- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- nottheonion
- nottheonion
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- nottheonion
- nottheonion
Consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.
Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.
…
In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that Berkheimer should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones. The high court sided with lower courts that had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Decaf coffee”
It actually has 300000mg of caffeine
“It’s well known that coffee has caffeine in it. Skill issue.”
Decaf does actually still have caffeine, just normally like 97% less.
Which, I guess is like the boneless wings having 97% less bones, now in convinient needle shaped shards
Yeah, I feel like this is why it’s called decaffeinated rather than caffeine-free… Caffeine has been removed but not completely.
But while the word “less” means a smaller amount, the suffix of “less” means without, i.e. childless
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-less
Boneless doesn’t mean “less” bones. The dictionary and commonly understood meaning is “without bones”, and certainly without amounts of bone sufficient to cause significant injury when eating . It’s certainly not a “cooking style” as uncooked chicken cuts with bones removed are sold as boneless.
Apparently these judges are “brainless”
These judges have been bought by our corporate overlords.
The depressing part is just how little they cost…
Deboned chicken would make everyone happy but I guess that’s too logical
TIL that childless does not mean cat lady.
On a bit of a tangent, I’m Finnish and recently (as in the past year or two) there’s been Coke and Pepsi which literally say “caffeine-free” on the side. Not “decaffeinated”, but “caffeine-free”.
I think there’s been some sort of innovation in decaffenation or someone’s come up with a flavour/essence which replaces the ingredient with caffeine in it.
Decaf definitely has caffeine, as I’ve completely without caffeine at several points for several months (even avoiding chocolate mostly) and a “decaffeinated” beverage still made me clearly stimulated. A clear caffeine high.
NileRed has a nice video on him trying to decaf redbull and while he does succeed in extracting caffeine from it, he thinks it’s not even half he gets out. Ofc industrial systems are more effective, but it shows how difficult the process is to perfect. https://youtu.be/oY8tz1paj6o
We’ve had caffeine-free Coke for years in the US. The difference is that the caffeine in Coke is added during manufacturing, so it’s easy to just leave out. Whereas the caffeine in coffee is naturally occurring, so needs to be removed to make it decaf, and just like in the NileRed video, it’s impossible to remove all of the caffeine.
We’ve had caffeine-free Coke for years in the US.
You’re not kidding. I googled it and it’s been a thing since the mid 80’s, lol. No idea why they only decided to sell some here in honestly the past year or two.
Well, based on the principles of homeopathy, you made the coffee more powerful by diluting the amount of caffeine.
Lol
Calm down there Panera.
Boneless is a “cooking style?” No. It’s which bag of chicken I pull out of the freezer before I even turn the oven on. I’m not going to sous vide the fucking bones out of my wings.
If the restaurant is deboning wings to order, fine. I’ll accept that. But then that shit had better be on the menu so I know to be careful.
Boneless wings are usually breaded chunks of rib meat, not actually wings at all. Sometimes a cooking style starts with cutting raw meat off of bones and into don’t-call-them-nuggets.
So they’re not boneless, and they’re not wings… Yet it’s the customer’s fault for not knowing exactly what they’re eating?
Hmmm, I wonder why they didn’t know… Could it be the blatant lies on the packaging?
It’s just how the industry markets chicken nuggets to adults “these aren’t children’s chicken nuggets, they’re BONELESS WINGS for manly men who enjoy suicide hot sauce”
I am aware that it’s how they do it. What I’m saying is, I dunno, maybe they shouldn’t? Or more specifically, maybe we shouldn’t let them.
I think I’d be just fine if I went the rest of my life eating only non-blended chicken.
Hey, I’m not advocating for them.
Would this logic extend to products labeled “alcohol-free”?
“Everyone knows beer has alcohol in it.”
I’d be more worried about a product claiming it has no peanuts in it now.
Just wait until you hear about “synthetic” motor oil.
(It’s been made from regular petroleum sources for a long time. It was argued in court that “synthetic” refers to a certain level of quality, not that it’s actually built synthetically from something other than oil out of the ground.)
