Taco Bell sued [Archive]

KingMerv00

30th January 2011, 05:46 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41258574/ns/business-consumer_news/

This is a class-action lawsuit because the plaintiff claims that Taco Bell's 'seasoned beef' is not 100% beef.

This seems like the dumbest lawsuit I've heard in a while. Doesn't the USDA regulate this stuff? If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Don't like it? Don't buy it. We don't need self-appointed food cops trying litigate the definition of 'seasoned beef.'

The USDA doesn't regulate advertising.

I think it is fine to argue over the point to an extent. I mean if Taco Bell meat was 99% recycled newspaper and 1% meat, I don't think they should be allowed to call it "meat". It all depends on where you draw the line.

That being said, I don't think the consumer has suffered much. The less annoying route is to file a complaint with the correct authorities and let them decide if they deserve to be fined.

Ladewig

30th January 2011, 05:49 PM

whoops. I had several things wrong so I removed my post

Puppycow

30th January 2011, 05:52 PM

My understanding is that the complaint is about their wording. To call something "taco meat" in the U.S., it needs to have x percent beef, and Taco Bell has x-3 (or something like that).

Taco meat filling is supposed to be 40% ground beef. Taco Bell's is 36%. Big deal. It's funny because what they use is healthier than a higher percentage of beef. The rest of the non-beef filler is pretty much oatmeal.

This article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-real-beef-with-a-taco-bell-snack-ndash-only-70-of-it-has-to-be-meat-2199019.html) says that it's supposed to be at least 70% beef, and Taco Bell is claiming that it's actually 88% beef.

fuelair

30th January 2011, 06:01 PM

This article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-real-beef-with-a-taco-bell-snack-ndash-only-70-of-it-has-to-be-meat-2199019.html) says that it's supposed to be at least 70% beef, and Taco Bell is claiming that it's actually 88% beef.We have another thread on this - on it they gave the basic formula - Two of the ingredients listed as part of the flavoring/sauce are actually meat substitutes/fake - They may have flavor, but I only eat TB tacos if anything - and only if I have one of my chosen hot sauces to go on it. I am so sorry TB won the fast food Mex competition. Taco Tico beat them on everything except being bland and mediocre enough. TB wins that in a walk.:mad::jaw-dropp:eek::(:(:(

MG1962

30th January 2011, 06:04 PM

Irony

30th January 2011, 06:10 PM

Taco meat filling is supposed to be 40% ground beef. Taco Bell's is 36%. Big deal. It's funny because what they use is healthier than a higher percentage of beef. The rest of the non-beef filler is pretty much oatmeal.

That's not the issue. The issue is that calling something that is only 36% beef "beef" is false advertising. If they called it "taco meat filling" the suit wouldn't have happened.

That said, I don't know anyone who expected there to really be all that much beef in the "beef" tacos. If anything, the fact that rat isn't listed among the ingredients is an improvement over my expectations.

Puppycow

30th January 2011, 06:24 PM

Furcifer

30th January 2011, 06:54 PM

There regulations about the percentage content in processed meats are already pretty lax (just because rat isn't listed doesn't mean there isn't any allowed in it). If you think hotdogs are bad you should see what they allow in those breakfast sausages. Despite my already lowered expectations I'd prefer if they adhered to the law.

Puppycow

30th January 2011, 06:58 PM

Policenaut

30th January 2011, 07:08 PM

I pretty much skimmed a few other articles not linked here which is where I saw those numbers. I just assumed TB claimed it was taco meat filling. If it is 88% beef then the lawsuit will probably be thrown out.

Roadtoad

30th January 2011, 07:10 PM

Don't people have something better to do with their time than file these kinds of idiotic lawsuits?

Whiplash

30th January 2011, 07:11 PM

That's not the issue. The issue is that calling something that is only 36% beef "beef" is false advertising. If they called it "taco meat filling" the suit wouldn't have happened.

That said, I don't know anyone who expected there to really be all that much beef in the "beef" tacos. If anything, the fact that rat isn't listed among the ingredients is an improvement over my expectations.

Aren't there about a million better things to worry about, especially in this chaotic world we are in right now? Financial woes.. terrorism.. so many problems.

I mean, I could see if this could be argued to be a real health issue with some kind of study to back it, showing how this was actually hurting people or something. But this is just semantic ******** being stirred up by nanny state activist types who need to find better and more constructive things to put their efforts into.

sadhatter

30th January 2011, 07:37 PM

Taco bell serves low quality food, the hell you say.

I think it is a given to assume taco bell food is about as healthy and real as soylent green. But i don't care , it is taco bell, i don't think " gee i need something healthy, lets go to taco bell.". I think " Hmm, it is open, i guess i will go to taco bell and eat something squeezed out of a tube. " Everyone knows your body reacts to it like you just drank windex, but it tastes kinda good.

Irony

30th January 2011, 07:39 PM

I wonder why your expectations are so low, though?

Out of curiosity I ate there once.

Irony

30th January 2011, 07:42 PM

Aren't there about a million better things to worry about, especially in this chaotic world we are in right now? Financial woes.. terrorism.. so many problems.

I mean, I could see if this could be argued to be a real health issue with some kind of study to back it, showing how this was actually hurting people or something. But this is just semantic ******** being stirred up by nanny state activist types who need to find better and more constructive things to put their efforts into.

Out of the millions of constructive things a person could do, you and I are here posting on an internet forum.

BobTheDonkey

30th January 2011, 08:16 PM

To everyone arguing that no one should bother suing TB even if the meat isn't above whatever "arbitrary" line is set...when was the last time you read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation?

Tricky

30th January 2011, 08:28 PM

I thought it was at least 10% Chihuahua meat.:confused:

tyr_13

30th January 2011, 08:40 PM

I thought it was at least 10% Chihuahua meat.:confused:

That's racist. They use a diverse mix of non-Mexican related breeds as well. :p

Puppycow

30th January 2011, 08:40 PM

To everyone arguing that no one should bother suing TB even if the meat isn't above whatever "arbitrary" line is set...when was the last time you read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation?

I haven't read either of those. But I have heard of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by journalist Upton Sinclair. Sinclair wrote the novel to point out the troubles of the working class and to show the corruption of the American meatpacking industry during the early-20th century.

A novel is a work of fiction, right?
Besides, it's not the early-20th century anymore, is it. Hopefully things are a bit better nowadays.

As far as Fast Food Nation goes, what makes you think it's not just fearmongering?

Looks like a he-said-she-said (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/14/food/fo-37251) thing, and both sides have a financial incentive. The author of the book obviously wants to sell books while the other side wants to sell food. The reporter won't take sides; just reports what each side claims.

But as to the point, well, I suppose you are right. Let them sue and maybe we can finally get somebody objective to say who is really right.

tyr_13

30th January 2011, 08:44 PM

To everyone arguing that no one should bother suing TB even if the meat isn't above whatever "arbitrary" line is set...when was the last time you read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation?

What does The Jungle have to do with this? It isn't unsafe, unsanitary conditions under discussion, but how much beef has to be in a beef filling.

Personally seeing as 'beef' is still the main ingredient, and the main other one is oat, I can't get in too much an uproar. Perhaps they shouldn't call it 'beef filling' legally, and I'm sure that each side will make it's case in court. It isn't exactly high up on my list of annoying untrue ad claims. There are a ton of actually damaging advertising claims out there that are false that I personally care more about.

The Central Scrutinizer

30th January 2011, 09:41 PM

Irony

30th January 2011, 09:53 PM

I haven't read either of those. But I have heard of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

A novel is a work of fiction, right?
Besides, it's not the early-20th century anymore, is it. Hopefully things are a bit better nowadays.

As far as Fast Food Nation goes, what makes you think it's not just fearmongering?

Looks like a he-said-she-said (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/14/food/fo-37251) thing, and both sides have a financial incentive. The author of the book obviously wants to sell books while the other side wants to sell food. The reporter won't take sides; just reports what each side claims.

But as to the point, well, I suppose you are right. Let them sue and maybe we can finally get somebody objective to say who is really right.

The Jungle is not a work of fiction. There were fictional characters as a backdrop, but they were only there as a vehicle to discuss the very real conditions of the meat packing industry. It was meant to call attention to the working condition but ended up calling attention more to food quality issues such as tubercular beef and the fact that your food might contain a bit more human than most people are comfortable with.

That said it really has nothing to do with this case. As far as I know no one has claimed the taco meat is unsafe, just that it's not "beef".

JoeyDonuts

30th January 2011, 09:54 PM

Irrelevant. Taco Bell is tasty, and will be the last fast food chain standing in the Demolition Man future.

(Although the portions will probably suck. Better to stock up on Big Box Fat Kid Meals now.)

BobTheDonkey

30th January 2011, 10:18 PM

The Jungle is not a work of fiction. There were fictional characters as a backdrop, but they were only there as a vehicle to discuss the very real conditions of the meat packing industry. It was meant to call attention to the working condition but ended up calling attention more to food quality issues such as tubercular beef and the fact that your food might contain a bit more human than most people are comfortable with.

That said it really has nothing to do with this case. As far as I know no one has claimed the taco meat is unsafe, just that it's not "beef".

I brought up The Jungle for two reasons:

1) It's why the USDA exists and grades your meat. Directly.
2) There's a section of the novel wherein Sinclair describes sausages that are more sawdust than meat, formaldehyde laden milk, and rats as the least concern for what makes it into the meat.

While Fast Food Nation doesn't describe quite the same things, it does address how unsanitary the meat packing industry is and how many corners they'll cut to save a few pennies/lb.

Those who would argue that this particular case has nothing to do with The Jungle and/or Fast Food Nation have doomed themselves to allowing food quality standards to be returned from whence they came - with all the health, safety, and truth-in-labeling requirements thrown out the window.

In short: both these books illustrate why the meat industry (which is driven by fast food restaurants) should be forced to at least meet the minimum standards as set forth by the appropriate Fed agency.

As far as I'm concerned: If Taco Bell has been skimping, stick it the **** to them. If Taco Bell hasn't been skimping, make those who brought the lawsuit pay court costs. But handwaving this away by claiming that it's just an arbitrary guideline anyway, and who cares what's in the meat as long as it's a "healthy" filler, is to ignore the lessons of the past.

Policenaut

30th January 2011, 10:27 PM

If you don't trust what they say they put in their food then don't eat it. Oats≠rats.

Andrew Wiggin

30th January 2011, 10:27 PM

Just to clarify, the lawsuit ALLEGES that, based on an independent test they state they had done by a lab they won't name, the meat was 33 percent beef, with the balance being fillers and spices. Taco Bell states that they make it to a recipe that is 88 percent beef, with the balance being spices and fillers. Their published recipe does include fillers, primarily oats.

I used to eat their stuff all the time, and occasionally still do. It's rather tasty, in a 'meets expectations without exceeding them' sort of way. Their taco meat, when I used to eat it during vegetarian lapses, was certainly not the 77 percent oats that the lawsuit would imply. That wouldn't even be remotely palatable. It tasted and had mouthfeel a lot like the stuff I'd make at home with hamburger and spices. I think this is a fishing expedition by a lawyer with too much time on his hands.

Irony

30th January 2011, 11:43 PM

Furcifer

30th January 2011, 11:46 PM

Evidence?

For which, the rodent contamination or the regulations on sausage?

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 12:07 AM

If the beef mixture Taco Bell uses is actually less than 50% beef, I'd say there's reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. If it's 80+% beef, I'd say the lawsuit is nonsense. Taco Bell does claim it's a beef filling, not a filling that contains beef. But they don't say it's 100% beef, nor would that be reasonable for consumers to expect.

The two issues are:

1) What percentage beef is the filling really? (Taco Bell claims 88%. That's about the percentage beef in the homemade beef filling I make for tacos.)

2) What are the most damning claims that can be found where Taco Bell implies that the filling has more beef than it really does?

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 02:05 AM

Here's some of the regulation:

PART 319--DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY OR COMPOSITION--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Raw Meat Products

Sec. 319.15 Miscellaneous beef products.

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. "Chopped Beef" or "Ground Beef"
shall 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. When beef cheek meat (trimmed beef
cheeks) is used in the preparation of chopped or ground beef, the amount
of such cheek meat shall be limited to 25 percent; and if in excess of
natural proportions, its presence shall be declared on the label, in the
ingredient statement required by Sec. 317.2 of this subchapter, if any,
and otherwise contiguous to the name of the product.

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 02:19 AM

Does the filling contain extenders? (I believe that it did.)

Did Taco Bell call the filling itself ground beef? (I believe that they didn't.)

We all understand that Taco Bell's ground beef filling is not ground beef. It contains ground beef, but it is not ground beef. (Any chef will tell you that you have to, at a minimum, add water to it to make a sensible taco filling.)

You can make a burger with fillings and extenders. Many fine establishments do. You just can't call it "100% ground beef".

Puppycow

31st January 2011, 03:37 AM

For which, the rodent contamination or the regulations on sausage?

Well, both. If it's not too much trouble.
If you don't have the time, you could at least just explain how you know.

I ask because, as we all know, there are urban legends and the like.

Dancing David

31st January 2011, 04:36 AM

Dancing David

31st January 2011, 04:43 AM

NPR say TB uses super heros:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/01/30/133307209/taco-bell-enlists-superheroes-to-bite-back-at-beef-lawsuit?ft=1&f=1006

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 04:44 AM

Well, both. If it's not too much trouble.
If you don't have the time, you could at least just explain how you know.

I ask because, as we all know, there are urban legends and the like.

Usually the urban legend is about "hooves and lips". That's wrong because for one thing the regulations prevent the use of cartilage and bone (a percentage limit) for anything but pet food. (or processed to make gelatin). For another there just isn't enough to meet the demand for hot dogs and sausages. There are plenty of "scraps" to make hot dogs or sausages (or scrapple).

The regulations (I cited earlier) do however allow for much more fat to be used in fresh porkbreakfast sausages than for hot dogs. In that sense there is more crap in them.

The regulations do allow for defects like rodent hairs, droppings, maggots, insects and mold. It's called the Food Defect Action Level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels). While it doesn't cover meat products specifically, it does say that it is treated on a "case by case" basis if needed.

I hope that helps clarifies things a bit.

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 04:57 AM

'Taco filling' can have very low actual meat, in this case it is calling it 'seasoned ground beef' that is the problem.In that case, the meat content issue is irrelevant. Ground beef cannot, by law, contain water. If the 'seasoned ground beef' must meet the legal requirements for ground beef (which permit seasoning but prohibit water), then Taco Bell loses. Taco fillings almost always contain some water (and Taco Bell's is no exception).

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 05:00 AM

Does the filling contain extenders? (I believe that it did.)

That's probably the basis for the law suit.

Did Taco Bell call the filling itself ground beef? (I believe that they didn't.)

I know they do: http://www.tacobell.com/food/tacos

We all understand that Taco Bell's ground beef filling is not ground beef.

Then that's what they should call it. (I'm guessing that's what the lawsuit is saying). Just because they are lying and we know it doesn't make it OK to lie.

It contains ground beef, but it is not ground beef.

That's not possible according the the regulations I cited. Ground beef is ground beef, not taco meat or hamburgers or beef patties or fake steak. I think what you're looking for here is "made from ground beef".

You can make a burger with fillings and extenders. Many fine establishments do. You just can't call it "100% ground beef".

No because that would be like calling a head of lettuce a salad.

TragicMonkey

31st January 2011, 05:08 AM

Even if it was 100% beef, it's not like the cow was 100% cow anymore. They're all pumped full of hormones and mutant genetic stuff and fed on heaven-knows-what (but likely includes other cows). Whatever Taco Bell's selling, it's probably less gross than actual "beef" these days anyway.

Ryokan

31st January 2011, 05:20 AM

Irrelevant. Taco Bell is tasty, and will be the last fast food chain standing in the Demolition Man future.

In the European version, it was Pizza Hut.. :)

neutrino_cannon

31st January 2011, 05:27 AM

In that case, the meat content issue is irrelevant. Ground beef cannot, by law, contain water. If the 'seasoned ground beef' must meet the legal requirements for ground beef (which permit seasoning but prohibit water), then Taco Bell loses. Taco fillings almost always contain some water (and Taco Bell's is no exception).

