Consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.
Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.
…
In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that Berkheimer should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones. The high court sided with lower courts that had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.
What is the difference between chicken nuggets and boneless wings? The article mentions that boneless wings are ‘of course’ nuggets of breast meat.
I wonder if they’d have agreed that nuggets can have bones too?
One of the justices literally writes about that. In this article.
“The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent.
Ah! I didn’t get that far. I must have gotten lost in the ads or missed the ‘read more’ and thought that the article was finished
Ads are compromising journalism
Nuggets do have bones, but being ground up to a paste, you won’t notice them.
Wait a second. You’re telling me that “nutrient paste” a la every dystopian sci-fi novel, tastes like chicken nuggies???
Why the fuck is anyone complaining about nutrient paste? Gimme nutrient paste!
Jamie Oliver tries to get kids to hate chicken nuggets. Jamie Oliver discovers that it’s pretty hard to get kids to hate chicken nuggets.
If only they’d fried Soylent Green in breadcrumbs.
Usually a boneless wing is a chunk of meat, with identifiable meat fibers and such. Just a breaded and fried chunk of breast. Whereas chicken nuggets are usually made from ground chicken, often molded into a few different shapes.
Interesting thanks!
And just to mention further, nuggets ground chicken meat often contain bones, tendons, nerves, fat, and other chicken junk.
Now I will mention that McDonald’s and Wendy’s and other fast food places claim their nuggets are only made of chicken meat. Your mileage may vary. Nuggets are like hotdogs.
To be clear, “meat” is 99% of what’s not bones. Tendons, skin, fat, nerves… All that is meat. If they don’t mention which cut, assume it’s “all”.
I don’t really think that’s bad. If you’re going to breed animals, you might as well use it to it’s full extend for human consumption.
Your definition of meat is in a very gray area of definition. In fact, by most definitions I could say yours is incorrect. Either by stating that since bone is edible, it is also meat. Or that meat is considered only what is inside the skin. Or by saying that is isn’t meat since it’s not muscle. Or by saying that animals aren’t the only things that have meat.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meat-products-sell-them-legally-in-england
Muscles, connective tissue, collagen, fat… All that is meat. It also includes internal organs such as feet, intestines, lungs…
Please now show me your legal definition, the only one that matters in this case.
“Legal” definition changes by every country. The US, for instance has two different levels for what constitutes “meat” depending on how its obtained. Normal cuts of meat, which does not include organs or a lot of other things, and the “mechanically separated meat” which does include those things. This varies even more on a state level in some cases.
Long story short, your legal definition is only good for your country you provide it from (UK, in your case) and it doesn’t mean jack shit anywhere else.
So they’re allowed to call them wings when it is chicken breast?
Oh boy. Wait until you learn that drumsticks are passed off as “wings” too!
I’m gonna assume this is one of the Project 2025 legislations
deleted by creator
If you choose boneless wings over the boney delicious alternative you kind of have it coming.
deleted by creator
Thanks for the pep talk! Don’t worry, your mom will still be able to buy you dino chicken nuggies so you have something to eat while fucking your onahole.
I overreacted and deleted that comment. But apparently not. I realizes after writing it, it was dumb. Now everytime I click delete it says “delete failed”
I’ve always assumed boneless chicken wings are some sort of a scam. Then ordered once and discovered they’re not wings at all but pieces of chicken breast. Or a scam, since a breast taste differently than a wing. Do they actually remove the bones from wings somewhere?
No it’s literally just various pieces of meat cut up onto roughly wing-sized pieces. Bigger than popcorn chicken, smaller than tenders.
I don’t know, but if I were to venture a guess I would say they are made from dark meat that’s harder to sell than the wing. Just glue it together and frame it as an upgrade. $12 plate is now $20.
You know I’ve never gotten a discount for ordering dark meat? At this point I’m convinced it’s a myth.
Usually places just do an up charge if you only want white meat, with mixed and all dark usually being the base price.
Ahh I see
If you choose boney chicken wings over sucking dick three times of day for delicious human protein, you too should be stabbed in the throat.
I wonder how in the fuck some people just wake up one day and decide to themselves “today I’m gonna be retarded”.
today I’m gonna be retarded
Bunch of NEETs can’t recognize a joke when they see one, but yes I’m the one who is 'tarded.
