Ohio Supreme Court: boneless chicken wings are a cooking style and chicken obviously has bones

[Gorbles]

I edited in a 3rd line, I hope it addresses this bog standard response, but maybe not.

I think it's equally valid for those concerned to be worried about precedent r.e. consumer protections. I don't even think they need to be concerned about the regulations to be so.

 

[Farm Boy]

So where do you think the remedy is? Because the regulations are the only place to target leaving in half wishbones if you want the consumer protected instead of the marketing department just ****ing around with the name.

 

[Gorbles]

So where do you think the remedy is? Because the regulations are the only place to target leaving in half wishbones if you want the consumer protected instead of the marketing department just ****ing around with the name.

I don't know. But I don't think having a solution is a prerequisite for identifying a problem.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm trying to help identify where the problem is. Unless, of course, marketing ****ing around with the name, rather than half wishbones in chicken nuggets, actually is the part we care about. Which would help my understanding of this conversation.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm trying to help identify where the problem is. Unless, of course, marketing ****ing around with the name, rather than half wishbones in chicken nuggets, actually is the part we care about. Which would help my understanding of this conversation.

Would it? Do you care about the ruling, or is it just desserts?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm a little impressed he got down half a wishbone, but no, that sucks. I order chicken stuff bone-in(when given the option) for partially this reason(and I never give chicken bones to my dog). The advice to "premasticate those things" is mostly a desire to not have any of you slice open the inside of your throats. This sort of thing seems very much like the wheelhouse of the FDA and the USDA, which are things I generally care about, yes.

 

[Gorbles]

And so the Ohio Supreme Court ruling on it as something that's fine kinda means other bodies can go and pound sand, right? Unless we're arguing that the FDA and / or USDA have a greater authority?

I'm not trying to trip you up, I just don't see how you can look at how this has gone down and say that a federal body needs to step in. It doesn't seem consistent with your position on lawmaking in general.

It jives with mine, assuming these bodies can materially enforce any kind of anything required to stop businesses cutting such obvious corners. Kinda in direct opposition to Ohio saying at the highest legal level it's able to "that's fine, actually".

 

[Farm Boy]

Suing the restaurant, not the food processor, over the term "boneless wings" has a maximum accomplishment of causing marketing terms to start eliminating the word "boneless" and instead selecting a term that means "boneless" but doesn't(wink wink). This does nothing to address bones in pressed chicken fines patties or whatever we want to call them.

I'm not super fussy with whether it's the USDA or the Ohio Department of Agriculture. That's the sort of place that controls the processes that are deemed safe for the processing of foods. I link the USDA because it is not unlikely that many if not most of the pressed chicken patty products sold in Ohio may be processed out of state then shipped through interstate commerce to Ohio. Just simplicity sake for the thread.

If we want bones removed in a certain way or to a certain tolerance, that's where it happens. I can say that the removal process is not going to be 100%. Insurance costs are actually one of  the main reasons food processors close shop in America for the last several decades, near as I can tell, so we might be running too hard on the side of caution now. But I don't know. I'm not super pissed off on this one. I just know that changing the term is not likely to change any processes, or save anyone from an unfortunate chew. So I suggest we look at what might.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think not marketing things that can have bones in as "boneless" would be a good thing, even if no material difference is made to the bone content.

 

[EnglishEdward]

LOL

In the UK, the very small print often has a disclaimer to the effect that while every effort
has been made to remove the bone/stone/whatever etc, it is possible some may remain.

 

[Gorbles]

Suing the restaurant, not the food processor, over the term "boneless wings" has a maximum accomplishment of causing marketing terms to start eliminating the word "boneless" and instead selecting a term that means "boneless" but doesn't(wink wink). This does nothing to address bones in pressed chicken fines patties or whatever we want to call them.

They can do that anyway. Going to be hard, culturally, to undo what is at this point decades of association. I read The Three Investigators as a kid (a foray into US culture, however accurate) and boneless was a thing then.

Will they try? Certainly.

But at the same time I don't see this as a either / or. Like, a man's throat was effectively torn open. This isn't your usual bones in fish kind of situation. No harm in hitting all the problem areas, and eateries of whatever description failing at due diligence - perhaps intentionally - is a problem area. For the professionalism alone. My dad's a chef, has been nearly all his life. Small business level, lots of thankless hours. Never going to be in the running for a Michelin, but really good food. I know something of the logistics.

 

[Farm Boy]

So the remedy suggested for the restaurants is to pull apart their processed chicken fines patties in store for inspection. I doubt it's going to happen, but I guess it is a path to look at.

 

[Gorbles]

So the remedy suggested for the restaurants is to pull apart their processed chicken fines patties in store for inspection. I doubt it's going to happen, but I guess it is a path to look at.

Maybe. Maybe the issue is further up the chain. Ohio deciding it isn't an issue, period, still has weight - don't you see the bad-faith potential there?

 

[Farm Boy]

The question before the court seemed to be over whether or not restaurants are required under Ohio state law to pull apart they patties in order to sell them as boneless, or if restaurants just cook them.

I guess, no, I really don't see it. Unless there are details to this that I don't know.

 

[Gorbles]

The ruling was that boneless wings is, in fact, a "cooking style" (whatever that means), and that the burden of safety falls to the individual consumer.

Nothing on the establishment. Just everyone for themselves. What's next? Allergies? Don't tell the eatery. Do your own homework. Cooking with allergens is purely a cooking style and in no way something we could reasonably expect to enforce.

You're telling me someone couldn't spin it that way? After we agreed on the principle of renaming boneless? However likely or not? There are always going to be people who try this kind of stuff, and it's why the decision matters as much as fixing the problem does. It doesn't help that the former impacts the latter.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeekim's post at least helped me understand how the court could have reached this verdict. And English Edward's, above, is the way that things will play out: the way that fast-food coffee cups all now read, "Caution: contents may be hot."

In just a menu description of wings as "boneless," that word is not operating as a guarantee that all bones have actually been removed.

 

[Gorbles]

Of course it isn't. That's why packaging says "made in a factory processing nuts" even if the ingredients don't list it.

"may tear your oesophagus open" isn't the same as "may contain theoretical gristle or bone fragments".

At some point the theoreticals have to face the reality of what happened.

 

[Core Imposter]

What is needed here is for the government to mandate that every cookery install a laser gadget that can and will zap a digestible warning label on every bite. Eat at your own risk.

The real problem here is the movement of females away from their traditional roles in our society. "Chew your food".

Also, I have always believed that we should ban acholic beverages from eateries because inebriated people obviously can't be expected to eat safely.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It was a whole half of a wishbone; looked like a small knife.

Yes, at that point I feel that my trust as a consumer would have been massively breached.

What is needed here is for the government to mandate that every cookery install a laser gadget that can and will zap a digestible warning label on every bite. Eat at your own risk.

No but you do want the government to clamp down on false advertising, especially in cases where it might produce serious risk of injury.

 

[Farm Boy]

"may tear your oesophagus open" isn't the same as "may contain theoretical gristle or bone fragments".

That's exactly what that means.