Err, enlighten me. Does "no water" mean "no added water" or does it mean the stuff has to be jerky?

Gawdzilla

31st January 2011, 05:28 AM

This reminds of Steve Dallas, from Bloom County. He's sitting in his office, bored out of his mind, nothing to do. Then he mutters, "What this town needs is another lawyer."

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 05:30 AM

In the European version, it was Pizza Hut.. :)

Wow, crazy coincidence. I watched that movie on Saturday night and was confused because I always remembered them saying Taco Bell but they were saying Pizza Hut. It wasn't until near the end of the movie I finally googled it and discovered this bit of trivia.

I also googled the 3 sea shells.

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 05:39 AM

Err, enlighten me. Does "no water" mean "no added water" or does it mean the stuff has to be jerky?I'm using 'containing' in a technical sense to mean that it would have to be listed as an ingredient. Nobody makes a taco filling that is 100% beef because it would taste horrible, your pretty much have to add water because there is no other way to get water-based flavorings (such as garlic) into ground beef.

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 05:42 AM

I know they do: http://www.tacobell.com/food/tacosI don't see any place they call the filling ground beef. They do call it 'seasoned ground beef' which presumably would mean something that is primarily ground beef but also contains other things that make it a palatable taco filling. From what I understand, that's precisely what it is.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 06:07 AM

I don't see any place they call the filling ground beef. They do call it 'seasoned ground beef' which presumably would mean something that is primarily ground beef but also contains other things that make it a palatable taco filling. From what I understand, that's precisely what it is.

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. "Chopped Beef" or "Ground Beef"
shall 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.

Perhaps this makes more sense now? The standard set out by the regulations say that "Ground Beef" with or without seasoning SHALL NOT contain more than 30% fat and no binders or extenders.

Based on what I'm reading they can't call it "seasoned ground beef" they should be calling it "seasoned taco filling", or "[something] made from ground beef".

The Don

31st January 2011, 06:33 AM

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 07:03 AM

Is this one of these questions of definition ?

The lawsuit alleges only 36% beef but Taco Bell say 88% BUT......

of that 88% meat, 30% is fat - leaving, by one definition a little over 60% lean meat.

Perhaps a (large ?) proportion of that meat is mechanically recovered meat slurry rather than prime cuts - lowering one definition (a particularly harsh one) of "meat" even further.

12) The term ``meat'' and the names of particular kinds of meat,
such as beef, veal, mutton, lamb, and pork, shall not be used in such
manner as to be false or misleading.

It seems to me if they are using the term "meat" to mean both protein and fat it would be misleading.

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 07:04 AM

Perhaps this makes more sense now? The standard set out by the regulations say that "Ground Beef" with or without seasoning SHALL NOT contain more than 30% fat and no binders or extenders.Exactly but this is "seasoned ground beef", not "ground beef".

Based on what I'm reading they can't call it "seasoned ground beef" they should be calling it "seasoned taco filling", or "[something] made from ground beef".The regulations only say they can't call it "ground beef". I don't see any reason they can't call it "seasoned ground beef", which would suggest that it has seasonings beyond those normally found, and permitted, in "ground beef".

The regulation is specifically about what can be called "ground beef" to protect that exact term. It is quite ordinary to add qualifiers to terms that don't meet the normal definitions of the unqualified terms. For example "cheese spread" doesn't meet the legal requirements for "cheese". A "toy car" probably isn't going to meet the safety requirements for a "car".

If I were buying something at the grocery store that promised to be 100% "ground beef" I would expect it not to contain fillers or extenders, and this regulation protects that reasonable expectation. But if it were labeled "seasoned ground beef", I would not expect it to contain absolutely nothing but beef and seasoning because "seasoned ground beef" is not a term that has a precise definition. I would feel defrauded if it wasn't mostly beef and seasonings, but I would expect things like water that may not be added to something sold as "ground beef". This is especially true because taco fillings routinely contain water and texture modifiers.

Psi Baba

31st January 2011, 07:04 AM

From the Taco Bell website, this is the list of ingredients for "Seasoned Ground Beef"
Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
"Beef" is listed first and is therefore in the largest proportion by weight. "Water" is listed second. If there was more water than beef, it would be more like chili or pasta sauce, and it isn't. "Seasoning" is listed third and includes "isolated oat product" which is most likely an oat flour that's used as a thickener. Oats are much less dense than meat and if there was more oat flour, by weight, than beef, the stuff would be an unpalatable paste. If the ingredient list they provide is true and accurate, then I don't see a problem. I would bet that their lawyers vetted the designation of "seasoned ground beef" years ago and they appear to be comfortable with it.

slingblade

31st January 2011, 07:10 AM

Perhaps this makes more sense now? The standard set out by the regulations say that "Ground Beef" with or without seasoning SHALL NOT contain more than 30% fat and no binders or extenders.

Based on what I'm reading they can't call it "seasoned ground beef" they should be calling it "seasoned taco filling", or "[something] made from ground beef".

Okay, wait. I may be missing something already covered, but I think a critical error is being made here.

The regulations quoted are for the meat packing company that produces the ground beef. Those aren't restaurant standards.

While it's true that the packing company can't add water to the ground beef it processes (because that would make it heavier, and would be fraud), once a restaurant receives that processed ground beef, they can add as much water to it as whatever recipe they're using calls for. Of course Taco Bell can add water to their ground beef to make their taco filling. It's part of the recipe.

They can call that "seasoned ground beef," if they like. It's a recipe.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 07:11 AM

Exactly but this is "seasoned ground beef", not "ground beef".

You must realize how flawed this logic is right? If I add purple dye and call is "purple ground beef" it's still "ground beef". Where you put the quotes is irrelevant.

For example "cheese spread" doesn't meet the legal requirements for "cheese". A "toy car" probably isn't going to meet the safety requirements for a "car".

No. You're screwing up your qualifiers. Think logically, if the regulation says "cars" must have seat belts you can't say it's a "red car" and not be subject to the law.

If I were buying something at the grocery store that promised to be 100% "ground beef" I would expect it not to contain fillers or extenders. But if it were labeled "seasoned ground beef", I would not expect it to contain absolutely nothing but beef and seasoning because "seasoned ground beef" is not a term that has a precise definition. I would feel defrauded if it wasn't mostly beef and seasonings, but I would expect things like water that may not be added to something sold as "ground beef".

No, the regulation specifically says whether it has seasoning or not is irrelevant to the definition.

CynicalSkeptic

31st January 2011, 07:18 AM

In the European version, it was Pizza Hut.. :)
Both chains were owned by PepsiCo.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 07:23 AM

The regulations quoted are for the meat packing company that produces the ground beef. Those aren't restaurant standards.

There's no such distinction under the law. It's "the seller" whether it's wholesale or retail. (I know from the butcher shop we were required to follow these laws)

They can call that "seasoned ground beef," if they like. It's a recipe.

I think it depends on if labeling is distinguished from marketing under the law. The thing is on the website, technically it's labeled "ground beef".

I don't know what the laws are concerning how things are marketed. :confused:

slingblade

31st January 2011, 07:23 AM

From the Taco Bell website, this is the list of ingredients for "Seasoned Ground Beef"

"Beef" is listed first and is therefore in the largest proportion by weight. "Water" is listed second. If there was more water than beef, it would be more like chili or pasta sauce, and it isn't. "Seasoning" is listed third and includes "isolated oat product" which is most likely an oat flour that's used as a thickener. Oats are much less dense than meat and if there was more oat flour, by weight, than beef, the stuff would be an unpalatable paste. If the ingredient list they provide is true and accurate, then I don't see a problem. I would bet that their lawyers vetted the designation of "seasoned ground beef" years ago and they appear to be comfortable with it.

The Oat Product and oats (wheat) are listed within another ingredient, the seasonings. The proportion of oat flour is, to use the technical term, not very much, as it is contained with all those other ingredients within the interior brackets as part of the seasoning mix only.

So the greatest ingredient in the seasoning mix is that oat product, which is probably the base for the seasonings. How much seasoning, proportionately speaking, do we estimate is used in the average batch of taco filling? Maybe a tablespoon or so per pound? It certainly doesn't sound to me like any oat products make up a significant portion of the recipe.

Emet

31st January 2011, 07:28 AM

I think it depends on if labeling is distinguished from marketing under the law. The thing is on the website, technically it's labeled "ground beef".

I don't know what the laws are concerning how things are marketed. :confused:

I presume the FTC will decide the case:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-food.shtm

slingblade

31st January 2011, 07:32 AM

There's no such distinction under the law. It's "the seller" whether it's wholesale or retail. (I know from the butcher shop we were required to follow these laws)

The seller of the raw ground beef to the restaurant. That seller. Not the restaurant itself. No kitchen would have much to cook if they were prohibited from adding water to their food!

Is that honestly what you're trying to say here? That once a restaurant receives ground beef from its supplier, it is prohibited from adding water to it to cook it? That's absolutely not so.

The butcher shop isn't cooking the meat. It's the supplier to the restaurant. They do have to follow those regs, to prevent fraud. The restaurant is cooking. It can use all the water it needs, add it to any meat it likes, to cook it. Every restaurant I've ever worked in over 30 years has added water to the beef when making taco and burrito filling.

I think it depends on if labeling is distinguished from marketing under the law. The thing is on the website, technically it's labeled "ground beef".

I don't know what the laws are concerning how things are marketed. :confused:

Taco Bell labels its cooked product as "seasoned ground beef," because that's exactly what it is, after it is cooked according to their recipe.

There are many differences between the regulations a meat supplier has to follow, and those a meat-serving establishment has to follow.

Emet

31st January 2011, 07:45 AM

In case anyone's interested, here's the lawsuit:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70366868/Read-the-full-Taco-Bell-lawsuit-here

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 07:57 AM

In case anyone's interested, here's the lawsuit:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70366868/Read-the-full-Taco-Bell-lawsuit-here

Hehe, damn I'm good. :D

Aside from calling it the FDA instead of the USDA I think what I said is the gist of it. If they aren't using what amounts to a minimum of "regular ground beef" to make their "seasoned ground beef" they should be calling it "filling" not "ground beef".

A grocery store couldn't get away with it so I don't see how cooking it makes any difference.

(I just want free tacos)

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 08:04 AM

The seller of the raw ground beef to the restaurant. That seller. Not the restaurant itself. No kitchen would have much to cook if they were prohibited from adding water to their food!

Well yah, but this is about listing the ingredients.

Is that honestly what you're trying to say here? That once a restaurant receives ground beef from its supplier, it is prohibited from adding water to it to cook it? That's absolutely not so.

No, it's about listing the ingredients, not making soup :)

The butcher shop isn't cooking the meat. It's the supplier to the restaurant. They do have to follow those regs, to prevent fraud. The restaurant is cooking. It can use all the water it needs, add it to any meat it likes, to cook it. Every restaurant I've ever worked in over 30 years has added water to the beef when making taco and burrito filling.

It's about listing the ingredients.

Taco Bell labels its cooked product as "seasoned ground beef," because that's exactly what it is, after it is cooked according to their recipe.

No those are the listed ingredients.

There are many differences between the regulations a meat supplier has to follow, and those a meat-serving establishment has to follow.

No a restaurant would be liable if they said on the menu they were using ground chuck but were using a TVP/ground beef mix right?

The Central Scrutinizer

31st January 2011, 08:25 AM

slingblade

31st January 2011, 08:50 AM

Well yah, but this is about listing the ingredients.

The ingredients are clearly listed. I looked them up.

I know there has to be some confusion here of some kind, I just can't figure out where it's coming from or which one of us it is.

Perhaps this makes more sense now? The standard set out by the regulations say that "Ground Beef" with or without seasoning SHALL NOT contain more than 30% fat and no binders or extenders.

Based on what I'm reading they can't call it "seasoned ground beef" they should be calling it "seasoned taco filling", or "[something] made from ground beef".

Yes, they can call it "seasoned ground beef," because that's exactly what it is: cooked ground beef, mixed with seasonings and water.

The regulations you quoted say they are for the raw product, and pertain only to the standards for the raw product. There honestly is no regulation in effect for restaurateurs that says "you must call ground beef cooked with spices 'seasoned taco filling,' or 'filling made from ground beef,' if you add any spices or water to it during cooking. These additions mean the meat is no longer ground beef, and can no longer be labeled as such."

The filling is labeled properly: it is ground beef, and it has been seasoned. The ingredients of the seasoning mix are also clearly listed, and separately bracketed.

I would assume there are similar regulations for chicken. If so, does that mean that if I add fat to my chicken in my restaurant, I have to label it "fried poultry product," because the addition of fat for cooking violated the regulations regarding adding fat to the raw bird during processing, so now I can't call it "chicken" anymore?

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 09:06 AM

Yes, they can call it "seasoned ground beef," because that's exactly what it is: cooked ground beef, mixed with seasonings and water.

No it isn't (allegedly). Ground beef can't have extenders or more than 30% fat.

Maybe if you thought of it the other way. Do you know what textured vegetable protein (TVP) is? It's a common vegetarian substitute for ground beef, horrible stuff. If you mix it 50/50 with ground sirloin you don't get ground beef. Whether you mix it then cook it, or cook them separately then mix them you don't end up with ground beef. If you add seasoning, 1 grain of salt or 10 cups of paprika you don't get "ground beef". You have to grind beef, and only beef, to get ground beef.

gnome

31st January 2011, 09:20 AM

I tend to think that someone was trying to gain a PR settlement... and miscalculated. Taco Bell has doubled down, which would be foolish to do if the evidence isn't on their side.

It will be interesting to see the results.

fetchbeer

31st January 2011, 09:20 AM

No it isn't (allegedly). Ground beef can't have extenders or more than 30% fat.

Maybe if you thought of it the other way. Do you know what textured vegetable protein (TVP) is? It's a common vegetarian substitute for ground beef, horrible stuff. If you mix it 50/50 with ground sirloin you don't get ground beef. Whether you mix it then cook it, or cook them separately then mix them you don't end up with ground beef. If you add seasoning, 1 grain of salt or 10 cups of paprika you don't get "ground beef". You have to grind beef, and only beef, to get ground beef.

You are quoting a regulation regarding the sale of raw meat and not a finished food product meant for human consumption.

So either stop quoting it, or show us where in the Code of Federal Regulations it says that Title 9: Animals and Animal Products, Subpart B—Raw Meat Products, § 319.15 Miscellaneous beef products, (a) Chopped beef, ground beef, actually applies to fast food restaurants serving food.

I don't want Taco Bell to also be sued for actually serving cooked meat in their tacos if they have to follow that regulation, as I am not overly fond of steak tartar.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 09:39 AM

You are quoting a regulation regarding the sale of raw meat and not a finished food product meant for human consumption.

Why would cooking it change what it is? :confused: If you cook a chicken it doesn't magically become a "turkey". A chicken is a chicken, cooked or walking around the barn. Ground beef is no more than 30% fat and no extenders, cooked or raw, seasoned or not.

The USDA has defined what is or isn't "Ground Beef".

Try using a little critical thinking. If I cook an egg, what is called? If I cook a t-bone steak what is it called? If I cook an apple what is it called?

It's pretty simple, if you cook filling, you get filling. If you cook ground beef, you get ground beef.

Aoidoi

31st January 2011, 10:19 AM

Why would cooking it change what it is? :confused: If you cook a chicken it doesn't magically become a "turkey". A chicken is a chicken, cooked or walking around the barn. Ground beef is no more than 30% fat and no extenders, cooked or raw, seasoned or not.

The USDA has defined what is or isn't "Ground Beef".

Try using a little critical thinking. If I cook an egg, what is called? If I cook a t-bone steak what is it called? If I cook an apple what is it called?

It's pretty simple, if you cook filling, you get filling. If you cook ground beef, you get ground beef.When I cook a chicken I get stir fry. When I cook an egg it's usually called an omelette. When I cook a cow I get steak (I use a space based laser system for efficiency). When I cook an apple it usually ends up as an apple pie, which contains many things other than apple. Can I sue McDonald's for their Apple Pies because they contain things other than apple?

