4 ms·

"may have bones" would be a more accurate headline, in line with the tone of the ruling. "may" warns of the possibility while being less definitive than "can".

"may have bones" would be a more accurate headline, in line with the tone of the ruling. "may" warns of the possibility while being less definitive than "can". I'm surprised the ruling was 4-3 and not a bigger majority. I don't expect the supplier to have extremely tight quality controls around the presence of bones. Boneless is a convenience, not an absolute guarantee.

oldkinglog 2y ago
> Boneless is a convenience, not an absolute guarantee. It's a guarantee in any jurisdiction with adequate consumer protection law.
- roenxi 2y ago
  As long as businesses are allowed to sell bone-lite chicken I suppose. Guaranteeing a chicken is boneless sounds both expensive and a waste of time. People should be chewing their food.
  - Retric 2y ago
    It’s cheap to push meat through an extruder that’s going to remove large bone fragments. Chicken nuggets, sausage, tenders etc don’t have an issue with bones, it’s really a consequence of how wings are prepared that’s risky which in most contexts would create a liability concern.
Retric 2y ago
Being 4-3 suggests it’s not a clear cut case. The courts ruling that chickens contains bones and therefore consumers should expect them is arbitrary. Chickens also contain salmonella etc, consumer expectations around boneless wings essentially rests on industry practices not inherent limitations. McNuggets and cheeseburgers aren’t going to contain 2 inch bone fragments but boneless wings may so buyer beware.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Good luck trying to sue a restaurant if you get food poisoning, though. That's typically just considered part of the normal risk; I think this is thought of as the same way. You'd have to show specifically that the restaurant failed to use the normal amount of care for the industry.
  - Retric 2y ago
    In cases of food poisoning it’s hard to prove, but there’s plenty of cases where people have won. Here restaurant negligence or lack thereof was considered irrelevant. Absolutely zero effort is still acceptable, that’s what makes it newsworthy.
wongarsu 2y ago
Allowing "defects" in food is normal. For example chocolate is allowed to contain about 50 insect parts per 100g. But what makes this less clear cut is the labeling: if you sold "insect-free chocolate" I don't think you would get a free pass on any insect parts found in it. You specifically advertised that this would not happen. Similarly a bone in say a chicken nugget could be treated as a tolerable defect if it's infrequent enough. But to tolerate it in something literally advertised as "boneless" is weird, and probably why the ruling was this split. If boneless chicken doesn't have to be literally boneless, does it have to be literally chicken? Or would a manufacturing process that allows it to accidentally contain horse meat be acceptable by the same logic?

oldkinglog 2y ago

> Boneless is a convenience, not an absolute guarantee. It's a guarantee in any jurisdiction with adequate consumer protection law.

roenxi 2y ago
As long as businesses are allowed to sell bone-lite chicken I suppose. Guaranteeing a chicken is boneless sounds both expensive and a waste of time. People should be chewing their food.
- Retric 2y ago
  It’s cheap to push meat through an extruder that’s going to remove large bone fragments. Chicken nuggets, sausage, tenders etc don’t have an issue with bones, it’s really a consequence of how wings are prepared that’s risky which in most contexts would create a liability concern.

Retric 2y ago

Being 4-3 suggests it’s not a clear cut case. The courts ruling that chickens contains bones and therefore consumers should expect them is arbitrary. Chickens also contain salmonella etc, consumer expectations around boneless wings essentially rests on industry practices not inherent limitations. McNuggets and cheeseburgers aren’t going to contain 2 inch bone fragments but boneless wings may so buyer beware.

yencabulator 2y ago
Good luck trying to sue a restaurant if you get food poisoning, though. That's typically just considered part of the normal risk; I think this is thought of as the same way. You'd have to show specifically that the restaurant failed to use the normal amount of care for the industry.
- Retric 2y ago
  In cases of food poisoning it’s hard to prove, but there’s plenty of cases where people have won. Here restaurant negligence or lack thereof was considered irrelevant. Absolutely zero effort is still acceptable, that’s what makes it newsworthy.

wongarsu 2y ago

Allowing "defects" in food is normal. For example chocolate is allowed to contain about 50 insect parts per 100g. But what makes this less clear cut is the labeling: if you sold "insect-free chocolate" I don't think you would get a free pass on any insect parts found in it. You specifically advertised that this would not happen. Similarly a bone in say a chicken nugget could be treated as a tolerable defect if it's infrequent enough. But to tolerate it in something literally advertised as "boneless" is weird, and probably why the ruling was this split. If boneless chicken doesn't have to be literally boneless, does it have to be literally chicken? Or would a manufacturing process that allows it to accidentally contain horse meat be acceptable by the same logic?