Additionally, I’m totally ok with sucking dick for protein.
Good on ya, fish wrangler
More lies from the saucy nugs
At least Wendy’s is honest.
That’s fucking ridiculous though I think it’s perfectly fair for s restaurant not to be ultimately liable. This case feels like a gimmie to Perdue/Tyson to dodge any accountability for their bargin bin meat farming operations.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to allow chicken wings advertised as ‘boneless’ to contain bones warrants an examination of the principles underlying voluntary exchanges and the protection of consumer rights. When individuals engage in transactions, the terms and descriptions presented are expected to be accurate, fostering trust and informed decision-making. An advertisement promising ‘boneless’ wings that includes bones disrupts this trust, introducing an element of deception.
For a marketplace to function effectively, it is essential that representations made in the course of business transactions are truthful. Consumers rely on these representations to make choices that align with their preferences and expectations. If these expectations are systematically violated, the very foundation of voluntary exchange is compromised.
Thus, the court’s role in addressing such issues is to ensure that the transactional environment remains transparent and honest. By upholding standards against misleading advertisements, the court helps maintain the integrity of voluntary exchanges, allowing individuals to engage in transactions free from coercion and deceit.
You can’t expect the new car you purchased to be new.
Alas that is true.
You have the right to spend money and consume! What other rights could you possibly want, poor person?
/s
Yeah another reason why conservatives are shit at governing. Always making terrible decisions because there is no critical thinking involved.
can’t wait for this to apply to gluten free, sugar free, nut free products. people can die from this shit.
Seems to me that a defense attorney would have a rather more difficult time claiming that “gluten free” is a cooking style, and that x food contains gluten by definition.
On the other hand, this via Ohio, so… Such a holding wouldn’t particularly shock me either.
under new supreme court ruling, if you sell boneless chicken with bones, you aren’t wrong, just an asshole
you aren’t wrong, just an asshole
Over the line, mark it
zeroboneless!Not even an asshole, just an ineffective cook
Its getting where courts at every level are running contrary to logic and justice.
Courts have become infested with conservatives.
“Decaf coffee”
It actually has 300000mg of caffeine
“It’s well known that coffee has caffeine in it. Skill issue.”
Calm down there Panera.
Decaf does actually still have caffeine, just normally like 97% less.
Which, I guess is like the boneless wings having 97% less bones, now in convinient needle shaped shards
On a bit of a tangent, I’m Finnish and recently (as in the past year or two) there’s been Coke and Pepsi which literally say “caffeine-free” on the side. Not “decaffeinated”, but “caffeine-free”.
I think there’s been some sort of innovation in decaffenation or someone’s come up with a flavour/essence which replaces the ingredient with caffeine in it.
Decaf definitely has caffeine, as I’ve completely without caffeine at several points for several months (even avoiding chocolate mostly) and a “decaffeinated” beverage still made me clearly stimulated. A clear caffeine high.
NileRed has a nice video on him trying to decaf redbull and while he does succeed in extracting caffeine from it, he thinks it’s not even half he gets out. Ofc industrial systems are more effective, but it shows how difficult the process is to perfect. https://youtu.be/oY8tz1paj6o
Well, based on the principles of homeopathy, you made the coffee more powerful by diluting the amount of caffeine.
Lol
We’ve had caffeine-free Coke for years in the US. The difference is that the caffeine in Coke is added during manufacturing, so it’s easy to just leave out. Whereas the caffeine in coffee is naturally occurring, so needs to be removed to make it decaf, and just like in the NileRed video, it’s impossible to remove all of the caffeine.
We’ve had caffeine-free Coke for years in the US.
You’re not kidding. I googled it and it’s been a thing since the mid 80’s, lol. No idea why they only decided to sell some here in honestly the past year or two.
Yeah, I feel like this is why it’s called decaffeinated rather than caffeine-free… Caffeine has been removed but not completely.
But while the word “less” means a smaller amount, the suffix of “less” means without, i.e. childless
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-less
Boneless doesn’t mean “less” bones. The dictionary and commonly understood meaning is “without bones”, and certainly without amounts of bone sufficient to cause significant injury when eating . It’s certainly not a “cooking style” as uncooked chicken cuts with bones removed are sold as boneless.