When you cook a pig you get ham. And pork. I've never figured out why. I suspect the added heat increases the entropy of the words and therefore they change and multiply.

And "baby back ribs" don't contain NEARLY enough baby for the name to be accurate.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 10:53 AM

Actually, the link you posted, 3body, does not state it can only have 30% fillers.

It states, specifically, that it must be fresh or frozen (excluding cooked products), that it may contain up to 30% fat, and NO fillers, extenders, or anything else (meaning 88% would still preclude it from being ground beef, by your application). Also, why is that only found ina section specifically for raw products (regarding proper labelling), but not mentioned at all in the section regarding cooked products?

Additionally, the FDA themselves refered to it as "cooked ground beef":
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108803.htm.

Also, in reference to your comment on meat:

Meat.
(1) The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart, or in the esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone, skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and which are not separated from it in the process of dressing. It does not include the muscle found in the lips, snout, or ears. This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats.
(2) The product derived from the mechanical separation of the skeletal muscle tissue from the bones of livestock using the advances in mechanical meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems that do not crush, grind, or pulverize bones, and from which the bones emerge comparable to those resulting from handdeboning (i.e., essentially intact and in natural physical conformation such that they are recognizable, such as loin bones and rib bones, when they emerge from the machinery) which meets the criteria of no more than 0.15 percent or 150 mg/100 gm of product for calcium (as a measure of bone solids content) within a tolerance of 0.03 percent or 30mg.

That's the FDA's own definition, which includes fat. Found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/pdf/9CFR301.2.pdf (parent page http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200309).

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 10:59 AM

When I cook a chicken I get stir fry.

No you get a cooked chicken. :boggled:

When I cook an egg it's usually called an omelette.

No you get a cooked egg. :boggled:

When I cook a cow I get steak.

No you get a cooked cow. :boggled:

When I cook an apple it usually ends up as an apple pie, which contains many things other than apple.

No you get a cooked apple. :boggled:

You "make" a stir fry with parts of a chicken, you "make' a steak with parts of a cow, and you "make" an apple pie with parts of apples. Just like you "make" ground beef with parts of a cow.

You want the recipe?

When you cook a pig you get ham.

:dl:

Really? You should learn to cook. I get bacon and sausage and chops and ribs and jowls and even ground pork.

I'd love to see you cook ribs and get bacon. :D

Nobody watches the Food Network anymore do they?

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 11:05 AM

Actually, the link you posted, 3body, does not state it can only have 30% fillers.

Fat isn't a filler :confused:

Additionally, the FDA themselves refered to it as cooked ground beef:

This might be a defense, but since it's an unrelated investigation I don't see how that matters. They weren't asked to make a determination on whether it was "ground beef" or not.

Aoidoi

31st January 2011, 11:07 AM

I'm terribly disappointed in that response. It's not nearly as entertaining as I hoped, AND you managed to selectively quote to utterly un-funny results.

Humor is hard.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 11:10 AM

Fat isn't a filler :confused:

I know, which is why I mentioned that. I can't figure out where you got the idea that the link you posted said it must be at least 70% meat. IT must be ALL meat, with NO fillers, extenders, or water added, and up to 30% of the meat can be fat.

Dr. Keith

31st January 2011, 11:26 AM

I can't figure out where you got the idea that . . .

Do you really want to?

Policenaut

31st January 2011, 11:55 AM

Oats are filler. Soy is filler. Fat≠Filler. Ground Beef is around 70% lean and 30% fat.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 11:56 AM

I know, which is why I mentioned that. I can't figure out where you got the idea that the link you posted said it must be at least 70% meat. IT must be ALL meat, with NO fillers, extenders, or water added, and up to 30% of the meat can be fat.

Where did I say that? I believe I made the distinction several times between protein (or lean), fat and fillers. If I did it was a mistake.

ETA: You're a liar, I never said that at all post #51:

"It seems to me if they are using the term "meat" to mean both protein and fat it would be misleading."

Why are you lying? Troll.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 11:57 AM

Do you really want to?

I do. :boggled:

ETA: why didn't you just come and say he was lying? I thought I actually goofed. :)

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 12:22 PM

Where did I say that? I believe I made the distinction several times between protein (or lean), fat and fillers. If I did it was a mistake.

ETA: You're a liar, I never said that at all post #51:

"It seems to me if they are using the term "meat" to mean both protein and fat it would be misleading."

Why are you lying? Troll.

You know, you've just lost all pretense at any rationality. I was mistaken, and I readily admit as much. I thought you had referenced the 30% numebr earlier, and misread your post #51 (I missed the "no" between fat and binders).

That being said, your response actually says quite a bit. So, no more kid gloves.

You are misreading the food code to a high degree. The section you quoted concerning ground beef does not define what can be called ground beef in any and all circumstances. It defines what can be legaly labelled as ground beef when sold in its raw form, and what that must contain. The regulation is specifically under the section for labelling of packaged products (and if you check the regulations food prepared at point of sale for consumers on an as-need basis is exempt from this labelling law) beign sold "fresh or frozen"...i.e.-not cooked. No mention of ground beef is made in the section on cooked meats, and under the general labelling regulations it simply states that the labelling should not be misleading. The lawsuit is misapplying that section, as are you. By your interpretation nothing sold at restaurants can be called ground beef, period. If they add water to it, it's not ground beef. If they cook it in oil, it isn't ground beef.

There is a reason this was opened as a civil case, not a matter of law. Taco Bell is not in violation of section 319.15, because that does not apply to their product. That applies to what raw products can legally be labelled as "ground beef".

You've yet to show any indication that this applies to cooked food, beyond your insistence that it does (even though the FDA regulation you quote is specific in that this appies to package labelling and raw products).

Applying critical thinking, you have yet to support your position. And if your immediate jump to liar and troll is any indication, your critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired.

Spindrift

31st January 2011, 12:44 PM

As a side note:
When McDonalds came out with the QuarterPounder, somebody sued that they weren't getting a quarter pound of meat. Well McD's started with a quarter pound but with cooking it shrinks. Hence the *weight before cooking 4 oz, now seen in all advertising.

Dr. Keith

31st January 2011, 12:56 PM

I do. :boggled:

ETA: why didn't you just come and say he was lying? I thought I actually goofed. :)

Because you have misread my comment. It was short hand for the following:

I can't see any attempt by you to be logical. You've quoted the regulation for the sale of raw meat in a case about the sale of prepared food as if the two are the same and then become defensive at those who have tried to honestly help you see the error of your analysis. I don't want to "figure out where you got this idea" and I'm astounded anyone else does.

But really, if you caught him in a lie then that changes everything. Raw meat is treated exactly the same as prepared meat under all federal laws if Hellbound has ever misquoted, or misunderstood the meaning of, your post. That's entirely logical.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 01:01 PM

Dr. Keith:

Yeah, I got your point (so at least someone understood what you were saying).

And so as not to be accused of any sort of cover-up attempt or half-heartedness:

I was mistaken when I implied that 3bodyproblem thought ground beef could be 30% non-meat (fillers, extenders, water). I apologize, and retract that portion of my statements without reservation.

BobTheDonkey

31st January 2011, 01:02 PM

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 01:11 PM

It appears the only leg this lawsuit could stand on would be if the ground beef Taco Bell buys from it's supplier has oats inside as a filler. And that wouldn't be TB's problem, that would be the meatpacker's problem.

Given the ingredients listed, the plaintiff has a lot of work ahead of them to prove their case.

I think so.

Not to mention that, if this was as clear cut as 3body's interpretation implies, then TB would have to be absolute idiots to come out and advertise "88% beef"..pretty much an admission of guilt under 3body's application of the regulations.

While I've seen corporations do some bone-headed things. I can't see any corporation with lawyers on staff making a mistake this idiotic. It'd be like someone claiming "I couldn't have killed that person, because I was across town killing this person (giving directions to the body and video of himself murdering the victim)". Seriously, you don't get to me the number one mexican fast food restaurant and rake in millions of dollars by being that stupid.

elgarak

31st January 2011, 01:26 PM

The way I see it, the USDA regulation and nomenclature refers to raw meat product.

Taco Bell's "Seasoned Ground Beef" is not a raw meat product; it's a cooked product (or maybe a processed product they get from someone else according to their recipe), and the USDA regulation does not apply.

Then again, I am not lawyer, judge or jury.

Emet

31st January 2011, 01:28 PM

Update:

PETA applauds Taco Bell’s ‘almost-veg’ meat recipe
(...)
The media pounced, customers balked, and the company took to newspapers and Youtube in an effort to denounce the claims and repair its battled image.

Out of all this mess, however, Taco Bell can now count on support from a most unlikely ally: PETA.

The animal rights org went online to congratulate the company’s decision to use less meat in its products; saying that since their so-called “beef tacos” are already most vegan — why not go all the way? “One hundred percent cruelty-free” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?,” quipped PETA blogger Michelle Sherrow.

http://blogs.forbes.com/eco-nomics/2011/01/31/peta-applauds-taco-bells-almost-veg-meat-recipe/

:boggled:

BobTheDonkey

31st January 2011, 01:31 PM

I think so.

Not to mention that, if this was as clear cut as 3body's interpretation implies, then TB would have to be absolute idiots to come out and advertise "88% beef"..pretty much an admission of guilt under 3body's application of the regulations.

While I've seen corporations do some bone-headed things. I can't see any corporation with lawyers on staff making a mistake this idiotic. It'd be like someone claiming "I couldn't have killed that person, because I was across town killing this person (giving directions to the body and video of himself murdering the victim)". Seriously, you don't get to me the number one mexican fast food restaurant and rake in millions of dollars by being that stupid.

I don't know about everyone else here, but I can see the 88% beef as meaning "88% lean beef". Go to the grocery store, any quality store (even *********** Walmart) has beef in varying lean percentages because sometimes 90% lean is better than 80% lean for the dish being prepared.

I see no problem with TB. Again, the only real standing this lawsuit would have would be in addressing the actual beef itself, not the prepared filling - and that entails the meatpacker, not TB (plausible deniability).

PhantomWolf

31st January 2011, 01:49 PM

The USDA has defined what is or isn't "Ground Beef".

Why are you insisting on using the standard for raw meat as the standard for cooked meat? The USDA separates their standards into Raw and Cooked, but you are insisting that the standard for raw is the same as the standard for cooked.

I seriously doubt that anyone going to TB would expect to get 2lb of raw ground beef if they asked for it.

rwguinn

31st January 2011, 01:53 PM

mortimer

31st January 2011, 01:57 PM

Why are you insisting on using the standard for raw meat as the standard for cooked meat? The USDA separates their standards into Raw and Cooked, but you are insisting that the standard for raw is the same as the standard for cooked.

I seriously doubt that anyone going to TB would expect to get 2lb of raw ground beef if they asked for it.
Just to add to that, you can't even go into Taco Bell and buy 2lb (or any amount) of their "seasoned ground beef". You buy a taco, which is obviously going to be less than 40% ground beef. Or you buy a combo meal that contains a taco, a burrito, a dessert, and a drink. That's going to be *way* less than 40% beef.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 02:34 PM

You've yet to show any indication that this applies to cooked food, beyond your insistence that it does (even though the FDA regulation you quote is specific in that this appies to package labelling and raw products).

Nice shifting the burden of proof. But I'll play.

"(r) where the addition of a filler to a meat product is permitted in Column III of an item of this Schedule, the addition of an ingredient that is not a meat product and does not constitute a filler because it is visually distinguishable from the meat product is also permitted where the name used to describe the resulting product is descriptive of the resulting product."

There's no filler allowed in "Ground Meat".

"2. For the purposes of this Schedule,
(a) unless otherwise specified, any meat product ingredient set out in Column II of an item of this Schedule may be fresh, preserved or cooked;"

Since the meat:"Fresh boneless skinless meat* is listed in colum II there's no reason to preclude cooked meat.

And finally:

"In general, mandatory information or claims that are acceptable on a food label may also be used to advertise that food. Unacceptable label information is generally also not acceptable in advertising. Therefore, manufacturers and advertisers should ensure that their labels comply with federal statutes before developing advertisements for the foods."

So it should be labeled and advertised for what it is, which is "filling" (or meat by-product) and not ground meat or in this case "ground beef".

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 02:41 PM

Why are you insisting on using the standard for raw meat as the standard for cooked meat? The USDA separates their standards into Raw and Cooked, but you are insisting that the standard for raw is the same as the standard for cooked.

No they don't not for ground meat. Feel free to cite this revelation.

I just cited the Canadian law that says it doesn't matter if it's cooked or not.

What do you call the pre-cooked bacon in the states? Why would anyone think pre-cooked bacon could be made of tofu instead of bacon just because it's cooked?

rwguinn

31st January 2011, 02:41 PM

Nice shifting the burden of proof. But I'll play.

"(r) where the addition of a filler to a meat product is permitted in Column III of an item of this Schedule, the addition of an ingredient that is not a meat product and does not constitute a filler because it is visually distinguishable from the meat product is also permitted where the name used to describe the resulting product is descriptive of the resulting product."

There's no filler allowed in "Ground Meat".

"2. For the purposes of this Schedule,
(a) unless otherwise specified, any meat product ingredient set out in Column II of an item of this Schedule may be fresh, preserved or cooked;"

Since the meat:"Fresh boneless skinless meat* is listed in colum II there's no reason to That would preclude cooked meat.

And finally:

"In general, mandatory information or claims that are acceptable on a food label may also be used to advertise that food. Unacceptable label information is generally also not acceptable in advertising. Therefore, manufacturers and advertisers should ensure that their labels comply with federal statutes before developing advertisements for the foods."

So it should be labeled and advertised for what it is, which is "filling" (or meat by-product) and not ground meat or in this case "ground beef".
ftfy
Fresh!= cooked.
Under any known circumstances...

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 02:42 PM

You are not that stupid.
Go look up the "Quarter Pounder".

"100% pure beef" is what they claim here in Canada, not "100% ground beef".

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 02:44 PM

ftfy
Fresh!= cooked.
Under any known circumstances...

"unless otherwise specified" :rolleyes:

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 02:52 PM

You must realize how flawed this logic is right? If I add purple dye and call is "purple ground beef" it's still "ground beef". Where you put the quotes is irrelevant.But this makes my point. By your reasoning, I could not add purple dye and call it "purple ground beef" because the regulations for ground beef do not permit the addition of dyes. No, "purple ground beef" is *NOT* "ground beef". The whole reason somebody would call something "purple ground beef" is to indicate that it does not meet reasonable consumer expectations for "ground beef".

No. You're screwing up your qualifiers. Think logically, if the regulation says "cars" must have seat belts you can't say it's a "red car" and not be subject to the law.Right, that's why the regulations for cars don't say that "cars" must have seat belts, they say that cars must have seat belts. They have completely different purposes -- one is a safety standard, the other is an advertising standard.

This law exists solely to control what products may be sold as "ground beef" or "100% ground beef". It is perfectly routine to use modifiers to indicate a product that doesn't meet the legal requirements for the unmodified term. I would bet that this is precisely why Taco Bell chose to call their taco filling "seasoned ground beef" -- because they know they cannot call it "ground beef". (And because "seasoned ground beef" sounds better than plain old "ground beef", which it is as a taco filling.)

If you saw a product called "red ground beef", wouldn't you expect it to somehow be different from ground beef? And given that what can be called "ground beef" is tightly regulated, wouldn't you expect that it might not meet the requirements to be labeled just "ground beef"? Why else would they call it "red ground beef"? (Perhaps they found some way to make it redder or keep it redder?)

No, the regulation specifically says whether it has seasoning or not is irrelevant to the definition.You are confusing being seasoned with having seasonings added. Dry aging beef, for example, seasons it. But no seasonings have been added to it. Taco Bell is saying their product is "seasoned ground beef", not "ground beef to which seasonings have been added". You would have a point if they claimed the latter. (Since oats are not a seasoning.)

Travis

31st January 2011, 02:53 PM

So this use of fillers is why I've enjoyed Taco Bell more lately.

