4 ms·

Didn’t they also have filler then remove it to be 100% beef at some point?

by therealdrag0 2mo ago

FireBeyond 2mo ago
Only after attempts to call one of their suppliers or processors "100% Beef" failed.
- sandcat_ 2mo ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/
- hydrogen7800 2mo ago
  I recall a similar claim regarding pop music compilation CDs advertised as being performed by "The Original Cast", which was really a group by that name playing covers of popular songs. Or another being "Made in USA", where Usa was a city in Korea.
  - b112 2mo ago
    "Genuine diamonds" sold fake diamonds after trademarking the name, I thibk. However a decade later I read about them losibg a lawsuit. This tricks don't work any more.
    - tancop 2mo ago
      the tricks never worked legally speaking. misleading labels stay misleading even if you have a trademark on that name and use it for years. the problem is cases like this rarely go to court, and plaintiffs might run into a judge who literally doesnt believe consumer fraud is a thing if theres at least one possible non fraud interpretation no matter how unlikely it is.
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    I feel like there is a probably apocryphal story of a town in Japan being called Scotland so they can sell whisky as Scotch. Which as a highlander I don’t see the need for - Japanese whiskey is quite able to stand in its own and hold its own.
    - robocat 2mo ago
      Except apparently: any bottle labeled or marketed as "Scotch" in Japan must strictly comply with the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations. Because Scotch Whisky (スコッチ・ウィスキー) is legally recognized and registered in Japan as the legal equivalent of a protected denomination of origin.
  - jacobolus 2mo ago
    "Original Cast" is a record label that sells records of obscure musical theater shows. Usa is a city in Japan, and according to the internet the "Made in USA" thing is a joke or myth. As far as I can tell both of your speculative claims don't reflect any real thing that happened.
    - hydrogen7800 2mo ago
      I don't suggest they are real. Only that they are similarly as dubious as the 100% beef claim.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
x______________ 2mo ago
100% beef is the topic of an ongoing lawsuit[0]. 0 https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/ https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/
- johnwalkr 2mo ago
  I was surprised to see a real reference because I thought the 100% beef thing was a 100% myth. But that article confirms in several places that independent testing finds no fillers at all, and what is left is just "Plaintiffs allege that undisclosed processing steps or agents applied during production or cooking could alter the accuracy of the “100%” claim." It's not a very convincing argument and it would be quite hard for McDonalds to cover up a secret process to add another ingredient.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
    > Additionally, the visual gap between advertised burgers and actual burgers raises separate false advertising issues Meanwhile, the very clear and obvious false advertising they actually perform is getting hardly any attention. Here's to hoping they won't be able to continue advertising products that are different from what they sell.
glitchc 2mo ago
100% beef is a trademark.
- nickff 2mo ago
  "100% beef" is a factual claim, and not subject to Trademarks; McDonalds Trademarked "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" in 1982. https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352086 https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352...
  - BizarroLand 2mo ago
    Even that doesn't mean that the patty is JUST beef. Thanks to legalese, the only thing a claim like that would guarantee is that the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF". It could be 99% filler and not be a lie.
    - nickff 2mo ago
      >"It could be 99% filler and not be a lie." There is no evidence that McDonalds has included any filler in their burgers at all (at least in recent history). See the link in the cousin-comment for more information on what has been claimed and what has been proven (so far): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943
    - close04 2mo ago
      > the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" But the claim isn't about "the beef portion". If what you say is true it would give a competitor the chance to say "McD's burgers are 100% unhealthy fat" because the unhealthy fat portion is 100% unhealthy fat. > It could be 99% filler and not be a lie. I doubt it. Not sure about the US but in Europe there are laws that tell you how much or how little of something you can have before you advertise that thing. For example you can't say "now with less sugar" if you reduced the quantity of sugar by 0.001g. And you can't call it "olive oil" if it has 2% olive oil.

Didn’t they also have filler then remove it to be 100% beef at some point?

FireBeyond 2mo ago

Only after attempts to call one of their suppliers or processors "100% Beef" failed.

sandcat_ 2mo ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/
hydrogen7800 2mo ago
I recall a similar claim regarding pop music compilation CDs advertised as being performed by "The Original Cast", which was really a group by that name playing covers of popular songs. Or another being "Made in USA", where Usa was a city in Korea.
- b112 2mo ago
  "Genuine diamonds" sold fake diamonds after trademarking the name, I thibk. However a decade later I read about them losibg a lawsuit. This tricks don't work any more.
  - tancop 2mo ago
    the tricks never worked legally speaking. misleading labels stay misleading even if you have a trademark on that name and use it for years. the problem is cases like this rarely go to court, and plaintiffs might run into a judge who literally doesnt believe consumer fraud is a thing if theres at least one possible non fraud interpretation no matter how unlikely it is.
- FireBeyond 2mo ago
  I feel like there is a probably apocryphal story of a town in Japan being called Scotland so they can sell whisky as Scotch. Which as a highlander I don’t see the need for - Japanese whiskey is quite able to stand in its own and hold its own.
  - robocat 2mo ago
    Except apparently: any bottle labeled or marketed as "Scotch" in Japan must strictly comply with the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations. Because Scotch Whisky (スコッチ・ウィスキー) is legally recognized and registered in Japan as the legal equivalent of a protected denomination of origin.
- jacobolus 2mo ago
  "Original Cast" is a record label that sells records of obscure musical theater shows. Usa is a city in Japan, and according to the internet the "Made in USA" thing is a joke or myth. As far as I can tell both of your speculative claims don't reflect any real thing that happened.
  - hydrogen7800 2mo ago
    I don't suggest they are real. Only that they are similarly as dubious as the 100% beef claim.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

x______________ 2mo ago

100% beef is the topic of an ongoing lawsuit[0]. 0 https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/ https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/

johnwalkr 2mo ago
I was surprised to see a real reference because I thought the 100% beef thing was a 100% myth. But that article confirms in several places that independent testing finds no fillers at all, and what is left is just "Plaintiffs allege that undisclosed processing steps or agents applied during production or cooking could alter the accuracy of the “100%” claim." It's not a very convincing argument and it would be quite hard for McDonalds to cover up a secret process to add another ingredient.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
  > Additionally, the visual gap between advertised burgers and actual burgers raises separate false advertising issues Meanwhile, the very clear and obvious false advertising they actually perform is getting hardly any attention. Here's to hoping they won't be able to continue advertising products that are different from what they sell.

glitchc 2mo ago

100% beef is a trademark.

nickff 2mo ago
"100% beef" is a factual claim, and not subject to Trademarks; McDonalds Trademarked "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" in 1982. https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352086 https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352...
- BizarroLand 2mo ago
  Even that doesn't mean that the patty is JUST beef. Thanks to legalese, the only thing a claim like that would guarantee is that the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF". It could be 99% filler and not be a lie.
  - nickff 2mo ago
    >"It could be 99% filler and not be a lie." There is no evidence that McDonalds has included any filler in their burgers at all (at least in recent history). See the link in the cousin-comment for more information on what has been claimed and what has been proven (so far): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943
  - close04 2mo ago
    > the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" But the claim isn't about "the beef portion". If what you say is true it would give a competitor the chance to say "McD's burgers are 100% unhealthy fat" because the unhealthy fat portion is 100% unhealthy fat. > It could be 99% filler and not be a lie. I doubt it. Not sure about the US but in Europe there are laws that tell you how much or how little of something you can have before you advertise that thing. For example you can't say "now with less sugar" if you reduced the quantity of sugar by 0.001g. And you can't call it "olive oil" if it has 2% olive oil.