Apparently these judges are “brainless”
TIL that childless does not mean cat lady.
Deboned chicken would make everyone happy but I guess that’s too logical
These judges have been bought by our corporate overlords.
The depressing part is just how little they cost…
Would this logic extend to products labeled “alcohol-free”?
“Everyone knows beer has alcohol in it.”
I’d be more worried about a product claiming it has no peanuts in it now.
Anything less than 0.5%abv, I think. (Unless, non-alcoholic is classed different)
I wouldn’t know about US regulations. Just annoyed by laws which allow corporations to more or less straight up lie, be they in my country or not.
I’m pretty sure alc-free here in Finland is at most like 0.1%, low-alc (as in not counted as a regulated alcoholic beverage in regards to laws) is anything 2.9% and under.
I think part of it is that you honestly can’t say anything is “x” free. As long as the company has done due diligence and there is as little as possible then I’m ok with it.
If it’s used as a get out of jail card for bad practice then I’m against it.
Especially with alcohol. Anything with sugar will have at least a tiny amount of it ferment into alcohol. This is also why 0% BAC driving laws are nonsense.
That said, 0.1% might be perfectly reasonable over 0.5%.
True. The suffix -free has had so much liberal (not the party) use that when manufacturers use it, it now just means there isn’t enough for most people to detect/respond to it.
Now if someone none the wiser with an allergy or particularly strong sensitivity to something were to try that something, they get a trip to the ER.
About the limits in the US. Meandering through a store during a heat wave, I saw that the upper limit appears to be half a percent. Meaning you still could get buzzed ,just would be peeing more; a lot more.
https://oneclubsober.com/beer-articles/can-you-buy-non-alcoholic-beer-under-21/
Sounds like the same logic ought to be extended to the Ohio Supreme Court. Might come in handy at the federal level, too.
“Everyone knows the court has corruption in it”
Everyone knows Kinder Surprise eggs have a surprise inside. And show me anyone who can swallow that accidentally btw.
Just wait until you hear about “synthetic” motor oil.
(It’s been made from regular petroleum sources for a long time. It was argued in court that “synthetic” refers to a certain level of quality, not that it’s actually built synthetically from something other than oil out of the ground.)
If I order boneless wings, and I get bones, I’m getting my fucking money back and not eating at that establishment ever again.
Not full bones, though. Just shards of bone that can seriously injure you
I don’t know why but it reminds me of an American friend I had who couldn’t beleive we didn’t have limits on the amount maggots/maggots eggs allowed in fruit juice.
They refused to drink any fruit juice here until it had to be explained to them that the reason that there’s no acceptable limit on maggots/maggots eggs in our fruit juice is because ANY amount of maggot is over the acceptable amount.
Not their fault of course. We only know what we’re used to.
That doesn’t sound right. How can you guarantee zero fly/fruit fly eggs in something like orange juice with pulp. Fly eggs are tiny and can be found on fresh fruit skins even on the trees. Certain juices preclude the kind of filtration that could be used to achieve 100% fruit fly egg removal. I don’t know anything about European food regulations, but from a practical perspective it seems impossible to guarantee ZERO fruit fly egg contamination. Especially considering Europe tends to be more flexible with insects in food than the US such as Casu martzu.
I suspect if there really is no max insect parts limit, there is a procedural requirement that ensures contamination is kept low.
Thats probably because I never said its provably 100% free. So, no wonder it didn’t sound right.
I said no detectable level is acceptable. If you detect any in there, its bad.
We can detect single eggs. But they’re not putting the whole juice supply under the microscope, one slide at a time. So, it seems you’re saying “we don’t check”.
Much like the whole “kills 99.9% of bacteria” its nearly to impossible prove beyond any doubt that all of something is completely, 100% devoid of something else in all instances. Being able to detect one egg or not isn’t the problem here.
Its like you want to find something wrong with what was said so bad that you didn’t fully pay attention to it.
deleted by creator
Slavery is freedom. War is peace. Boneless pizza can now have bones.
I want to go where the pizzalo roam
Since pizza was classed a vegetable, all bets are off.
