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 labe

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?