases "packed with" or "lots of" to describe the level of fiber in a food could convey to some reasonable consumers that the food is "high" in fiber. Because FDA's regulations define the terms "good source" and "high" with respect to fiber,45 consumers are likely to be misled if a "high fiber" claim is implied by an ad for a food that is only a "good source" of fiber.

Once again, some key points:
* This is not a case brought by the FTC, but I'm reasonably confident that FTC policies, opinions and court rulings will come into play when deciding this case on the California statutes.

* I am only talking about the principles in the argument, not the argument itself. It's by no means automatic that Taco Bell will lose when the above is applied in their case. I'm just discussing how it should be looked at.

So, at this point I have presented two different official policy statements from the FTC showing that FDA regulations are considered when looking at advertisements. Anyone who continues to argue otherwise is just wrong. You can certainly how argue how much consideration should be given or whether the terms are actually being used, but the principle is sound.

 

[BenBurch]

You can stress as many words as you like but it still won't make you correct.

 

[Neurolanis]

Because you don't take a bunch of data points and decide from them that an entire industry is undeserving of your trust...whatever that actually means.

If you don't like fast food, don't eat it. It's really simple.

Well, duh. I was just saying that there are serious risks in fast food and that people should avoid (if they they like their health.) And pointing out the dangers of business in general (which by now we should all realize.)