BobTheDonkey

31st January 2011, 03:23 PM

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 03:24 PM

Nice shifting the burden of proof. But I'll play.

Burden of proof? YOU made the claim. There's nothing in your quote about cooked ground beef.

"(r) where the addition of a filler to a meat product is permitted in Column III of an item of this Schedule, the addition of an ingredient that is not a meat product and does not constitute a filler because it is visually distinguishable from the meat product is also permitted where the name used to describe the resulting product is descriptive of the resulting product."

There's no filler allowed in "Ground Meat".

And this (the part you quoted, anyway) doesn't say that the limitation applies to cooked meat. Since you failed to provde any indication as to where you retrieved this comment (other than it starts with r), for all I know the context could be anything.

"2. For the purposes of this Schedule,
(a) unless otherwise specified, any meat product ingredient set out in Column II of an item of this Schedule may be fresh, preserved or cooked;"

Since the meat:"Fresh boneless skinless meat* is listed in colum II there's no reason to preclude cooked meat.

And what schedule is this? I was specifically referring to your earlier quote about the definition of ground beef, which was specifically listed under raw products.

And finally:

"In general, mandatory information or claims that are acceptable on a food label may also be used to advertise that food. Unacceptable label information is generally also not acceptable in advertising. Therefore, manufacturers and advertisers should ensure that their labels comply with federal statutes before developing advertisements for the foods."

So it should be labeled and advertised for what it is, which is "filling" (or meat by-product) and not ground meat or in this case "ground beef".

But it isn't filling. It's ground beef with seasonings. You've STILL not shown that the labelling requirement for ground beef extends to cooked items.

And, it does help if you specifiy the location you get your info from, instead of expecting everyone to search through hundreds of items. BEcause, as most of us understadn, there are mutliple sections to the food code, and not all sections apply to all types of food. THe context matters.

So, care to provide that context for your quotes?

BenBurch

31st January 2011, 03:31 PM

Can we just cook this lawyer and see what the cooked weight ratio is?

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 03:37 PM

But this makes my point. By your reasoning, I could not add purple dye and call it "purple ground beef" because the regulations for ground beef do not permit the addition of dyes.

No. It has to be "ground beef" in order to make it purple. If you add purple dye to a 50/50 meat and TVP mixture it isn't "purple ground beef". Adding salt or spice doesn't make a 50/50 mixture "seasoned ground beef". Adding salt or spices to what is already "ground beef" makes it "seasoned ground beef".

"Ground beef" has a specific definition under the law. "Ground beef" is ONLY "beef and fat" ground up. And if you put too much fat like 31% fat, it isn't "ground beef".

And if you cook "ground beef", you get "cooked ground beef". Not ham or stir fry or apple pie.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 03:38 PM

Just for fun, I did a bit of googling of my own.

Your first quote:
"(r) where the addition of a filler to a meat product is permitted in Column III of an item of this Schedule, the addition of an ingredient that is not a meat product and does not constitute a filler because it is visually distinguishable from the meat product is also permitted where the name used to describe the resulting product is descriptive of the resulting product."

Pertains to Canadian law, as near as I can tell. The only google hits I find on that phrasing are Canada and this thread.

Your second quote also returns the same three top hits.

Oddly enough, your last quote also returns the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

So, maybe it's just me, but last time I checked Alabama had not seceded from the Union and been annexed by Canada. But I'm willing to entertain any more up-to-date information you may have.

So, care to make other comments about how people should appply critical thinking?

Or are you now a liar and a troll, because you used Canadian law to apply to a U.S. case?

Or should I rationally assume that perhaps you were just mistaken, and did not read the title of the website you quoted for that (or look to the red maple leaf at the top), and that your failure to mention your source was not an intentional attempt to hide the fact that these were not applicible in U.S. law?

NewtonTrino

31st January 2011, 03:39 PM

The "ground beef" definition you're quoting is only for raw product sold as ground beef. Taco bell's "seasoned ground beef" is a cooked product so a different set of regulations apply. Hey, I don't make the rules!

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 03:42 PM

It's ground beef with seasonings.

No it isn't. Ground beef has "beef" and "fat" in a specific ratio depending on if it's extra lean or regular or in between.

And it doesn't matter if it's cooked or not :confused:

Puppycow

31st January 2011, 03:42 PM

Update:

http://blogs.forbes.com/eco-nomics/2011/01/31/peta-applauds-taco-bells-almost-veg-meat-recipe/

:boggled:

They already do have vegetarian options. A bean burrito for example. Order it without cheese and it's vegan.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 03:45 PM

No it isn't. Ground beef has "beef" and "fat" in a specific ratio depending on if it's extra lean or regular or in between.

And it doesn't matter if it's cooked or not :confused:

And you've still yet to show that that standard applies to anything other than the packaging and marketing of raw ground beef. That was not a universal defintion, but a specific definition placed in the raw meat category.

"Hamburger" is ALSO in the same category, with specifications on the ingredients. No where in that definition does it list lettuce, tomato, onion, mustard, or cheese. DOes this mean McDonald's can also be sued? Their Hamburger has a lot more than meat in it.

And finally, you STILL haven't answered what you think Canadian regulations have to do with a U.S. lawsuit.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 03:51 PM

Or are you now a liar and a troll, because you used Canadian law to apply to a U.S. case?

Or should I rationally assume that perhaps you were just mistaken, and did not read the title of the website you quoted for that (or look to the red maple leaf at the top), and that your failure to mention your source was not an intentional attempt to hide the fact that these were not applicible in U.S. law?

Google FDA and CFIA, they cite each other in publications. That's how I ended up with both. Seeing as Taco Bell operates here in Canada, the .ca website calls it ground beef and the laws about fat content in "ground beef" are identical I don't see any reason to assume the laws differ. Hormones and steriods yah,beef filling no. If there's any significant departure in the law then "oops sorry":blush:

But guess what, murders a crime in Canada too! But it's only manslaughter if you use a hockey stick.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 03:56 PM

Google FDA and CFIA, they cite each other in publications. That's how I ended up with both. Seeing as Taco Bell operates here in Canada, the .ca website calls it ground beef and the laws about fat content in "ground beef" are identical I don't see any reason to assume the laws differ. Hormones and steriods yah,beef filling no. If there's any significant departure in the law then "oops sorry":blush:

But guess what, murders a crime in Canada too! But it's only manslaughter if you use a hockey stick.

I can tell you they differ because a search of the FDA regulations do NOT turn up any of your phrases. In any case, it's best to cite your sources, as I've yet to see anything inside US law that supports your view.

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 03:56 PM

And you've still yet to show that that standard applies to anything other than the packaging and marketing of raw ground beef. That was not a universal defintion, but a specific definition placed in the raw meat category.

No, you have to show why it isn't if it's such a big deal. The notion that boiling meat allows you to call it whatever you want is completely absurd.

The only reason for it to differ because of cooking would be moisture content, but that wouldn't change what it is, just how much water is in it.

You just don't understand the difference between "cooking" something and "making" it into a Shepard's Pie. The regulation covers for normal prep, seasoning and cooking (and grinding of course)

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 03:59 PM

No, you have to show why it isn't if it's such a big deal. The notion that boiling meat allows you to call it whatever you want is completely absurd.

The only reason for it to differ because of cooking would be moisture content, but that wouldn't change what it is, just how much water is in it.

You just don't understand the difference between "cooking" something and "making" it into a Shepard's Pie. The regulation covers for normal prep, seasoning and cooking (and grinding of course)

No, the regulation specifically excludes most cooking (adding water means it's not ground beef anymore). And again, why was the ONLY support you've found for your position been from a category SPECIFICALLY referencing raw meat, and nothing else?

I don't have to show why it makes a difference when you cook it, I just have to show what the regulations state. And they state that as a limitation for selling the raw product.

Now, I'm sure there are limitations for what you can call things after preparation, but what you have provided are not them. I am not, nor have I ever, made the claim that cooking it allows you to call it whatever you want. What I have stated, and repeated, is that the standard for raw ground beef is NOT applicable to cooked, unless you can find that in the FDA regulations. I've found nothing yet to set ground beef aside as a protected category in cooked and prepared foods..with the exception that it must, by FDA law, be listed as ground beef in the ingredients, and can only be listed as such if the raw material that went into it was ground beef by the regulation you quoted (i.e.- the raw product used in preperation). I suspect that only false advertising laws would apply here...they couldn't call it ground beef if it was not a majority of ground beef, and they can't call it 100% ground beef unless it is all ground beef. BUt they haven't done either of those things.

So, care to try again, or will you just continue with bald assertion?

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 03:59 PM

I can tell you they differ because a search of the FDA regulations do NOT turn up any of your phrases. In any case, it's best to cite your sources, as I've yet to see anything inside US law that supports your view.

Well here, everything under "Cooked Meats" under the FDA Composition regulation:

Subpart C--Cooked Meats

319.80 Barbecued meats.
319.81 Roast beef parboiled and steam roasted.

No ground beef. You know why? Because "cooked ground beef" isn't some magical sub category :rolleyes:

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 04:02 PM

No, the regulation specifically excludes most cooking

lol, you made this up. :rolleyes:

Furcifer

31st January 2011, 04:05 PM

The "ground beef" definition you're quoting is only for raw product sold as ground beef.

Prove it. You're just making this up.

"Well not if it's made by a smurf, this regulation is only for non smurf made ground beef" :)

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 04:07 PM

lol, you made this up. :rolleyes:

I clarified above. Name me any cooking method that does not add something to the meat?

Also, since you insist that the "Raw Meat Products" category was not really the way they meant it, can you clarify why McDonald's, Wendy's, and several other places can legally sell "hamburgers"? Because they're the next paragraph:

(b) Hamburger. ``Hamburger'' shall consist of chopped fresh and/or
frozen beef with or without the addition of beef fat as such and/or
seasoning, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not
contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders. Beef cheek meat
(trimmed beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of hamburger only
in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of this
section.

No mention of lettuce, buns, cheese, mustard, or anything else. But if you want to limit this to the patty, then Burger King is in trouble with their stuffed Angus hamburger, huh?

roger

31st January 2011, 04:13 PM

Well here, everything under "Cooked Meats" under the FDA Composition regulation:

Subpart C--Cooked Meats

319.80 Barbecued meats.
319.81 Roast beef parboiled and steam roasted.

No ground beef. You know why? Because "cooked ground beef" isn't some magical sub category :rolleyes:Why are you quoting FDA? Taco Bell was sued under the USDA labeling policy. Available here (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Policies/Labeling_Policy_Book_082005_3.pdf). (you can get to the rest of the policy, if you want, by substituting _3 for _1 or _2 in the link)

TACO FILLING:
Product must contain at least 40 percent fresh meat. The label must show true product name, e.g., —Taco Filling with Meat,“ —Beef Taco Filling,“ or —Taco Meat Filling.“

slingblade

31st January 2011, 04:24 PM

Are people still trying to apply the standards for meatpackers to restaurants?

Do they not realize there's a big difference there? Like, *********** huge. I mean, so much for chili being made with "real ground beef". Nope, can't include that because there are too many fillers added - including water.

TB states that they use 88% lean ground beef in their tacos. This is true. And it's not against the law for them to add seasoning to the meat as it's prepared for the end-consumer while still advertising that the beef they use is 88% lean ground beef (because this is true).

I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I've been trying to say, myself.

The regulations quoted by 3body are for raw, processed meat. They regulate what the meat processor can put into the raw meat during processing.

Those specific regulations do not then also and equally apply to a commercial kitchen, because the kitchen is not processing raw meat for sale as raw meat.

There are other regulations regarding cooked food and how it must be labeled. Cooked food regulations do not then also and equally apply to the meat processing plant in exactly the same way, because the meat processor is not preparing cooked meat for sale as cooked meat.

They are two different operations, with two different sets of regulations, because they do two different things.

If I take raw ground beef and add seasonings and water to it when I cook it, I can then legally call it "seasoned ground beef," because that is exactly what it is. I honestly do not understand how anyone can fail to see this clear distinction.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 04:42 PM

Why are you quoting FDA? Taco Bell was sued under the USDA labeling policy. Available here (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Policies/Labeling_Policy_Book_082005_3.pdf). (you can get to the rest of the policy, if you want, by substituting _3 for _1 or _2 in the link)

Thank you, roger. This is what I was trying to get 3body to concede...his little labelling info was only for raw meat.

Now, the USDA does happen to coincide with the FDA regulations on the label "Ground Beef".

So, does the ground beef phrase apply, since "Seasoned Ground Beef" is actually the product name, and "Seasoned Ground Beef" is actually a descriptive name, indicating that something has been done to it during preparation (it isn't just ground beef), and it's ingredients are listed IAW USDA guidelines (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/ingredientstatement)? The ingredient label that must be approved by the USDA before it can be used?

The only issue I can see for this is if it can be shown that Beef is not the most common ingredient in their taco filling, as listed on their ingredients list. The "Ground Beef" red herring is immaterial, since it has been shown that the FDA itself referred to it as "cooked ground beef" and the USDA approved ingredient list used by Taco Bell lists it as "Seasoned Ground Beeef".

roger

31st January 2011, 04:46 PM

Thank you, roger. This is what I was trying to get 3body to concede...his little labelling info was only for raw meat.

Now, the USDA does happen to coincide with the FDA regulations on the label "Ground Beef".

So now the question becomes one of fact: Are there fillers in the taco bell meat, or is it ground beef? And does the ground beef phrase apply, since "Seasoned Ground Beef" is actually the product name, and it's ingredients are listed IAW USDA guidelines (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/ingredientstatement)?
I don't see anything in the USDA guidelines stating anything about 40% meat for "ground beef" - perhaps I missed it, or another document applies? And, all of the news reports specifically say that Taco Bell was sued because the measured 38% (or whatever the # was) was below the 40% required by the USDA. Which leads me to believe this suit is about the "taco filling" labelling requirement that I quoted.

Hellbound

31st January 2011, 04:50 PM

I don't see anything in the USDA guidelines stating anything about 40% meat for "ground beef" - perhaps I missed it, or another document applies? And, all of the news reports specifically say that Taco Bell was sued because the measured 38% (or whatever the # was) was below the 40% required by the USDA. Which leads me to believe this suit is about the "taco filling" labelling requirement that I quoted.

May be, I was just referencing the USDA labelling guideline for listing "Ground Beef" which happens to be the same as what 3body was posting.

Of course, I can't see where they call it Taco Meat Filling, unless it's just on their bags and such (the web site doesn't mention that). So since Taco Bell does not label anything in their menu as Taco Meat Filling, I don't see how that could be the issue at hand (could be wrong, though).

But, as I clarified above (you responded before I was done editing, dang it ;)), they use the term "Seasoned Ground Beef", which is also what is listed as the ingredient in their USDA approved labelling. No mention of Taco Meat Filling. Since we're discussing labelling guidlines, that makes me wonder. I think the news are, well, just inaccurate (suprise!) as I've found at least one that specifically referenced the gorund beef contention.

I think the main thrust is targetted at the ingredient list, because "beef" is listed as the primary ingredient, and if it does contain more filler than beef then this is incorrect, and would mean Taco Bell was in violation of USDA guidelines and procedures.

Ferguson

31st January 2011, 04:51 PM

No ground beef. You know why? Because "cooked ground beef" isn't some magical sub category :rolleyes:

Well, at least in my state, cooking ground beef changes its taxable category from "Food" to "Prepared Food." Next time I'm at Meijer I'll try the "chicken is chicken!" angle to save myself 30 cents on rotisserie. If cooking changes tax category I don't see why cooking wouldn't also regulation category.

One funny aside to that, the sushi place I always used to go to never charged sales tax, claiming since they only sell raw food they don't have to. Seems a bit fishy (:cool:) to me, but I'm not a lawyer... but they did it for as long as I went there (about 3 years).

eeyore1954

31st January 2011, 05:01 PM

BobTheDonkey

31st January 2011, 05:25 PM

May be, I was just referencing the USDA labelling guideline for listing "Ground Beef" which happens to be the same as what 3body was posting.