Everyone knows Kinder Surprise eggs have a surprise inside. And show me anyone who can swallow that accidentally btw.
Sounds like the same logic ought to be extended to the Ohio Supreme Court. Might come in handy at the federal level, too.
“Everyone knows the court has corruption in it”
Anything less than 0.5%abv, I think. (Unless, non-alcoholic is classed different)
I wouldn’t know about US regulations. Just annoyed by laws which allow corporations to more or less straight up lie, be they in my country or not.
I’m pretty sure alc-free here in Finland is at most like 0.1%, low-alc (as in not counted as a regulated alcoholic beverage in regards to laws) is anything 2.9% and under.
I think part of it is that you honestly can’t say anything is “x” free. As long as the company has done due diligence and there is as little as possible then I’m ok with it.
If it’s used as a get out of jail card for bad practice then I’m against it.
Especially with alcohol. Anything with sugar will have at least a tiny amount of it ferment into alcohol. This is also why 0% BAC driving laws are nonsense.
That said, 0.1% might be perfectly reasonable over 0.5%.
True. The suffix -free has had so much liberal (not the party) use that when manufacturers use it, it now just means there isn’t enough for most people to detect/respond to it.
Now if someone none the wiser with an allergy or particularly strong sensitivity to something were to try that something, they get a trip to the ER.
About the limits in the US. Meandering through a store during a heat wave, I saw that the upper limit appears to be half a percent. Meaning you still could get buzzed ,just would be peeing more; a lot more.
https://oneclubsober.com/beer-articles/can-you-buy-non-alcoholic-beer-under-21/
Ahh yes, another court in the pocket of corporations.
Some fat ass doesn’t chew his food and suddenly corporations win? You can never have perfection with organic products. What exactly do you want done to guarantee meat from a boned animal isn’t left in the meat? And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?
*I’m glad Ohio judges are more intelligent than most of you all.
boneless wings cost more, because the bone and gristle is removed. You’re paying extra for that removal. if it’s not done, then the FDA says you’re not allowed to call it boneless.
They’re from an entirely different part of the bird is why they don’t cost the same. They also don’t always cost more.
why do you even worry about it, this doesn’t interfere with your boot diet.
What kind of hail corporate nonsense is this? Either call it “fewer bones” or have it be without bones. I don’t expect it to be a certain price but I expect boneless chicken to be just as boneless as it is chicken.
You should expect what you are paying for. They did pay for boneless, so they were willing to do so. Everything else ranges from false advertisement to negligence
I hope you choke on chicken bone while reading The Jungle. I hope for your last moments to be ironic.
I doubt it. I chew my food.
Then break a tooth when you bite too hard on a “boneless chicken”
Or what, you gonna say you chew slowly too?
It’s actually kinda fucking insane of you to take the side of “business should be allowed to flat out lie to you, even after it almost kills someone”. Maybe talk with a psychiatrist about your lack of empathy. There’s probably a diagnosis for your level of sociopathy
Seems the judges on two different levels sided with me.
Let’s be clear. Republican judges.
Legality isn’t morality, if your only defence to a moral charge is that it is legal then you are a wannabe slave owner born to the wrong time. Scum.
I’m just of the belief that it’s stupid to expect perfection from organic food sources.
“appeal to republican judges” has to be the worst variant of appeal to authority.
I’m sure the restaurant stealing wages by making tips necessary can afford it.
That’s a pretty ignorant take. "thing"less means without “thing”. Boneless means without bones. Without means there isn’t ANY in something.
THEIR process, which is not the customer’s problem to solve, should guarantee there are no bones left in any product labeled “boneless”, because that is how words and companies work…
You cost statement is irrelevant. It’s capitalism, baby! You make boneless stuff as advertised and set the price at what the market will accept. If your company can’t make “BONELESS” wings, then you don’t get to sell them until you figure out a cost effective way of doing it. Use a different word that isn’t a complete lie.
Judges can be bought and make stupid calls that only morons support…see also SCOTUS.
And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?
We are paying for it already. Now they can reduce their costs while keeping the price the same.
