‘Boneless’ chicken wings can have bones, the Ohio Supreme Court says
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/25/nx-s1-5052004/boneless-chicken-wings-ohio-supreme-court
Granted I’ve never been injured, but I’ve gotten small pieces of bone shards several times throughout my life from shredded chicken type stuff.
I dunno if they refused to pay medical bills because that’d be fucked.
But if you kill a creature, cook and debone it, yeah, occasionally a bit of bone will make it through.
You can still call it boneless, because you knew you were buying meat from a creature that normally has bones and an effort has been made to remove said bones.
I hate to say I side with the Ohio Supreme Court but I think I do.
And you chucklefucks say we vegans eat weird shit…
My seitan nuggets taste the same and I didn’t have to kill anyone, or anything, and I don’t have to worry about some poor child in a factory on the other side of the country removing bones so I don’t have to deal with the horrors of factory farming.
A vegitable field is absent of any insects, birds, or rodents, they were all slaughtered, starved, or poisoned to bring you your vegi nuggets.
I didn’t have to kill anyone, or anything,
most people don’t kill anything for nonvegan nuggets
Other than not eating the meat of an animal, i don’t think vegan can claim superiority about all the other stuff. Someone have to plant and harvest and process and make your vegan nugget, you know…
A guy ate boneless wings and got a bone stuck in his throat leading to multiple surgeries so he sued. But he didn’t notice when it happened?
The longer I think about this the more I agree with the decision. It sounds dumb, there shouldn’t be bones, but if you’re chopping up a chicken breast with the rib bones still attached, I could see how a bone could accidentally make its way into a nugget. So I can understand what they mean by saying it’s a cooking style.
Kinda like the woman who sued McDonalds for hot coffee, and then people were like “DUH! COFFEE IS HOT!!!”
But it turns out she was right to sue. Coffee should be hot, but not lava coffee cup melting hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
The case. She only wanted her medical bills covered. Instead she got a nation-wide hate campaign against her.
And worse on the coffee one, they found McDonald’s kept it boiling hot so patrons would drink less of it in the store waiting for it to cool and they’d leave before getting a refill. In short, McDonald’s made it uncomfortably hot to save money.
“Boneless” is not a “style” in the same way that a sauce can be different. If you ordered a porterhouse and got a NY strip, that’s not a different style- it’s a different cut of meat. (They’re opposite sides of a T bone.) saying a NY strip is a “style” of porterhouse isn’t anymore right.
If you order “boneless” wings, you expect them to be without bones. (This is both true of the final customer as well as the restaurant.). Expecting the customer at a restaurant to check their food to make sure it’s safe is weird. Unless they get to walk in the back and check everything, they can’t be reasonably expected to know that “oh hey, we might have shit QC.”
Ultimately, the restaurant had a duty of care to ensure the food was safe. And guess what? So did the supplier. They’re both negligent.
I disagree. We shouldn’t carve exceptions into the law for carelessness, IMO. If bones are making it through the deboning process, then the deboning process is inadequate. The solution is to do better at deboning, not to loosen the requirements on how you label the product.
If anything, the legislation this should’ve brought about is one that puts a higher requirement on what can or cannot be called “boneless”. Words have meaning, and if we just pretend they don’t, people get hurt. Hell, we have a stricter legal definition for “cheese” than “boneless”. Nobody’s going to injure themselves on a slice of Kraft because they mistook it for real cheese, but you can seriously hurt yourself by eating something that was promised to be boneless and that turns out to be untrue.
We aren’t really carving an exception though. The condition of something being free of another substance is always a percentage chance.
My hand sanitizer only kills 99.99% of germs. Should it not be allowed to be called hand sanitizer because it cannot kill all of them? What should it be called? Hand almost-sanitizer? Those germs could get me pretty sick if I lose the cosmic lottery.
There’s always a point in reality where “good enough” is actually good enough.
I’m not actually saying this company has or hasn’t met that standard, I’m not an expert in poultry production techniques, but saying something needs to be 100% perfect to be sold doesn’t make things safer it just means it’d be illegal to debone wings without grinding up the chicken. I dunno the actual odds but it sounds like you’re already more likely to be struck by lightning than this occurring, and I’m still willing to go outside while its raining.
My hand sanitizer only kills 99.99% of germs. Should it not be allowed to be called hand sanitizer because it cannot kill all of them?
I’d agree with this comparison if the ruling meant that they had to advertise their wings as “~99.9% boneless” the same way hand sanitizer labels itself as being ~99.9% effective.
Your hand sanitizer doesn’t advertise germ-free, it advertises 99.9% germ free. It’d be a problem if they advertised it as germ free, and it wasn’t
99.9% boneless wings, sure. That’s fine. You expect a leftover bone here and there. Who the fuck is gonna buy 99.9% boneless wings, though? No one. You know that, I know that, and advertisers know that. So they label it in a misleading factor to sell more.
Milton: We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.
Praline: That’s as maybe, it’s still a frog.
Milton: What else?
Praline: Well don’t you even take the bones out?
Milton: If we took the bones out it wouldn’t be crunchy would it?
Praline: Superintendent Parrot ate one of those.
Parrot: Excuse me a moment. (exits hurriedly)
Milton: It says ‘crunchy frog’ quite clearly.
Praline: Well, the superintendent thought it was an almond whirl. People won’t expect there to be a frog in there. They’re bound to think it’s some form of mock frog.
Milton: (insulted) Mock frog? We use no artificial preservatives or additives of any kind!
Praline: Nevertheless, I must warn you that in future you should delete the words ‘crunchy frog’, and replace them with the legend ‘crunchy raw unboned real dead frog’, if you want to avoid prosecution.
Funny headline aside, semantics and trying to understand expected meanings of words and phrases is fucky and makes for an interesting case. Per the article the court decision was only 4-3 (i.e., close), and the dissent seemed – as a person who admittedly is not well-versed in the language normally used by Ohio’s Supreme Court – to be pretty strongly opinionated.
From the snippets in the article I find it pretty easy to sympathize with both sides of the argument!
edit: the full text is available here (the original unarchived source is being hammered by curious people) - you can download the file to read it in full-res
The question seems to be: “did the restaurant exercise reasonable duty of care”. There is a lot more to the case than the fun-but-sensationalized headline and even article.