Of course, I can't see where they call it Taco Meat Filling, unless it's just on their bags and such (the web site doesn't mention that). So since Taco Bell does not label anything in their menu as Taco Meat Filling, I don't see how that could be the issue at hand (could be wrong, though).

But, as I clarified above (you responded before I was done editing, dang it ;)), they use the term "Seasoned Ground Beef", which is also what is listed as the ingredient in their USDA approved labelling. No mention of Taco Meat Filling. Since we're discussing labelling guidlines, that makes me wonder. I think the news are, well, just inaccurate (suprise!) as I've found at least one that specifically referenced the gorund beef contention.

I think the main thrust is targetted at the ingredient list, because "beef" is listed as the primary ingredient, and if it does contain more filler than beef then this is incorrect, and would mean Taco Bell was in violation of USDA guidelines and procedures.

Given the ingredients listed for the "Taco Meat Filling", I find it hard to believe there is less than 40% ground beef in the filling. I don't know about you guys, but the tacos I get from TB certainly aren't full of water and/or seasonings...

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 06:25 PM

No. It has to be "ground beef" in order to make it purple. If you add purple dye to a 50/50 meat and TVP mixture it isn't "purple ground beef". Adding salt or spice doesn't make a 50/50 mixture "seasoned ground beef". Adding salt or spices to what is already "ground beef" makes it "seasoned ground beef".Since nobody disputes that Taco Bell begins with ground beef when they make seasoned ground beef, I'm not sure what relevance your argument has. Adding purple dye to ground beef makes it no longer "ground beef", but it is "purple ground beef". The adjective indicates that it is modified and no longer qualifies as unqualified "ground beef".

"Ground beef" has a specific definition under the law. "Ground beef" is ONLY "beef and fat" ground up. And if you put too much fat like 31% fat, it isn't "ground beef".Right. As far as I know, nobody disputes any of this.

And if you cook "ground beef", you get "cooked ground beef". Not ham or stir fry or apple pie.Right. And this is true even if you add water and fat too in the cooking process, as many people do. You still wind up with "cooked ground beef" even if it no longer meets the legal requirements to be called "ground beef" because there are no specific legal requirements attached to the label "cooked ground beef". Straightforward principles of fraud and deception would apply, not the technical definition that only applies to "ground beef". Adding both fat and water to ground beef in the process of cooking it is routine.

WildCat

31st January 2011, 09:06 PM

I can't believe Taco Bell got sued, and nowhere in the suit is "explosive diarrhea" mentioned.

PhantomWolf

31st January 2011, 09:35 PM

No they don't not for ground meat. Feel free to cite this revelation.

The standard you keep reciting says that it is for Raw meat. It also says "Fresh and/or frozen." Under what stretch of the imagination would cooked meat in a hot taco be considered "fresh" or "frozen".

I just cited the Canadian law that says it doesn't matter if it's cooked or not.

Then a pity for you that this case isn't in Canada.

What do you call the pre-cooked bacon in the states? Why would anyone think pre-cooked bacon could be made of tofu instead of bacon just because it's cooked?

I'm not in the US so I have no idea what they call it, we'd likely call it pig meat before it's processed into bacon.

We do have chicken bacon and lamb hams here though, no one seems to have an issue with that, and if I buy Butter Chicken I'm not expecting it to be poultry rubbed in dairy product and I'm certainly not expecting it meet the standards for raw chicken either.

But hey, if you like your tacos made with uncooked fresh and/or frozen ground beef, more power to you.

JoelKatz

31st January 2011, 09:53 PM

What do you call the pre-cooked bacon in the states? Why would anyone think pre-cooked bacon could be made of tofu instead of bacon just because it's cooked?You're confusing two completely different issues. One is the specific regulatory requirements for marketing things as "ground beef". The other is general principles of fraud and mislabeling. Sure, if something sold as 'pre-cooked bacon' contained more than a small amount of tofu, you might have a good argument that there is fraud under general principles of fraud and mislabeling.

If 'seasoned ground beef' sold as a taco filling is 88% ground beef, there is no fraud or mislabeling. Ground beef taco fillings ordinarily contain water, texture modifiers, added fat, and the like. Anyone who doesn't know this is welcome to check out Taco Bell's ingredient lists, which are made public. The filling is almost entirely ground beef and no basic principles require it to be 100% ground beef. (Nor should it be. That would make a lousy taco filling.)

Context is everything. Something labeled strawberry that looks like a lollipop would not be expected to contain much, if any, actual strawberries. A taco filling labeled 'seasoned ground beef' would not reasonably be expected to be completely devoid of any of the ingredients ordinarily found in taco fillings. Strawberries are both a fruit and a flavor category. The same is true of 'seasoned ground beef' when applied to a taco filling.

So the only argument left is about the technical requirements surrounding the term 'ground beef'. But that doesn't apply because of the modifier 'seasoned'. The requirement is only to protect the use of the *term* 'ground beef'. It does not mean that ready-to-eat products cannot contain the phrase 'ground beef' non-deceptively in combination with other terms to describe what they actually are.

slingblade

31st January 2011, 11:00 PM

Puppycow

1st February 2011, 01:30 AM

Usually the urban legend is about "hooves and lips". That's wrong because for one thing the regulations prevent the use of cartilage and bone (a percentage limit) for anything but pet food. (or processed to make gelatin). For another there just isn't enough to meet the demand for hot dogs and sausages. There are plenty of "scraps" to make hot dogs or sausages (or scrapple).

The regulations (I cited earlier) do however allow for much more fat to be used in fresh porkbreakfast sausages than for hot dogs. In that sense there is more crap in them.

The regulations do allow for defects like rodent hairs, droppings, maggots, insects and mold. It's called the Food Defect Action Level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels). While it doesn't cover meat products specifically, it does say that it is treated on a "case by case" basis if needed.

I hope that helps clarifies things a bit.

Thanks for the clarification.
More details here (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Sanitation/ucm056174.htm)

I note that these are legal limits for contamination, not what you should expect to get from a reputable and sanitary food provider at least 99% of the time.

The FDA set these action levels because it is economically impractical to grow, harvest, or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects. Products harmful to consumers are subject to regulatory action whether or not they exceed the action levels.

It is incorrect to assume that because the FDA has an established defect action level for a food commodity, the food manufacturer need only stay just below that level. The defect levels do no represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products--the averages are actually much lower. The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product "adulterated"; and subject to enforcement action under Section 402(a)(3) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.

I wouldn't worry too much that you are literally eating rat filth every time you eat a taco, a hot dog, or a breakfast sausage. Breakfast sausages do contain a lot of fat, but that's how they are supposed to be made. They shouldn't contain any rat hairs or insects in principle, and usually don't in practice, but if they do contain them below these levels, it shouldn't be harmful to health.

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 06:12 AM

Given the ingredients listed for the "Taco Meat Filling", I find it hard to believe there is less than 40% ground beef in the filling. I don't know about you guys, but the tacos I get from TB certainly aren't full of water and/or seasonings...

Well, the definitions in the USDA guidelines are specifically for ingredient labelling. In other words, if you list one of your ingredients as "ground beef", or you market your product as "ground beef", it must conform to those requirements or you have to call it something else (and seasoned ground beef is not a misrepresentation).

Whiel what Taco Bell makes is used as a Taco Meat Filling, no where in their literature do I see that listed as an ingredient or called Taco Meat Filling. I suspect "Taco Meat Filling" would be more likely seen on the ingredients list of a Nuka-Burrito package :). Someone did post a picture, but I can't find that phrasing in their marketing or ingredients list anywhere, so I don't know if that is the name they use for it.

If you look at their ingredients list for the product they call "Seasoned Ground Beef", it specifically lists the ingredients. And oddly enough, they do NOT list ground beef, just beef.

So I don't really know what the case here is. Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the suit? Is that available anywhere? It seems to me that we shoudl find out what they are actually suing about. Is it the "Ground Beef" label? I can't see how that would apply, and the same with "Taco Meat Filling". The only thing I can think of that would apply is if beef is not the most common ingredient, as listed in the ingredients list, so that's my assumption right now (i.e. they are arguing there is more filler than beef) :)

Emet

1st February 2011, 06:45 AM

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the suit? Is that available anywhere?

In case anyone's interested, here's the lawsuit:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70366868/Read-the-full-Taco-Bell-lawsuit-here

(...)
A false-advertising lawsuit filed last week that caused an online stir alleges the company's filling doesn't have enough beef to be called that. The lawsuit seeks to make the company stop calling it "beef," and pay the suing law firm's bill.
(...)
The plaintiffs would have to prove that most diners believe they are getting something other than what Taco Bell serves. Most customers realize taco meat has ingredients besides beef, said Marc Williams, an attorney at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough with extensive experience in fast-food litigation.
In addition, the lawsuit cites U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for labeling ground beef. The problem? They don't apply to restaurants. The USDA's rules apply to meat processors — the companies Taco Bell buys its meat from.
(...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110129/ap_on_re_us/us_taco_bell_lawsuit

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 07:06 AM

Thanks, Emet, but that also expalins why I didn't see it the first itme. That site (docstoc) is blocked from here.

But it does look as if I were almost right, and their argument, while not about the listing of "beef" in the ingredient list, is about the name beef in the title and how much beef there actually is.

And, of course, here we have another confirmation that the USDA rules are not for restaurants.

TragicMonkey

1st February 2011, 07:39 AM

I'm simply nonplussed that it took so many posts to explain the difference between regulations for producing processed raw meat and regulations for labeling a product that contains cooked meat.

...or are we not done yet?

Simply Nonplussed, a new fragrance by Elizabeth Taylor. Can't you just see the commercial for it? I can, and it's beautiful! Black-and-white, of course, with Liz herself on all fours on a palatial terrace, eating huge fistfuls of loose taco meat from a vast mound of it. A handsome young European-looking guy in a tux comes up to her and says "That's not entirely beef!" Liz pauses, looks up, and smiles, her mouth and jaw sticky with grease and clumps of meat. "It's never simple....it's Simply Nonplussed!" Maybe there could be a Taco Bell tie-in, with Liz pulling out a chihuahua's skeleton from the meat and tossing it aside, and customers get a sample of Simply Nonplussed and Simply Nonplussed For Men with every purchase of a Pukelada con Queso or something.

roger

1st February 2011, 08:05 AM

Whiel what Taco Bell makes is used as a Taco Meat Filling, no where in their literature do I see that listed as an ingredient or called Taco Meat Filling. I suspect "Taco Meat Filling" would be more likely seen on the ingredients list of a Nuka-Burrito package :). Someone did post a picture, but I can't find that phrasing in their marketing or ingredients list anywhere, so I don't know if that is the name they use for it.Well, that is one of the things that the suit is complaining about. Taco Bell calls it "ground beef", whereas (they allege) it should be correctly labelled as "taco meat filling". And, furthermore it (they allege) does not even conform to that labelling requirement, as it falls below the 40% meat requirement.

from the suit:
In reality, a substantial majority of the filling is comprised of substances other than beef, and is required to be labelled and advertised as "taco meat filling".

They also provided proof that internally they do call the product "taco meat filling" by providing a scan of the label.

I would suspect (I ain't no lawyer) that the USDA labelling policy would apply because Taco Bell functions as both a restaurant and manufacturer. Their manufacturing division provides ready made taco meat filling to the restaurants. I doubt you can use the fact that both arms of a business are under the same roof to get around labelling requirements. For example, there are extensive rules about labelling frozen pizzas. You can't just go buy a grocery chain, sell your mislabeled pizzas there, and then claim "but the rules don't apply to groceries, so bite me", I would suspect. I don't claim this paragraph is true, it's just my speculation. It'll be interesting to see how the courts interpret this.

BenBurch

1st February 2011, 08:09 AM

I can't believe Taco Bell got sued, and nowhere in the suit is "explosive diarrhea" mentioned.

They KILLED KENNY!

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 08:11 AM

Well, that is one of the things that the suit is complaining about. Taco Bell calls it "ground beef", whereas (they allege) it should be correctly labelled as "taco meat filling". And, furthermore it (they allege) does not even conform to that labelling requirement, as it falls below the 40% meat requirement.

I see.

But, Taco Bell calls it "Seasoned Ground Beef", not "Ground Beef"; the "Ground Beef" definition applies to meat packaging and labelling as an ingredient; and "Seasoned Ground Beef" is the name of their product with a USDA approved ingredients listing (and Ground Beef is not one of the ingredients, Beef is).

Not to mention I think their testing is FoS :)

I think what someone suggested was correct, this case was hoping for a PR settlement, and TB decided "Screw that" and called their bluff. I bet they suspected more filler than TB actually usues (like 30% or something), and did not expect that TB would turn around and claim 88%. I have a feelign this could go badly for the plantiff.

Of course, they still get their 15 minutes of fame either way.

Emet

1st February 2011, 08:19 AM

Of course, they still get their 15 minutes of fame either way.

Which, since they're not asking for monetary damages, seems to me to be the purpose of the lawsuit.

TragicMonkey

1st February 2011, 08:21 AM

roger

1st February 2011, 08:58 AM

I would suspect (I ain't no lawyer) that the USDA labelling policy would apply because Taco Bell functions as both a restaurant and manufacturer. Their manufacturing division provides ready made taco meat filling to the restaurants. I doubt you can use the fact that both arms of a business are under the same roof to get around labelling requirements. For example, there are extensive rules about labelling frozen pizzas. You can't just go buy a grocery chain, sell your mislabeled pizzas there, and then claim "but the rules don't apply to groceries, so bite me", I would suspect. I don't claim this paragraph is true, it's just my speculation. It'll be interesting to see how the courts interpret this.Hmm, looking further, it appears that the labeling laws do not apply to manufacturers so long as the food product is not a ready to eat item sold in individual packaging (source (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm053455.htm)). Since the taco meat filling is sold in bulk, taken out, and the tacos are assembled on site, it seems that Taco Bell would be exempt from the labeling laws. I know there were recent changes in the law about nutrition labeling if you have a chain with more than 20 outlets, but that is nutrition (calories, carbs, etc), not labeling in the sense of food names.

I don't know, it's almost like I'm not a lawyer or something! It's interesting, but kind of pointless to pontificate absent the specialized training and subject matter expertise necessary to really judge the situation.

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 09:27 AM

I don't know, it's almost like I'm not a lawyer or something! It's interesting, but kind of pointless to pontificate absent the specialized training and subject matter expertise necessary to really judge the situation.

But it's fun!

:D

Dancing David

1st February 2011, 10:04 AM

Both chains were owned by PepsiCo.

Now Called Yum! (http://www.yum.com/)

Dancing David

1st February 2011, 10:09 AM

I can't believe Taco Bell got sued, and nowhere in the suit is "explosive diarrhea" mentioned.

:D

Billy Mays
Chipotleway (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/251865/billy-mays-here)

Travis

1st February 2011, 11:54 AM

I'm glad someone brought up Jack in the Box. I have it on good authority that their taco "meat" is almost entirely soy. I don't care though. Tastes good to me.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 01:11 PM

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 01:18 PM

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 01:22 PM

I wouldn't worry too much that you are literally eating rat filth every time you eat a taco, a hot dog, or a breakfast sausage. Breakfast sausages do contain a lot of fat, but that's how they are supposed to be made. They shouldn't contain any rat hairs or insects in principle, and usually don't in practice, but if they do contain them below these levels, it shouldn't be harmful to health.

I don't. Some people however complain about finding a hair in their food. Hair, human at least is probably the cleanest thing you'll find in most foods.

The levels are set so no one gets sick, which is good. But it's still a little shocking to see how many puss filled lesions are acceptable.

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 01:30 PM

Couldn't find the USDA, but it's pretty rare to have one body say it's OK and another prohibit it.

Plus people are making stuff up like cooking it changes everything. Apparently you cook a chicken it should be labeled "stir fry". Who knew?

I can't beat that kind of logic!

So have you got an argument yet for why restaurants can sell "hamburgers" without running afoul of the definition in teh exact same regulation you quote for ground beef?

Do you undertsand twhat those regulations are intended for?

Can you explain why the USDA/FDA approved ingredients list for Taco Bell's taco filling is named "Seasoned Ground Beef"?