You can argue about if the guy should have noticed or not, that would be a factor in what he was awarded. But the lack of quality control needs to be addressed. This wasn’t a small bone, it was over an inch long. I am sure they have better ways, but sonic waves like a sonogram should be able to automatically detect that bone. And it’s very cheap. If your process doesn’t have a way to check for bones you just can’t call it boneless. Simple as that. If you have a way, and it misses a tiny tiny bone, that is one thing, but that is not what happened here. Also, the court system is messed up. If he hadn’t been injured, then he wouldn’t have been able to bring the case. You have to show your standing, as in your lose, to bring the case. And if it is below a certain amount you can only go to small claims court. So there could be bones in everyone of those boneless chicken wings. But until some one suffers enough financial loss, they can’t sue. That is why the specific individual doesn’t really matter here.
So just like all those “unlimited” phone plans with limits, “free” trials that require a credit card number and “lifetime” warranties that expire after a few years? Cool. Cool cool cool…
So amazingly stupid. The conservative justic’s “logic” here is a case-study in failing upwards. He tries to say that “nobody would think that chicken fingers are actual fingers.” Like, chicken fingers is a colloquial name, and is not the same as a fuckin descriptor adjective. He might as well say that dairy-free ice cream can have dairy in it, because “no reasonable person would think ice cream wouldn’t have dairy in it.”
what a joke. This brought to you by the same supreme court that has ruled against the will of Ohio voters who voted for an anti-gerrymandering bill, just to have a republican led commission drag it’s feet, presenting identical maps, and instead of allowing the usage of an actual fair map, they just threw the baby out with bathwater, leaving in place the terrible gerrymandered maps that heavily favor republicans till 2030.
Just another reason I’ll never move back to my home state. conservatives ruined it.
under new supreme court ruling, if you sell boneless chicken with bones, you aren’t wrong, just an asshole
Not even an asshole, just an ineffective cook
you aren’t wrong, just an asshole
Over the line, mark it
zeroboneless!
can’t wait for this to apply to gluten free, sugar free, nut free products. people can die from this shit.
Seems to me that a defense attorney would have a rather more difficult time claiming that “gluten free” is a cooking style, and that x food contains gluten by definition.
On the other hand, this via Ohio, so… Such a holding wouldn’t particularly shock me either.
If I order boneless wings, and I get bones, I’m getting my fucking money back and not eating at that establishment ever again.
Not full bones, though. Just shards of bone that can seriously injure you
Buffalo wings aren’t made from real Buffalo, either. Hell, most Buffalo can’t even fly.
Don’t get me started on Rocky Mountain Oysters
Where’s the shell? Idiots evolved it away or something?
I hope you’re joking. Otherwise, you’re why boneless chicken wings can still have bones. 💀
Like the Hamburger, it has nothing to do with what’s in the food, but rather where they came from originally.
Oh yes, the Boneless region of France
If they don’t come from the Boneless region, they’re just sparkling nuggets.
I hope you’re joking.
They literally implied that some buffalo can fly.
Oh sure. Next you’ll be telling me squid can’t fly.
Sorry, but you and others are just falling - with style!
Nope. We fly. We come with our own jet engine.
They are boneless however.
Yep, no bones. Just chitin. Terrifying chitin.
That’s fucking ridiculous though I think it’s perfectly fair for s restaurant not to be ultimately liable. This case feels like a gimmie to Perdue/Tyson to dodge any accountability for their bargin bin meat farming operations.
So… no company is beholden to anything that they say? Is that the gist…?
Pretty much. The correct outcome of every case is the one that benefits capital the most. Our current national Supreme Court has demonstrated that precedence can be ignored when convenient. They basically signaled to every other judge in the country that this kind of shit is fine.
Start with the decision and work backwards. Just make some shit up, nobody will do anything about it anyway.
I’m gonna assume this is one of the Project 2025 legislations
I don’t know why but it reminds me of an American friend I had who couldn’t beleive we didn’t have limits on the amount maggots/maggots eggs allowed in fruit juice.