Really, you've done nothing here but show your own lack of critical thinking.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 01:37 PM

So have you got an argument yet for why restaurants can sell "hamburgers" without running afoul of the definition in teh exact same regulation you quote for ground beef?

This is proof you didn't read any of the regulations. I suggest you read them and ask the question again, if need be.

Really, you've done nothing here but show your own lack of critical thinking.

Right, you don't read the regulations but decide you're the expert anyways. That's some critical thinking. :rolleyes:

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 01:39 PM

This is proof you didn't read any of the regulations. I suggest you read them and ask the question again, if need be.

Really?

Can you point me, specifically, to what you are referring to that I haven't read?

Or are you simply throwing out **** again to try and prove how correct you are, like when you posted Canadian law as if it had relevence?

I'm not trying to act like the expert, I'm trying to get you to actually, you know, support your position with evidence.

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 01:48 PM

In regards to hamburger, here's the section you're basing your opinion on:
Subpart B--Raw Meat Products

Sec. 319.15 Miscellaneous beef products.

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. ``Chopped Beef'' or ``Ground Beef''
shall 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. When beef cheek meat (trimmed beef
cheeks) is used in the preparation of chopped or ground beef, the amount
of such cheek meat shall be limited to 25 percent; and if in excess of
natural proportions, its presence shall be declared on the label, in the
ingredient statement required by Sec. 317.2 of this subchapter, if any,
and otherwise contiguous to the name of the product.
(b) Hamburger. ``Hamburger'' shall consist of chopped fresh and/or
frozen beef with or without the addition of beef fat as such and/or
seasoning, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not
contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders. Beef cheek meat
(trimmed beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of hamburger only
in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) Beef patties. ``Beef Patties'' shall consist of chopped fresh
and/or frozen beef with or without the addition of beef fat as such and/
or seasonings. Binders or extenders, Mechanically Separated (Species)
used in accordance with Sec. 319.6, and/or partially defatted beef fatty
tissue may be used without added water or with added water only in
amounts such that the product characteristics are essentially that of a
meat pattie.
(d) Fabricated steak. Fabricated beef steaks, veal steaks, beef and
veal steaks, or veal and beef steaks, and similar products, such as
those labeled ``Beef Steak, Chopped, Shaped, Frozen,'' ``Minute Steak,
Formed, Wafer Sliced, Frozen,'' ``Veal Steaks, Beef Added, Chopped--
Molded--Cubed--Frozen, Hydrolyzed Plant Protein, and Flavoring'' shall
be prepared by comminuting and forming the product from fresh and/or
frozen meat, with or without added fat, of the species indicated on the
label. Such products shall not contain more than 30 percent fat and
shall not contain added water or extenders. Transglutaminase enzyme at
levels of up to 65 ppm may be used as a binder. Beef cheek meat (trimmed
beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of fabricated beef steaks
only in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(e) Partially defatted beef fatty tissue. ``Partially Defatted Beef
Fatty Tissue'' is a beef byproduct derived from the

[[Page 299]]

low temperature rendering (not exceeding 120 deg.F.) of fresh beef
fatty tissue. Such product shall have a pinkish color and a fresh odor
and appearance.

[35 FR 15597, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 38 FR 29215, Oct. 23, 1973; 43
FR 26424, June 20, 1978; 47 FR 10784, Mar. 12, 1982; 47 FR 28257, June
29, 1982; 66 FR 54916, Oct. 31, 2001]

So, why is the use of the words "ground beef" in "seasoned ground beef" a violation, but the use of the word "hamburger" in something that comes with bread, cheese, lettuce, barbeque sauce, or whatever else is not?

Does the regulation suddenly not apply when it's cooked?

OR, perhaps, everyone else is right, and the USDA guidlines apply to ingredient labelling and meat manufacturers, as everyone except you and the plantiff seems to have grasped now?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 01:55 PM

But, Taco Bell calls it "Seasoned Ground Beef", not "Ground Beef"; the "Ground Beef" definition applies to meat packaging and labelling as an ingredient; and "Seasoned Ground Beef" is the name of their product with a USDA approved ingredients listing (and Ground Beef is not one of the ingredients, Beef is)

It looks like you're getting the point but using some bad logic to continue on with your fantasy. I'd like for you to go to the kitchen and pick a few items and list the ingredients here, because anyone who has ever read a label knows the meat comes first (hopefully), then later down the list is spices.

No label say "seasoned ground beef", it will be "ground beef"...."spices and seasonings". "Seasoned Ground Beef" can't be the name of a product if it doesn't use "Ground Beef", it's misleading.

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 01:58 PM

It looks like you're getting the point but using some bad logic to continue on with your fantasy. I'd like for you to go to the kitchen and pick a few items and list the ingredients here, because anyone who has ever read a label knows the meat comes first (hopefully), then later down the list is spices.

No label say "seasoned ground beef", it will be "ground beef"...."spices and seasonings". "Seasoned Ground Beef" can't be the name of a product if it doesn't use "Ground Beef", it's misleading.

So you have NOT actually looked at Taco Bell's ingredient list?

Seasoned ground beef is NOT listed on their ingredients list as an ingredient, only in their marketing.

If you look at their actual ingredient page, you'll find the following entry:

Seasoned Ground Beef

Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates. CONTAINS SOYBEAN, WHEAT

Available at http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/ingredientstatement.

Wait, don't tell me, your extensive research didn't lead you to actually look at their ingredients page to see what they said was actualyl in their product?

By the way, can you tell me exactly what part of the regulation I missed? Or why it doesn't apply to Hamburger? Still waiting for that.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 02:00 PM

So, why is the use of the words "ground beef" in "seasoned ground beef" a violation, but the use of the word "hamburger" in something that comes with bread, cheese, lettuce, barbeque sauce, or whatever else is not?

You don't know the difference between a "pattie" (or hamburger pattie) and a hamburger do you?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 02:04 PM

Seasoned ground beef is NOT listed on their ingredients list as an ingredient, only in their marketing.

lol, that's the reason for the lawsuit, they're marketing it as "seasoned ground beef". :rolleyes:

And for the final time, the marketing should reflect the label or it is misleading as per the regulation.

CynicalSkeptic

1st February 2011, 02:23 PM

One funny aside to that, the sushi place I always used to go to never charged sales tax, claiming since they only sell raw food they don't have to.

Sounds like complete nonsense since there are plenty of cooked foods in sushi. Start with the rice.

Now, if that post was a joke, just to work in the "fishy" pun, then you got me.

CynicalSkeptic

1st February 2011, 02:30 PM

Does the regulation suddenly not apply when it's cooked?

Well, that would make sense since it's under the heading of "Subpart B--Raw Meat Products"

Hellbound

1st February 2011, 02:42 PM

You don't know the difference between a "pattie" (or hamburger pattie) and a hamburger do you?

Apparently, neither does the USDA, because the regulation does NOT specify "hamburger patty", but "hamburger".

lol, that's the reason for the lawsuit, they're marketing it as "seasoned ground beef". :rolleyes:

And for the final time, the marketing should reflect the label or it is misleading as per the regulation.

This would be the regulation you have yet to point anyone to? THe regulation you can't find?

Well, that would make sense since it's under the heading of "Subpart B--Raw Meat Products"

Yes, exactly, but someone here thinks that's just there for decoration or something.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 03:28 PM

Apparently, neither does the USDA, because the regulation does NOT specify "hamburger patty", but "hamburger".

They do, use your critical thinking skills. Try to determine why they list "patties" and "hamburger". I'll give you a hint: Roseanne

This would be the regulation you have yet to point anyone to? THe regulation you can't find?

For the US? No. But for Canada yes. No dealer shall apply to any prepackaged product or sell, import into Canada or advertise any prepackaged product that has applied to it a label that contains any false or misleading representation relating to or that may reasonably be regarded as relating to that product [7(1), CPLA].

Since the laws all appear to be the same, and Taco Bell operates here in Canada under the same pretense I don't see the need to differentiate. Aside from your floundering for excuses that is.

Think for a moment logically. The laws are all written with "raw" being the default assumption. They only differentiate when cooking becomes a significant factor. There's no reason to list every single food item regulation as it applies to raw and cooked. That would be stupid. The same goes for frozen.
What you're proposing is 4 sets of regulations, one for frozen, one for raw, one for cooked and one for partially cooked. It doesn't work like that. It only makes distinctions when necessary.

mortimer

1st February 2011, 03:45 PM

lol, that's the reason for the lawsuit, they're marketing it as "seasoned ground beef". :rolleyes:

And for the final time, the marketing should reflect the label or it is misleading as per the regulation.

No, they are marketing it as a "beef taco" or a "beef and bean burrito" or a "beef tostada".

You can't go into a Taco Bell and order "seasoned ground beef".

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 03:55 PM

No, they are marketing it as a "beef taco" or a "beef and bean burrito" or a "beef tostada".

You can't go into a Taco Bell and order "seasoned ground beef".

lol. Seriously, is it that hard to google things? Or read the thread?

Why wouldn't you investigate this claim before making it? Do you always pull things out of the ether, or is this something your mom told you as a child? Or are you just lying?

mortimer

1st February 2011, 04:34 PM

lol. Seriously, is it that hard to google things? Or read the thread?

Why wouldn't you investigate this claim before making it? Do you always pull things out of the ether, or is this something your mom told you as a child? Or are you just lying?
I see. Personal attacks rather than actually addressing the point.

Have you tried purchasing "seasoned ground beef" from Taco Bell? How did that go?

mortimer

1st February 2011, 04:38 PM

Just to make this easier for you, 3bodyproblem, would you have a problem if Taco Bell listed two entries on their ingredients page:

Beef ingredients: 100% ground beef

Beef seasoning ingredients: Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates. CONTAINS SOYBEAN, WHEAT

And they mixed the beef and the seasoning ingredients in the exact same proportion they do now?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 04:46 PM

I see. Personal attacks rather than actually addressing the point.

Have you tried purchasing "seasoned ground beef" from Taco Bell? How did that go?

My apologies, I meant your question was stupid and ignorant, not you. We all make stupid comments from time to time. Anyhow...

What does that have to do with Taco Bell advertising they sell "seasoned ground beef"? Do you understand what a class action lawsuit is about? I doubt if someone went in to Taco Bell and ordered "seasoned gold flakes" and they served them it would matter. It's still not class action worthy.

So your derail is pointless, but yes I have ordered "the spicy burrito with seasoned ground beef', and been served a spicy burrito with seasoned taco meat filling. Taco Bell doesn't have "ground beef" on the premises.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 04:50 PM

mortimer

1st February 2011, 06:10 PM

My apologies, I meant your question was stupid and ignorant, not you. We all make stupid comments from time to time. Anyhow...

What does that have to do with Taco Bell advertising they sell "seasoned ground beef"? Do you understand what a class action lawsuit is about? I doubt if someone went in to Taco Bell and ordered "seasoned gold flakes" and they served them it would matter. It's still not class action worthy.

So your derail is pointless, but yes I have ordered "the spicy burrito with seasoned ground beef', and been served a spicy burrito with seasoned taco meat filling. Taco Bell doesn't have "ground beef" on the premises.

Taco Bell does not advertise that they sell "seasoned ground beef", nor can you order "seasoned ground beef". I think I understand where your failure of logic lies.

BobTheDonkey

1st February 2011, 06:10 PM

It has to do with the advertising meeting the label requirements.

To list "beef" from what I saw in the legislation it would have to be chunks of a certain size, not ground up. Once it's ground it falls under the "Ground Beef" regulation.

Is that the legislation for meatpackers, the legislation for restaurants, or the legislation for labeling requirements?

mortimer

1st February 2011, 06:13 PM

It has to do with the advertising meeting the label requirements.

To list "beef" from what I saw in the legislation it would have to be chunks of a certain size, not ground up. Once it's ground it falls under the "Ground Beef" regulation.
Really? Chunks of a certain size? What size, precisely? What regulation, specifically, regulates the size of the chunks of ground beef?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:29 PM

Really? Chunks of a certain size? What size, precisely? What regulation, specifically, regulates the size of the chunks of ground beef?

I love lazy debaters. "Show me, I'm so special I can't google and support my own claims"

"Livestock Carcass Grading Regulations"
"A "solid cut meat product" is an edible meat product consisting of either a solid piece of meat or containing at least 80% of boneless skinless meat in pieces weighing 25 g or more."

It's a pointless derail anyways, ground meat is defined and there are labeling rules and therefore advertising rules. Let's look at ground meat:

"In the labelling of ground meat, only the following four designations are permitted, depending on the fat content: regular ground "meat" (max. 30% fat), medium ground "meat" (max. 23% fat), lean ground "meat" (max. 17% fat) and extra-lean ground "meat" (max. 10% fat), the term "meat" being replaced by the name of the animal species (e.g., regular ground beef).

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:35 PM

Is that the legislation for meatpackers, the legislation for restaurants, or the legislation for labeling requirements?

It's pretty clear from the regulations labeling is industry wide, from the packer to the restaurant. There are some exceptions and I imagine that's Taco Bell's defense, but "Ground Meat" is pretty specific. The mixture that Taco Bell uses doesn't meet the requirements of "ground beef", cooked or seasoned doesn't change this basic standard. You can't use a mix, form it into a pattie, cook it and say it's made from "extra lean ground beef".

Emet

1st February 2011, 06:38 PM

I love lazy debaters. "Show me, I'm so special I can't google and support my own claims"

"Livestock Carcass Grading Regulations"
"A "solid cut meat product" is an edible meat product consisting of either a solid piece of meat or containing at least 80% of boneless skinless meat in pieces weighing 25 g or more."

It's a pointless derail anyways, ground meat is defined and there are labeling rules and therefore advertising rules. Let's look at ground meat:

"In the labelling of ground meat, only the following four designations are permitted, depending on the fat content: regular ground "meat" (max. 30% fat), medium ground "meat" (max. 23% fat), lean ground "meat" (max. 17% fat) and extra-lean ground "meat" (max. 10% fat), the term "meat" being replaced by the name of the animal species (e.g., regular ground beef).

Links would be appreciated. Are these Canadian or US regulations?

Thanks.

JoelKatz

1st February 2011, 06:39 PM

"In the labelling of ground meat, only the following four designations are permitted, depending on the fat content: regular ground "meat" (max. 30% fat), medium ground "meat" (max. 23% fat), lean ground "meat" (max. 17% fat) and extra-lean ground "meat" (max. 10% fat), the term "meat" being replaced by the name of the animal species (e.g., regular ground beef).Taco Bell's beef taco filling is not ground meat, so these regulations simply don't apply. It's ground beef to which water, oats, and seasonings have been added, which we all agree is not "ground meat".

Is it your contention that Taco Bell can't label this product in any way that would be lawful? None of the designations permitted give you any way to explain that water has been added, and you seem to be arguing that these are quite literally the only designations that can apply to ground meat.

You seem, at least to me, to be making your arguments with so few words that I can't quite tell what they are. Are you claiming the regulation you cited above specifically makes Taco Bell's "seasoned ground beef" designation illegal?

mortimer

1st February 2011, 06:43 PM

I love lazy debaters. "Show me, I'm so special I can't google and support my own claims"
Lot of self love there, since you haven't supported any of your claims. I didn't make the claim about "chunk size". You did. And you didn't support it with any evidence.

"Livestock Carcass Grading Regulations"
"A "solid cut meat product" is an edible meat product consisting of either a solid piece of meat or containing at least 80% of boneless skinless meat in pieces weighing 25 g or more."
This is awesome. So nobody can sell anything that claims to have beef in it unless it has chunks weighing 25g or more, according to your unsourced claim? That pretty much rules out *all* ground beef products. Since when is any ground beef considered a "solid cut meat product"?
It's a pointless derail anyways, ground meat is defined and there are labeling rules and therefore advertising rules. Let's look at ground meat:

"In the labelling of ground meat, only the following four designations are permitted, depending on the fat content: regular ground "meat" (max. 30% fat), medium ground "meat" (max. 23% fat), lean ground "meat" (max. 17% fat) and extra-lean ground "meat" (max. 10% fat), the term "meat" being replaced by the name of the animal species (e.g., regular ground beef).
But since you can't buy "ground meat" at Taco Bell, nor do they advertise the sale of "ground meat", this "rule" is not applicable.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:46 PM

Links would be appreciated. Are these Canadian or US regulations?

Thanks.

Still Canadian.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch7/table7e.shtml

Emet

1st February 2011, 06:48 PM

Still Canadian.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch7/table7e.shtml

Thanks. The lawsuit is in the US, so why link to Canadian regulations?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:50 PM

Taco Bell's beef taco filling is not ground meat, so these regulations simply don't apply. It's ground beef to which water, oats, and seasonings have been added, which we all agree is not "ground meat".

If it's not "ground beef" then they shouldn't advertise it as such. There are a few other things they can call it, but I believe "filling" is the desired one, because "meat by-product" sounds terrible.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:54 PM

Thanks. The lawsuit is in the US, so why link to Canadian regulations?

Because they sell it over here under the same names and the laws are all the same. Do you think it makes any difference? NAFTA pretty much meant an equal playing field. I started looking up USDA and FDA regulations but when I saw they were all the same I just used the Canadian sites because they were easier to navigate.

mortimer

1st February 2011, 06:55 PM

It has to do with the advertising meeting the label requirements.

To list "beef" from what I saw in the legislation it would have to be chunks of a certain size, not ground up. Once it's ground it falls under the "Ground Beef" regulation.
So can I assume you won't be addressing the question?

For convenience's sake, I'll ask it again. If Taco Bell lists the ground beef as one ingredient, and the seasoning as another, you couldn't possibly have a problem with it, could you? I mean, what's the difference when the beef and the seasoning is mixed together?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:57 PM

But since you can't buy "ground meat" at Taco Bell, nor do they advertise the sale of "ground meat", this "rule" is not applicable.

That's a lie. I've bought it. There's a button on the register and the receipt says:

add +snd grd beef

You're just being ridiculous and making stuff up.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 06:59 PM

This is awesome. So nobody can sell anything that claims to have beef in it unless it has chunks weighing 25g or more, according to your unsourced claim? That pretty much rules out *all* ground beef products. Since when is any ground beef considered a "solid cut meat product"?

Wow, where'd the goal posts go. This is about "ground beef", I could care less about your fantasy products and labeling them for you. If you want I charge $200/hr. :rolleyes:

mortimer

1st February 2011, 07:04 PM

That's a lie. I've bought it. There's a button on the register and the receipt says:

add +snd grd beef

You're just being ridiculous and making stuff up.

You realize what the word "add" means, right? If your little anecdote is true (we have no reason to believe it is), you'll need to show that they'll sell you "seasoned ground beef" as an item, not as something added to an actual menu item.

Why does the Taco Bell web site not show "seasoned ground beef" as a menu item?

Why do Taco Bell commercials and other advertisements not advertise "seasoned ground beef" as a menu item?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 07:05 PM

e. Are you claiming the regulation you cited above specifically makes Taco Bell's "seasoned ground beef" designation illegal?

Well it clearly shows what Taco Bell calls "seasoned ground beef" isn't "ground beef".

The law also states seasonings and salt are allowed as long as they are indicated on the label. So seasoning it doesn't change anything.

mortimer

1st February 2011, 07:07 PM

"Livestock Carcass Grading Regulations"
"A "solid cut meat product" is an edible meat product consisting of either a solid piece of meat or containing at least 80% of boneless skinless meat in pieces weighing 25 g or more."

This is awesome. So nobody can sell anything that claims to have beef in it unless it has chunks weighing 25g or more, according to your unsourced claim? That pretty much rules out *all* ground beef products. Since when is any ground beef considered a "solid cut meat product"?

Wow, where'd the goal posts go. This is about "ground beef", I could care less about your fantasy products and labeling them for you. If you want I charge $200/hr. :rolleyes:

Fantastic. This is your claim. Fantasy products? Are you now saying that your claim about ground beef being a "solid cut meat product" is a fantasy? I'd agree with that.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 07:11 PM

Why does the Taco Bell web site not show "seasoned ground beef" as a menu item?

Do they show "12" flours" or "10" flours"? How about "3 cheese" or "peppers".

They show it as an ingredient on their website, so I don't know why they don't have it listed as a menu item. I know I've bought plenty of things that aren't on the menu at Taco Bell. I always ordered off the menu when I was a vegetarian.

Why do Taco Bell commercials and other advertisements not advertise "seasoned ground beef" as a menu item?

Another lie. You just keep making stuff up and expect it to fly? Unreal.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 07:14 PM

Are you now saying that your claim about ground beef being a "solid cut meat product" is a fantasy? I'd agree with that.

More lies, I specifically didn't call "ground beef" a "solid meat cut product". You did, at least you wanted to. And that legislation is part of the reason you can't just call it "beef".

It's misleading, because every one knows when you put meat into a grinder you get "ground meat". :rolleyes:

ETA: unless you want to put it into a sausage, then it falls under another regulation for labeling.

mortimer

1st February 2011, 07:30 PM

Do they show "12" flours" or "10" flours"? How about "3 cheese" or "peppers".

They show it as an ingredient on their website, so I don't know why they don't have it listed as a menu item. I know I've bought plenty of things that aren't on the menu at Taco Bell. I always ordered off the menu when I was a vegetarian.
What your silly "12" flours, etc is supposed to prove, nobody knows but you.

Feel free to provide *any* evidence that you can walk into a Taco Bell and order "seasoned ground beef". So far, you've avoided doing so, and I think we both know why.
Another lie. You just keep making stuff up and expect it to fly? Unreal.
And feel free to prove it a lie. Show an advertisement of any sort that shows "seasoned ground beef" is a menu item.

mortimer

1st February 2011, 07:35 PM

More lies, I specifically didn't call "ground beef" a "solid meat cut product". You did, at least you wanted to. And that legislation is part of the reason you can't just call it "beef".

It's misleading, because every one knows when you put meat into a grinder you get "ground meat". :rolleyes:

ETA: unless you want to put it into a sausage, then it falls under another regulation for labeling.
Ah ok, I went back and read your post again. You're saying that Taco Bell couldn't label "ground beef" as an ingredient because calling it "beef" would make it fall under the "solid meat cut product" designation. So your claim, then, is that you can't label "ground beef" as "ground beef".

The hoops you are jumping through are remarkable, but I don't think it's fooling anyone.

slingblade

1st February 2011, 07:36 PM

Yeah, there's no point in arguing this with 3body, who cannot understand the basic distinctions in the law, in the regulations, or even between two countries.

Seasoned ground beef contains ground beef, seasonings, and water.
The lawsuit seeks to establish whether Taco Bell is putting non-meat fillers in that mixture as well, to the point that the ground beef constitutes less than half of the mixture, as the suit claims.

The product actually consists of 88% ground beef. So the claim is false and the suit will fail.

ETA: I supposed this place should be sued, as well, as they are also using illegal terminology?

http://www.maid-rite.com/aboutus/unique.shtml

"In addition to our signature Maid-Rite ground beef sandwiches,"

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 07:50 PM

What your silly "12" flours, etc is supposed to prove, nobody knows but you.

Yah right, by your logic if they don't appear on the Taco Bell website they don't exist.

Feel free to provide *any* evidence that you can walk into a Taco Bell and order "seasoned ground beef". So far, you've avoided doing so, and I think we both know why.

:dl:

How about a class action lawsuit? You're just being silly now, deny deny deny. I suggest you read the law suit and look long and hard at the evidence they submitted instead of continuing on this "They didn't say that" nonsense.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 07:55 PM

Yeah, there's no point in arguing this with 3body, who cannot understand the basic distinctions in the law, in the regulations, or even between two countries.

How about this, I've shown numerous cases where they are the same. You show me one where they differ. OK? Show me for once. :rolleyes:

Seasoned ground beef contains ground beef, seasonings, and water.

Correct.

The lawsuit seeks to establish whether Taco Bell is putting non-meat fillers in that mixture as well, to the point that the ground beef constitutes less than half of the mixture, as the suit claims.

Actually if there's any filler or extenders it isn't "ground beef". Read the law, it's been cited numerous times.

The product actually consists of 88% ground beef. So the claim is false and the suit will fail.

Doubtful, it can't contain fillers and extenders to be called "ground beef". the addition of fillers and extenders also has to be identified, it currently isn't.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 07:58 PM

Ah ok, I went back and read your post again. You're saying that Taco Bell couldn't label "ground beef" as an ingredient because calling it "beef" would make it fall under the "solid meat cut product" designation. So your claim, then, is that you can't label "ground beef" as "ground beef".

The hoops you are jumping through are remarkable, but I don't think it's fooling anyone.

Yes because if it wasn't ground of chopped then it would have to be something entirely different like "beef" chunks, which have to be a certain size. Are you following how the regulation is written or is it beyond your understanding?

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 08:06 PM

This has been interesting, but it's pretty cut and dry, what Taco Bell calls ground beef isn't ground beef. Unless there are exceptions in the law that allow them to advertise a product that clearly isn't "ground beef" as "ground beef" they will be ordered to stop.

I'll be awaiting my reparations :D

slingblade

1st February 2011, 08:57 PM

How about this, I've shown numerous cases where they are the same. You show me one where they differ. OK? Show me for once.

How about this, there's no point in arguing this with you. You started out quoting regs for meat packers and tried to say that if Taco Bell adds water to its ground beef, that makes the water a filler or extender and so it isn't ground beef anymore.

And that's just flat wrong. It's still ground beef, and the water they add is for cooking, not for filling, bulking, or extending the meat.

There's no point arguing this with you.

Furcifer

1st February 2011, 10:32 PM

You started out quoting regs for meat packers and tried to say that if Taco Bell adds water to its ground beef, that makes the water a filler or extender and so it isn't ground beef anymore.

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. "Chopped Beef" or "Ground Beef"
shall 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.

I didn't try to say it, I QUOTED IT FROM THE REGULATION. :rolleyes:

There's no use arguing, that's correct, you're making outrageous claims.

BobTheDonkey

1st February 2011, 11:21 PM

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. "Chopped Beef" or "Ground Beef"
shall 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.

I didn't try to say it, I QUOTED IT FROM THE REGULATION. :rolleyes:

There's no use arguing, that's correct, you're making outrageous claims.

Yes, the regulation for meat packers, not the regulation for labeling of ingredients in a product.

If TB is including a larger percentage, by weight, of ground beef in their filling, then it is not false labeling to include "ground beef" on their label as an ingredient because TB is not a meat packer/slaughterhouse/wholesaler, TB is a restaurant. As such, "seasoned ground beef" is accurate in that it is ground beef that has been seasoned.

You're still arguing Canadian laws (which I dont' care if they're mostly word-for-word identical to US law, we're discussing a lawsuit here in the US, so you'd better be citing US laws) that apply to butchers/slaughterhouses and applying them where they don't belong.

If TB's taco filling is less than 40% beef, then it cannot be called "taco meat filling", but that's not what's being alleged by you. You're alleging that TB cannot include "ground beef" as an ingredient in their taco because there are other ingredients in the taco. That's just asinine.

slingblade

1st February 2011, 11:40 PM

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. "Chopped Beef" or "Ground Beef"
shall 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.

I didn't try to say it, I QUOTED IT FROM THE REGULATION. :rolleyes:

There's no use arguing, that's correct, you're making outrageous claims.

No, I am not.

The regulations you keep all-capping at me like a damned child are for meat packing, and they are meant for the regulation of the meat-packing industry only. They are meant to keep meat packing houses from adding water to raw beef before packaging, to make the meat seem heavier than it actually is. This practice could result in you getting a package of raw ground beef that says it contains one whole pound of meat, but is actually only 15 oz of meat and an ounce of water, which is a fraud.

That is all those regulations are meant for! That's all! Those regulations have nothing at all to do with a restaurant buying the meat and cooking it with water. Cooking ground beef with water doesn't violate the meat packing regulations for packing meat that you keep quoting as if they are relevant.

Why can you not get that you are talking about two different things here?

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 12:23 AM

Yes, the regulation for meat packers, not the regulation for labeling of ingredients in a product.

What? Who told you that or are you just making it up? So you think a retailer can just make up whatever they chose because you think this only applies to meat packers? That's just absurd and I can't believe anyone would make up things like this. As if the law only applies to meat packers. Lol, if anything meat packers have very little to label. And they don't label meat pies and chili con carne and all the other stuff these regulations name. LMFAO, they've got rules for "spaghetti and meat balls". If you ever see them making spaghetti at the meat packers run!

You're still arguing Canadian laws (which I dont' care if they're mostly word-for-word identical to US law, we're discussing a lawsuit here in the US, so you'd better be citing US laws) that apply to butchers/slaughterhouses and applying them where they don't belong.

No, the FDA is American last I checked. :rolleyes:

If TB's taco filling is less than 40% beef, then it cannot be called "taco meat filling", but that's not what's being alleged by you. You're alleging that TB cannot include "ground beef" as an ingredient in their taco because there are other ingredients in the taco. That's just asinine.

Not in their tacos, in their "ground meat". Try to read the legislation BobThe Donkey.

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 12:29 AM

The regulations you keep all-capping at me like a damned child are for meat packing, and they are meant for the regulation of the meat-packing industry only.

lol, no you just made that up. Seriously you think the regulations only apply to meat packers? That's a joke. I can tell you they apply to anyone making food.

This practice could result in you getting a package of raw ground beef that says it contains one whole pound of meat, but is actually only 15 oz of meat and an ounce of water, which is a fraud.

So is calling "meat filling" "ground beef"

That is all those regulations are meant for!

No, they aren't. I don't know where you get this idea from but you're wrong.

But just for fun, how about a link to what you claim OK? Don't post another lie until you link to this imaginary disclaimer that the laws regarding content only apply to meat packers, or the meat packing district, or what ever meat packing place you fancy. That would go a long way to support your claim, if it isn't a lie which I know it is.

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 12:38 AM

This is the worst display of logic, the notion that the "meat packers" have separate (and more stringent apparently) laws when it comes to labeling what they produce.

You can't take ground meat, mix it with filler and call it ground meat. It's plain and simple. "Ground meat" is clearly defined as being a certain percentage lean fresh meat and a certain percentage fat. You can add some salt or seasoning but no water. End of story. No magic Taco Bell labeling laws, no nothing, that's it end of story. Taco Bell can't say their tacos contain ground beef because they don't, it's something else. Period.

JoelKatz

2nd February 2011, 12:47 AM

The law also states seasonings and salt are allowed as long as they are indicated on the label. So seasoning it doesn't change anything.You are repeating a refuted argument without addressing the refutation. You are still confusing "seasoning" food with "adding seasonings to" food.

PhantomWolf

2nd February 2011, 12:54 AM

Why do you keep ignoting this part?

"Ground Beef" shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef

Is the meat you get in your Taco fresh raw meat?

BobTheDonkey

2nd February 2011, 02:12 AM

What? Who told you that or are you just making it up? So you think a retailer can just make up whatever they chose because you think this only applies to meat packers? That's just absurd and I can't believe anyone would make up things like this. As if the law only applies to meat packers. Lol, if anything meat packers have very little to label. And they don't label meat pies and chili con carne and all the other stuff these regulations name. LMFAO, they've got rules for "spaghetti and meat balls". If you ever see them making spaghetti at the meat packers run!
Are we discussing US laws or Canadian laws?

That aside, what you're referencing, 3body, applies strictly to Subpart B--Raw Meat Products

319.15 Miscellaneous beef products.

Is the beef in your taco served raw? No? Then that definition doesn't apply. Period. Thus, this subsection doesn't apply to (most) restaurants as we're discussing cooked meat. And I say (most) because the only raw meats I know of being served are not beef (here's a hint: they're seafood - oysters, clams, sushi, etc). And even then, Subpart B doesn't have definitions for seafood, only for Raw misc beef products (319.15) and Raw misc pork products (319.29). Again, your quoted law only applies to those who sell the meat product raw - meat packers/butchers.