They refused to drink any fruit juice here until it had to be explained to them that the reason that there’s no acceptable limit on maggots/maggots eggs in our fruit juice is because ANY amount of maggot is over the acceptable amount.
Not their fault of course. We only know what we’re used to.
That doesn’t sound right. How can you guarantee zero fly/fruit fly eggs in something like orange juice with pulp. Fly eggs are tiny and can be found on fresh fruit skins even on the trees. Certain juices preclude the kind of filtration that could be used to achieve 100% fruit fly egg removal. I don’t know anything about European food regulations, but from a practical perspective it seems impossible to guarantee ZERO fruit fly egg contamination. Especially considering Europe tends to be more flexible with insects in food than the US such as Casu martzu.
I suspect if there really is no max insect parts limit, there is a procedural requirement that ensures contamination is kept low.
Thats probably because I never said its provably 100% free. So, no wonder it didn’t sound right.
I said no detectable level is acceptable. If you detect any in there, its bad.
We can detect single eggs. But they’re not putting the whole juice supply under the microscope, one slide at a time. So, it seems you’re saying “we don’t check”.
Much like the whole “kills 99.9% of bacteria” its nearly to impossible prove beyond any doubt that all of something is completely, 100% devoid of something else in all instances. Being able to detect one egg or not isn’t the problem here.
Its like you want to find something wrong with what was said so bad that you didn’t fully pay attention to it.
deleted by creator
What is the difference between chicken nuggets and boneless wings? The article mentions that boneless wings are ‘of course’ nuggets of breast meat.
I wonder if they’d have agreed that nuggets can have bones too?
One of the justices literally writes about that. In this article.
“The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent.
Ah! I didn’t get that far. I must have gotten lost in the ads or missed the ‘read more’ and thought that the article was finished
Ads are compromising journalism
Usually a boneless wing is a chunk of meat, with identifiable meat fibers and such. Just a breaded and fried chunk of breast. Whereas chicken nuggets are usually made from ground chicken, often molded into a few different shapes.
So they’re allowed to call them wings when it is chicken breast?
Oh boy. Wait until you learn that drumsticks are passed off as “wings” too!
Interesting thanks!
And just to mention further, nuggets ground chicken meat often contain bones, tendons, nerves, fat, and other chicken junk.
Now I will mention that McDonald’s and Wendy’s and other fast food places claim their nuggets are only made of chicken meat. Your mileage may vary. Nuggets are like hotdogs.
To be clear, “meat” is 99% of what’s not bones. Tendons, skin, fat, nerves… All that is meat. If they don’t mention which cut, assume it’s “all”.
I don’t really think that’s bad. If you’re going to breed animals, you might as well use it to it’s full extend for human consumption.
Your definition of meat is in a very gray area of definition. In fact, by most definitions I could say yours is incorrect. Either by stating that since bone is edible, it is also meat. Or that meat is considered only what is inside the skin. Or by saying that is isn’t meat since it’s not muscle. Or by saying that animals aren’t the only things that have meat.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meat-products-sell-them-legally-in-england
Muscles, connective tissue, collagen, fat… All that is meat. It also includes internal organs such as feet, intestines, lungs…
Please now show me your legal definition, the only one that matters in this case.
“Legal” definition changes by every country. The US, for instance has two different levels for what constitutes “meat” depending on how its obtained. Normal cuts of meat, which does not include organs or a lot of other things, and the “mechanically separated meat” which does include those things. This varies even more on a state level in some cases.
Long story short, your legal definition is only good for your country you provide it from (UK, in your case) and it doesn’t mean jack shit anywhere else.
Nuggets do have bones, but being ground up to a paste, you won’t notice them.
Wait a second. You’re telling me that “nutrient paste” a la every dystopian sci-fi novel, tastes like chicken nuggies???
Why the fuck is anyone complaining about nutrient paste? Gimme nutrient paste!
Jamie Oliver tries to get kids to hate chicken nuggets. Jamie Oliver discovers that it’s pretty hard to get kids to hate chicken nuggets.
If only they’d fried Soylent Green in breadcrumbs.