The taco filling is ground beef, prepared for consumption by being seasoned (part of that includes the addition of water and oats). The only applicable law anyone has brought forward in this thread is the minimum beef content required for the "taco meat filling" (or whatever it specifically is) title. Being as the ingredient is advertised as "Seasoned ground beef" and ground beef is the largest, by volume, ingredient next to water and the seasoning, it would be pretty difficult for the maths to work where there's an insufficient amount of ground beef to meet the "taco meat filling" requirements (we're talking like crazy amounts of seasoning, like...inedible food because of all the seasoning and/or a soup mixture) There are only 5 ingredients:

Beef
Water
Seasoning
Salt
Sodium Phosphates

So in order for the beef to not be over the minimum limit, say it's 39% beef, you'd have to have 61% of the product be water and seasonings (including salt). That's a lot of water and seasoning (by volume). You'd have taco flavored chili before you'd have taco filling.

No, the FDA is American last I checked. :rolleyes:

Still Canadian.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch7/table7e.shtml
So, which one of these is the misstatement?

Not in their tacos, in their "ground meat". Try to read the legislation BobThe Donkey.
Do try to keep up. The legislation you've quoted does not apply to Taco Bell as TB does not sell raw meat (see above).

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 02:22 AM

You are still confusing "seasoning" food with "adding seasonings to" food.

wah? :boggled:

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 02:23 AM

Is the meat you get in your Taco fresh raw meat?

Is it "ground beef"? Nope.

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 02:33 AM

Are we discussing US laws or Canadian laws?

They're the same.

Is the beef in your taco served raw? No? Then that definition doesn't apply. Period.

Yes it does. What magic do you attribute to a stove that it can change some beef and filler mix into "ground beef"?

Thus, this subsection doesn't apply to (most) restaurants as we're discussing cooked meat.

Yes it does. Why do you keep lying? Cite your source for this lie you keep trying to perpetuate.

Again, your quoted law only applies to those who sell the meat product raw - meat packers/butchers.

Yes it does. Feel free to cite your source on this. :rolleyes:

The taco filling is ground beef, prepared for consumption by being seasoned (part of that includes the addition of water and oats).

No that's taco filling, not ground beef.

There are only 5 ingredients:

Beef
Water
Seasoning
Salt
Sodium Phosphates

That's not the recipe for "ground beef", that's taco filling.

Do try to keep up. The legislation you've quoted does not apply to Taco Bell as TB does not sell raw meat (see above).

This is just a lie that keeps being repeated, BUT NEVER PROVEN.

Feel free to cite your source on this though. I'll be waiting.

JoelKatz

2nd February 2011, 03:22 AM

wah? :boggled:"Seasoning food" and "adding seasonings to food" are two different things. Taco Bell fairly describes their filling as "seasoned ground beef" because adding a mixture containing oats (in a reasonable quantity such that the resulting mixture is still mainly beef) does in fact season the ground beef.

The difference is that "a seasoning" (the noun) is an additive specifically aimed at flavor (salt, pepper, garlic, and so on). Whereas "seasoning" (the verb) food can refer to any process that renders a particular food more interesting in terms of flavor or texture.

There are many cases where the noun and verb forms have subtly different meanings, "season" is not unusual in this respect. You can fish for things other than fish. You can season with things other than seasonings.

PhantomWolf

2nd February 2011, 03:28 AM

Is it "ground beef"? Nope.

Finally, no it's not "ground beef", and it's not advertised as "ground beef", it's "seasoned ground beef", something that is a different product, for a start "seasoned ground beef" is a cooked product while "ground beef" is a raw product.

You need to understand that "seasoned ground beef" =/= "ground beef".

PhantomWolf

2nd February 2011, 03:44 AM

3bodyproblem,

TITLE 9 - ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

CHAPTER III - FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SUBCHAPTER A - AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND TERMINOLOGY; MANDATORY MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION AND VOLUNTARY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

PART 319 - DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY OR COMPOSITION

subpart b - RAW MEAT PRODUCTS

319.29 - Miscellaneous pork products.

Just down from the 319.15 Miscellaneous beef products, states that:

Such product (pork) shall have a pinkish color and a fresh odor and appearance.

You contend that these regluations apply to the meat both raw and cooked, even though it states raw meat. Do you then claim that cooked pork must still be pink and that as a result, cooked pork that is white does not meet the regulations and is therefore illegal?

PhantomWolf

2nd February 2011, 03:56 AM

Well this settles it, the regulations do not apply to resturants.

TITLE 9 - ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

CHAPTER III - FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SUBCHAPTER A - AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND TERMINOLOGY; MANDATORY MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION AND VOLUNTARY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

PART 303 - EXEMPTIONS

303.1 - Exemptions.

(d)(1) The requirements of the Act and the regulations in this subchapter for inspection of the preparation of products do not apply to operations of types traditionally and usually conducted at retail stores and restaurants, when conducted at any retail store or restaurant or similar retail-type establishment for sale in normal retail quantities or service of such articles to consumers at such establishments

BobTheDonkey

2nd February 2011, 04:31 AM

They're the same.

Yes it does. What magic do you attribute to a stove that it can change some beef and filler mix into "ground beef"?

Yes it does. Why do you keep lying? Cite your source for this lie you keep trying to perpetuate.

Yes it does. Feel free to cite your source on this. :rolleyes:

No that's taco filling, not ground beef.

That's not the recipe for "ground beef", that's taco filling.

This is just a lie that keeps being repeated, BUT NEVER PROVEN.

Feel free to cite your source on this though. I'll be waiting.

My source is the same source you're using. Only I looked to see to what the law applied, not just what fit my needs at the time. In this case, as I pointed out earlier, the law you found only applies to raw meat. Period. It's right there, black and white. And as PhantomWolf has shown, the legislation only applies to meat suppliers, not restaurants.

So when TB states that their "seasoned ground beef" contains beef and seasonings, it's completely factual and legally accurate. I explained this in my last post, and you have introduced no evidence to refute my conclusion, choosing instead to claim you haven't been proven wrong when you have in fact been conclusively shown to be in error.

You are wrong, hung by your own petard (evidence). That you refuse, blatantly, to acknowledge your mistakes and given your response to my post, I have to conclude that you are being disingenuous in this discussion and I refuse to continue in this manner.

slingblade

2nd February 2011, 05:11 AM

I see Phantom Wolf posted the pertinent part of those regulations before I could.

Only thing I can add now is this bit from a news story:

The plaintiffs would have to prove that most diners believe they are getting something other than what Taco Bell serves. Most customers realize taco meat has ingredients besides beef, Williams said.

In addition, the lawsuit cites U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for labeling ground beef. The problem? They don't apply to restaurants. The USDA's rules apply to meat processors - the companies Taco Bell buys its meat from.

Tyson Foods Inc., the company's largest meat supplier, said it mixes and cooks the meat at three USDA-inspected plants.

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_e6d798be-4a51-5991-98e6-b6f8d3dca7b2.html

So, yeah. :)

roger

2nd February 2011, 01:38 PM

You crazy people, using the actual facts to support your logic. What is wrong with you?

BenBurch

2nd February 2011, 01:57 PM

Do not feed tacos to the troll. As you can see, once you feed the troll he won't go away...

mortimer

2nd February 2011, 01:58 PM

Do not feed tacos to the troll. As you can see, once you feed the troll he won't go away...
I suspect he won't be back after PhantomWolf's post.

Beanbag

2nd February 2011, 03:26 PM

Okay, folks, this has reached the level of absurdity. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

And I thought the CT subforum was bad!

Beanbag

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 03:49 PM

Well this settles it, the regulations do not apply to resturants.

TITLE 9 - ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

CHAPTER III - FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SUBCHAPTER A - AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND TERMINOLOGY; MANDATORY MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION AND VOLUNTARY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

PART 303 - EXEMPTIONS

303.1 - Exemptions.

The LEAN Act passed in March of 2010 removed these exemptions for restaurants with over 20 locations or so called "chains".

Not that it matters. An "exemption" doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them. If someone, like a class action law suit alleges they are contravening the regulations the FDA can request reasons why Taco Bell feels they should be exempt.

I can't believe after all the hassle Mac Donald's has went through over the years anyone would believe for a second they are free from regulations that would require them to properly label their food.

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 04:00 PM

And as PhantomWolf has shown, the legislation only applies to meat suppliers, not restaurants.

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

Try using some logic, do you honestly think every restaurant in NA is going to submit a recipe and preparation methods to the FDA? Obviously not. 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.

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. :rolleyes:

mortimer

2nd February 2011, 04:48 PM

The LEAN Act passed in March of 2010 removed these exemptions for restaurants with over 20 locations or so called "chains".

Not that I expect that you'll be able to, but at least try to provide some evidence. First off, the LEAN Act never passed... 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/2010/03/22/menu-measure-health-bill-requires-calorie-disclosure/

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

Not that it matters. An "exemption" doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them. If someone, like a class action law suit alleges they are contravening the regulations the FDA can request reasons why Taco Bell feels they should be exempt.
Laughable. Again, evidence?

I can't believe after all the hassle Mac Donald's has went through over the years anyone would believe for a second they are free from regulations that would require them to properly label their food.
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.

Emet

2nd February 2011, 05:09 PM

I presume the FTC will decide the case:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-food.shtm

Nothing unusual about Taco Bell's meat, experts say
Ingredients what you'd expect from fast-food restaurants; no advertising rules broken
(...)
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.

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

Jonnyclueless

2nd February 2011, 05:14 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:20 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:28 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:33 PM

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. :boggled:

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. :rolleyes:
Evidence?

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 05:37 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:44 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:48 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:49 PM

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. :boggled:

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

2nd February 2011, 05:53 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:55 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 05:56 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 06:16 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 06:18 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 07:20 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 07:32 PM

"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.

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

2nd February 2011, 07:48 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 07:56 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 08:03 PM

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

2nd February 2011, 08:18 PM

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. :rolleyes:

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!!! :p

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 08:37 PM

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.

BobTheDonkey

2nd February 2011, 08:40 PM

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

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."

And you have evidence that the ground beef TB buys doesn't meet this requirement?

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!!! :p

Evidence?

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 09:06 PM

And you have evidence that the ground beef TB buys doesn't meet this requirement?

Wow, just wow. Taco Bell doesn't buy "ground beef", they buy "taco meat filling".

Evidence?

Go to www.google.com and type "image taco bell meat filling label" and press "enter".

Very easy to use, even for children.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/01/taco-meat.jpg

BobTheDonkey

2nd February 2011, 09:11 PM

Wow, just wow. Taco Bell doesn't buy "ground beef", they buy "taco meat filling".

Go to www.google.com and type "image taco bell meat filling label" and press "enter".

Very easy to use, even for children.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/01/taco-meat.jpg
Ok, so the best you've got is an undated package labeled "taco meat filling" but nothing further about what the break down of the taco meat filling is? If I were the Judge, I'd laugh you out of my courtroom.

Do you have any evidence that Taco Bell is falsely advertising the ingredients in it's seasoned ground beef?

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 09:19 PM

Ok, so the best you've got is an undated package labeled "taco meat filling" but nothing further about what the break down of the taco meat filling is? If I were the Judge, I'd laugh you out of my courtroom.

lmfao, could you please show me an ingredients list with a date on it? I have about 100 items in my house, not a single one with a date on it, your honour. :rolleyes:

Do you have any evidence that Taco Bell is falsely advertising the ingredients in it's seasoned ground beef?

lmfao, are you serious? The product descriptions from the Taco Bell website have been quoted numerous times, so has the evidence presented in the trial which clearly indicates "seasoned ground beef" is being used.

Shall I have someone from Taco Bell call you, your honour :rolleyes:

BobTheDonkey

2nd February 2011, 09:26 PM

lmfao, could you please show me an ingredients list with a date on it? I have about 100 items in my house, not a single one with a date on it, your honour. :rolleyes:

lmfao, are you serious? The product descriptions from the Taco Bell website have been quoted numerous times, so has the evidence presented in the trial which clearly indicates "seasoned ground beef" is being used.

Shall I have someone from Taco Bell call you, your honour :rolleyes:

Ok, does the label "taco meat filling" preclude the use of "seasoned ground beef"? And if so, could you show your evidence?

Furcifer

2nd February 2011, 09:43 PM

Ok, does the label "taco meat filling" preclude the use of "seasoned ground beef"? And if so, could you show your evidence?

OK, does the label "taco meat filling" preclude the use of "dandruff control shampoo"? And if so could you show your evidence?

BobTheDonkey

2nd February 2011, 11:08 PM

OK, does the label "taco meat filling" preclude the use of "dandruff control shampoo"? And if so could you show your evidence?

Nice dodge, but that's not quite the same realm here.

Taco meat filling has ground beef in it, right? In fact, as we've seen in this thread, the label has certain requirements for how much of the filling must be ground beef. I didn't see where there were maximum limits to how much ground beef could be included, only a minimum requirement, to qualify for the label of "Taco Meat Filling" in advertising.

Therefore, taco meat filling must only be >40% ground beef. There is no dichotomy between whether it's seasoned ground beef or taco meat filling - it's all the same as far as the ingredients matching the minimum requirements (because if they didn't, you'd have taco flavored chili). I already went over the maths involved with the ingredient list for the Seasoned Ground Beef - a set of maths that does not preclude Taco Bell from also labeling their Seasoned Ground Beef as Taco Meat Filling.

Also note that even if there was insufficient ground beef in the Taco Meat Filling, as Taco Bell does not advertise their tacos as having "Taco Meat Filling" but rather "Ground Beef", the rules for the Taco Meat Filling are inapplicable.

So, again, I ask if you have evidence of the make up of the meat filling in Taco Bell's tacos?

Andrew Wiggin

3rd February 2011, 12:00 AM

I have a relatively simple and straightforward approach I use to ferret out the truth when someone sues a company for something like this.

First, is this an easily testable claim.

Second, does the company continue to stand by their product, or do they engage in deflection tactics, like finding someone in the supply chain to throw under the bus or offering a settlement with nondisclosure.

In this case, I could walk into a taco bell any time I wanted to, and get a sample of taco meat, by the simple and inexpensive method called 'buying a taco'. I could then take my sample home and test it in any manner my heart desired. So could anyone else who wanted to. Easily testable claim; check.

I see on the news that taco bell is fighting this one, and standing by their recipe. No one is blathering on about being betrayed by traitors in the meat supply industry, and if there were buyoffs this would have quietly gone away. Lack of deflection tactics; check.

Given that, I think it's much more likely that the folks who brought this suit are on a fishing expedition.

not daSkeptic

3rd February 2011, 12:07 AM

Taco Bell doesn't buy "ground beef", they buy "taco meat filling".

From whom do they buy it?

Furcifer

3rd February 2011, 12:56 AM

Nice dodge, but that's not quite the same realm here.

It's not a dodge, it's to make you think about how silly the question is.

Taco meat filling has ground beef in it, right?

No, "ground beef" is a standardized elementary form of cow. It is beef and fat run through a grinder, usually twice to achieve the proper texture, although I'm sure modern machinery for mass production is a once through operation.

Taco meat filling is a mystery. I can only speculate on how it's made. It may or may not start with "ground beef". I suppose it really depends on how it goes through the grinder. You could say summer sausage has ground beef in it but that's misleading because it doesn't have "ground beef" in it.

Do you see the importance of the quotations around "ground beef"? It's to differentiate it from ground beef. Because you have a mental image of what "ground beef" is, the stuff you get at the supermarket to brown and serve or make hamburgers or meatloaf out of. Or even taco filling.

So there's no way for me to know if taco filling has ground beef or "ground beef" in it. All I can tell you is what Taco Bell serves in their tacos is not seasoned "ground beef". That's why I'm saying the lawsuit is right in these regards and Taco Bell must stop using "seasoned ground beef" in their ads and descriptions because it is misleading.

If Taco Bell is allowed to call their mixture "ground beef" the whole standard of what is "ground beef" becomes useless. Seeing as "ground beef" represents 60% of a $6 Billion a year market I don't see that happening.

I see your point but I think it relies on a rather loose interpretation of what ground beef is.